Old Toad

The Looming Crisis over Free Speech Dr. Eric Daniels For the North Texas Objectivist Society Synopsis In this lecture, Dr. Daniels examines the state of free speech in America and finds that it is under serious threat. From campus speech codes to anti-discrimination and harassment law, from campaign finance to commercial speech, Americans today enjoy less and less freedom in communicating their ideas. Today’s colleges and universities have become a hotbed of censorship, producing generations of Americans who have accepted suppression of speech as the norm. Daniels argues that the emerging crisis is a result of the lack of a proper understanding of individual rights, especially property rights. Only by understanding the proper basis of rights can we act to secure our freedom of speech and to protect the rights that give rise to it. About the Speaker Dr. Eric Daniels is a research assistant professor at Clemson University’s Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He has lectured internationally on American history, particularly on American intellectual history, business history and political history. He taught for five years at Duke University's Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace, where he was nominated for a university-wide teaching award. Dr. Daniels was a contributor to the recently published Oxford Companion to United States History, and wrote a chapter in The Abolition of Antitrust. He has appeared on C-SPAN and Voice of America Radio. About the North Texas Objectivist Society http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/about/ Program* 7:00 pm - 7:30 pm - Arrival, signing-in, and seating 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm - Lecture followed by question period * Refreshments only. Business casual. * The speaker reserves all copyright. Note-taking is permitted, but by participation each audience member agrees not to publish any lecture notes. * NTOS requests everyone to avoid Rand/Branden, Peikoff/Kelley, and ARI/TAS issues at our speaker and related events, which topics may be more appropriately and freely discussed at other NTOS events. Admission Pricing $35/person or $15/new guest* *A “new guest” means a person who: a. is accompanied as a personal guest of a member; b. has never been a member; and c. has never been to an NTOS speaker event. The member is expected to be the link between his guests and the other members of NTOS. For example, the member should help introduce his guests to Objectivism and to our other members. We have very friendly and welcoming events. As always, all participation is expected to be respectful of a speaker and our society. For more information about NTOS, please see our “About” page at http://AynRand.Meetup.com/71/about/ Location North Dallas area, TBD. The location information will be sent via e-mail to those who register. Advance Registration Requested We request advance registration for limited seating, to build membership in NTOS, for our security, and to avoid the management of payments at the door. Please register as follows: (1) Visit our event listing at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/calendar/list/ a. RSVP for yourself plus any welcome guests you may wish to bring. b. Pay the applicable event fee(s) via the payment link provided. (2) "Contact Organizer" via http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/suggestion/ to send an e-mail with the following information: a. Your name; b. The name(s) of your guest(s), if any; c. Your e-mail address; d. Your mailing address; e. Your telephone number(s). We will not give out, publish, or sell your contact information. Related Event If you attend this lecture to NTOS, please also join us and the speaker for: Thanksgiving & Social Reception with Dr. Eric Daniels @ "the Ranch" Saturday, Novembe 14, 2009, 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm See our NTOS calendar for the details regarding the separate social reception! Questions If you have any questions, need any special accommodation, or have any difficulties regarding making online registration, please contact us via the "Contact Organizer" feature on Meetup at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/suggestion/ We hope you can join us! "Old Toad", Organizer North Texas Objectivist Society .

A man walks into a bar. The bartender asks him what he wants. "Nothing," he says. "So why did you come in here for nothing?" "Because nothing is better than a dry martini."

What is nothing?

The North Texas Objectivist Society is pleased to announce our "NTOS-McKinney" branch is hosting Objectivist recorded lecture presentations! Please join us if this area is convenient for you! Schedule Normally on a Tuesday evening, 6:30 - 8:00 pm You are welcome to join in late, but quietly! Location A member's home in McKinney, TX. An Organizer will e-mail the address to those who RSVP! Cost $5 per person. $2 per student. Optional Discussion afterward Our gracious hosts' family will need to get their children to bed on a school night. After the lecture, some of us may meet up at a local coffee shop! Starbucks at 3001 Hardin Blvd # 120, Mckinney, TX‎! Please RSVP! Space is limited. Isn't everything? Please RSVP to help us plan via our NTOS Calendar Our upcoming events are: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 @ 6:30 pm - "The Objectivist Ethics" - Ayn Rand Recorded Lecture Tuesday, October 13, 2009 @ 6:30 pm - "The Sanction of the Victims" - Ayn Rand Recorded Lecture Tuesday, October 20, 2009 @ 6:30 pm - "Why Should One Act On Principle?" - Dr. Leonard Peikoff Recorded Lecture Tuesday, October 27, 2009 @ 6:30 pm - "'Conflicts' of Men's Interests" - Ayn Rand Recorded Lecture About the North Texas Objectivist Society For information about the North Texas Objectivist Society, please visit our "About" page. We hope you will join us! North Texas Objectivist Society "Old Toad," Organizer

For various reasons, some people do not enjoy reading. If this is the case, I suggest Atlas Shrugged as an audio book.

Ayn Rand on Tolerance as a Virtue to Obtain Value From Others "Dominique, I'd like to know what you think." "Of what?" "Of... of..." He searched for an important subject and ended with: "... of Vincent Knowlton." "I think he's a man worth kissing the backside of." "For Christ's sake, Dominique!" "I'm sorry. That's bad English and bad manners. It's wrong, of course. Well, let's see: Vincent Knowlton is a man whom it's pleasant to know. Old families deserve a great deal of consideration, and we must have tolerance for the opinions of others, because tolerance is the greatest virtue, therefore it would be unfair to force your views on Vincent Knowlton, and if you just let him believe what he pleases, he will be glad to help you too, because he's a very human person." "Now, that's sensible," said Keating; he felt at home in recognizable language. "I think tolerance is very important, because..." He stopped. He finished, in an empty voice: "You said exactly the same thing as before." "Did you notice that," she said. She said it without question mark, indifferently, as a simple fact. --Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, p. 420.

Congratulations, John! My wife and I love scuba diving, but we rarely get to go (as in about for one vacation every few years). We would love to dive down under someday. My first tadpole was certified when he was 10, and my second tadpole, who is now 10, is taking her classes now and will take her open water test at a lake about a week from now. I am sure my third tadpole will do the same when she turns 10. We will try to go back to Grand Cayman for our next trip, possibly on a live-aboard dive boat. You should join us! My wife and I went scuba in Florida on the Atlantic side, but were not very impressed. We did go on a night dive and saw lots of lobster marching in a line on a mission to somewhere. I think it was a war party. I also learned on that dive that I could puke my guts out at 80 feet--but I think you have to be PADI certified for that particular maneuver. -- OT

L. Michael Sandstead, art historian, will be speaking to the North Texas Objectivist Society in Dallas on Saturday, July 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM! Illustrated presentation: "Why I LOVE Art!" Two heart-pounding hours! “Why I love Art!” is a narrative the details Sandstead’s personal discovery of art—from painting and sculpture to portraiture and still-lifes. Sandstead will discuss his passion for art, tell about the French woman who introduced him to art history, and explain the personal meaning of many great art works from Old Masters to modern-day masters. “Art has transformed every fiber of this Tennessean’s being for the better,” says Sandstead. “This talk is how I did it—and how you can do it as well.” Sandstead has delivered this lecture from Harvard to New York University, Sandstead says it is “. . . one of my favorite lectures—and the most personal.” --------------------------------------- ABOUT THE SPEAKER Mr. Sandstead is the host of "Art Attack" on the Travel Channel and lectures on a wide variety of art-historical and aesthetic issues. Widely known for his knowledge and passion, he has lead numerous tours through the priceless collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. His lectures on art history and art appreciation have been heard nationally and internationally at over 30 universities and institutions. His art-historical photography has been published in numerous books and publications, including: The New York Times and Fortune. He currently teaches Art History at Averett University in Danville, Virginia. He is best known for his dynamic and engaging lecturing style. Showing a great passion for his subject, he encourages each attendee to integrate art into their own lives. Please see his interview at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A9tJmbxjRU The speaker's website is: http://www.sandstead.com/ --------------------------------------- Some comments from his Sandstead’s presentation to NTOS last August, 2008: Pamela: “Lee was awesome! What a wonderful evening. His unpretentious approach to art education and enthusiasm for the topic are unsurpassed.” John: “Lee is an outstanding speaker. He knows his subject matter and is very passionate about it.” Scott: “Wow! What an awesome speaker. Sandstead is a fantastic story teller. He really made his subject matter come alive. I am not an art history buff by any means, but Mr. Sandstead made me appreciate it more than I ever have before.” Tom: “Absolutely wonderful!” Sarah: “Sandstead was a tremendous speaker, I enjoyed this lecture thoroughly.” Doug: “The speaker was passionate about his subject and his passion was infectious. It was easy to see why he was voted most popular professor at schools where he taught.” --------------------------------------- ABOUT THE NORTH TEXAS OBJECTIVIST SOCIETY http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/about/ --------------------------------------- PROGRAM* 7:00 pm - 7:30 pm - Arrival, signing-in, and seating 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm - Lecture and Q&A * Refreshments only. Business casual. * The speaker reserves all copyright. Note-taking is permitted, but by participation each audience member agrees not to publish any lecture notes. * NTOS requests everyone to avoid Rand/Branden, Peikoff/Kelley, and ARI/TAS issues at our speaker events so as not to distract from the purpose of the speaker's visit, which topics may be more appropriately and freely discussed at other NTOS events. * We will ask the speaker to at least briefly stop at the scheduled time so that everyone in the audience can properly thank the speaker and anyone who needs to can leave before having the speaker continue with any further Q&A for those who may wish to stay longer. --------------------------------------- ADVANCE REGISTRATION We request advance registration for limited seating, to build membership in NTOS, for our security, and to avoid the management of payments at the door. Please register as follows: (1) Visit our event listing at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/calendar/list/ .. a. RSVP for yourself plus any welcome guests you may wish to bring. .. b. Pay the event fee(s) via the payment link provided. (2) "Contact Organizer" via http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/suggestion/ to send an e-mail with the following information: .. a. Your name; .. b. The name(s) of your guest(s), if any; .. c. Your e-mail address; .. d. Your mailing address; .. e. Your telephone number(s). We will not give out, publish, or sell your contact information. --------------------------------------- LOCATION Once finalized, the location information will be sent via e-mail to those who register. --------------------------------------- QUESTIONS If you have any questions, need any special accommodation, or have any difficulties regarding making online registration, please contact us via the "Contact Organizer" feature on Meetup at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/suggestion/ We hope you can join us! "Old Toad", Organizer North Texas Objectivist Society

Jackethan, Thank you for your response. Regarding my post #232 on this thread, I later made a correction in my post #236. I do try to be patient with people interested in Objectivism, for the reason you wrote. (I don't always succeed.) -- OT

In chat several days ago, a couple of us were discussing what David Kelley says about judging an idea, and where people get the idea that he says one cannot. Consider this statement from his book: --Kelley (emphasis added.) In plain English, in this statement Kelley excludes morally judging a mere idea. I think that in judging an idea in the “abstract,” it is judged on the basis of if and when the idea were to be put into action, i.e., the hypothetical consequences. I think this obviously includes another implicit assumption: that a person who acts or would act on the idea understands the idea and its hypothetical consequences (which may not necessarily be the case regarding a particular person). Of course, ideas do not enact themselves. For example, architectural ship designs do not enact voyages by themselves. But in response to David Kelley’s arguments for this Hegelian concern, imagine applying his method of limiting the evaluation of a ship design only in relation to some action: the consequences after the ship is built and put to sea; or its cause, the mental action of the particular ship designer that produced the idea. An idea—at least any idea pertaining to choices, such as whether to put a ship design into practice—certainly should be evaluated in the abstract. Any other approach would be extremely costly or disastrous. As in, it would be an extremely bad idea.

You can't find nothing on the internet. Nothing is better than the internet.

I am the one, true frog god. That guy in India is an imposter -- sometimes transparently so. No true god woud ever let you see its organs.

Returning to the topic at hand, I am prompted by a discussion in chat to add a comment regarding the burden of proof. I think that “the burden of proof” is not merely a matter for use in adversarial debate or legal proceedings, but also applies in the courtroom of one’s mind. In the process of judging, whether the object is an abstract idea or a person or anything else, establishing the burden of proof is an important step because it establishes the starting point or the default position. (Of course, the same applies to "the standard of proof.")

Tom, I understand that you were trying to be supportive to my efforts here. Nevertheless, in case there is any doubt, I do not want to have any discussions with you. Further, the mods have made it clear this is not the place for me to explain to you (again) or to the readers. -- OT

I am not here to discuss anything with Tom Miovas—for reasons he alluded to but the moderators do not want discussed here. Please do not assume that my silence regarding his numerous and lengthy posts is necessarily any kind of sanction of him or agreement with him. I hope the moderators will allow me to make this minimal public statement here, as he is dogging me on this thread. My thoughts in my posts #232 and #236 on this thread are preliminary and not thoroughly fleshed out. I hope to receive some discussion with others.

My sentence here was mistaken. Of course, a person deserves to be treated for what he is. A standard of proof, however, is a device to protect a value against a possible error in judgment. Again, consider the different consequences to one's values between making an error in judgment in the hiring of a babysitter for one's child versus the making an error in judgment in the conviction of a person for a crime. The selected standard of proof sometimes allows a person who, in fact, would be a good babysitter, to not get the job (bearing in mind he is not entitled to it), and it sometimes allows a person who, in fact, is guilty, to go free. To correct my prior statement, I think Ayn Rand chose to "give the benefit of the doubt" to protect against an error in judgment that would be an injustice to a person who is, in fact, innocent, and to whom, in justice, one should be benevolent.

In case anyone is interested, I have been thinking on the relationship between benevolence and “giving the benefit of the doubt.” Practicing the virtue of justice, i.e., the recognition of the character of other men--that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly. Employing the appropriate methodology to one’s purpose is critical to making a good—that is a useful—judgment. In making a judgment, two issues always are involved: 1. Establishing who has the burden of proof; and 2. Establishing the appropriate standard of proof. The burden of proof is a device to recognize reality, such as the fact that men are born tabula rasa, both cognitively and morally (as quoted from Ayn Rand, above on this thread), and to avoid logical fallacies, such as imposing a burden to prove a negative. The one who does not carry the “burden of proof” has “the benefit of assumption,” meaning he needs no evidence to prove the assumption. The one who does carry the burden of proof has the burden to overcome the assumption. An example of a burden of proof is “the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.” Thus, under the proper burden of proof, the judgment of an accused in a criminal matter is and remains: “innocent until proven guilty.” The standard of proof is a device to recognize one’s purpose and values in making a judgment. One’s purpose in making a judgment can range, for example, from a parent judging whether a person is safe to be a babysitter for one’s child, to a civil court judging a financial dispute between two businessmen, to a criminal court judging whether a person is guilty of a crime involving the initiation of force against another where the penalty would be imprisonment. In the first case, a parent may justly use a very low standard of proof, even as low as a mere “whiff” of reason to mistrust may be enough to disqualify the person, bearing in mind that the person has no right to be hired as a babysitter. In a case of a civil court judging a dispute between two businessmen, the risk of erroneous judgment is equal to both, and after establishing who has the burden of proof, the standard of proof is mere “preponderance of the evidence,” i.e., “more likely than not.” In the last case, where the risk of erroneous judgment would unjustly imprison an innocent, the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” What standard of proof should be employed depends on one’s purpose and values in making the judgment. (In addition, a fair procedure for making a judgment usually requires, especially in legal contexts, a fair opportunity to be heard.) Under her judgment of good will and benevolence toward strangers, Ayn Rand sometimes referred to “giving the benefit of the doubt,” for example as reported by Leonard Peikoff: --Leonard Peikoff, The Letters of Ayn Rand, Introduction In judging a man interested in ideas, Ayn Rand acknowledged both her burden of proof, i.e., the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, and her standard of proof was “giving the benefit of the doubt.” I estimate this standard of proof is between “preponderance of the evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but somewhat closer to the lower than the higher. I think this reflects Ayn Rand’s judgment of the standard of proof that justice to a person interested in ideas deserves. Notice that "giving the benefit of the doubt" is not benevolence, it is the standard of proof Ayn Rand used for turning away from the presumptive judgment of benevolence. Of course, none of this post addresses the nature of the evidence and logic that should be considered under this standard of proof. I apologize for this lengthy post. I did not have time to write a shorter one.

Ayn Rand on the relationship between justice and good will: –Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Newsletter: Vol. 2, No. 2, February, 1963, Check Your Premises: The Ethics of Emergencies (italic emphasis original, bold emphasis added). Good will (benevolence) is the product of a proper act of judging. To say that good will toward strangers is a virtue would be like saying that a boat—a product of productivity—is a virtue.

The list of virtues should not be closed. I've opened up the list some more: 1. rationality 2. independence 3. integrity 4. honesty 5. justice 6. productiveness 7. pride 8. benevolence (if someone deserves it) 9. malevolence (if someone deserves it) 10. ambivalence (while you suspend judgment) 11. turbulence (if your judgment flip-flops) Just for more fun.

Brandon, I thought you might be interested in the following quotes from Ayn Rand on the difference between "values" and "virtues." (I am sure you are familiar with Galt's Speech, and perhaps you already know of the other.) -- Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech (Bold emphasis added). --Ayn Rand, The Letters of Ayn Rand, Letters To A Philosopher (italic original emphasis, bold emphasis added). What do you think?

RationalParadigm, You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, but, by your own admission, you have insufficient evidence for this. I will not sanction your lack of benevolence with a substantive response. More importantly, your post certainly does not meet my civility standards for the North Texas Objectivist Society. Under these circumstances, I decline your invitation for any further discussion on this topic, in person or anywhere else. -- Toad

Now you see there, Tom, I am not beginning to understand. -- Toad

Tom, I sincerely appreciate some of your comments, but I am not “beginning to understand” that you were not being rude to others who I welcome to participate in the North Texas Objectivist Society. There is a difference between making an argument and rudeness. My standards for civility and for who is welcome to participate remain unchanged, as explicitly stated on the NTOS “About” page. I continue to think it is good to be patient--or at least not rude--with anyone who is welcome to participate. Until one of us changes our understanding of these issues, we are not beginning to understand each other.

It is not ignoring that "ideas are fundamentally epistemological" (or that physical entities are fundamentally metaphysical) that leads to intrinicism, but failing to understand the relation of ideas (and physical entities, and ultimately, reality) to man: Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Theory and History, What Is Capitalism? Note that Ayn Rand did not write: "Fundamental to an objective theory of values is that ideas are fundamentally epistemological, and don't forget it or you'll become an intrinsicist."

I appreciate your benevolence.