argive99

This is actually what I was getting at with the post. I have actually come to agree with the decision to lie in this scenerio but B. Branden's reason for telling the story is just as you suggested, to attack Valliant's book and to portray N. Branden as compassionate and Ayn Rand as "less than perfect." Even though I have come to agree with the arguments put forward excusing lies told to relieve suffering, my guess is that Barbara could have just as easily told her mother the truth and not caused her any great pain, but that this whole tale is a sob story to illicit compassion for Nathaniel and disdain for Rand, or at the least to show Rand was a "moralizing" hypocrite.

I wouln't disagee with you here, but there is a difference between a child and an adult. If the mother knew that the couple was irreconcilable then lying to her would seem to be disrespecting her. If she truly fealt the two of them "belonged together", then at that point in her life I can see the reasoning that it would be too painful to tell her the truth and rob her of a possibility for one of the last pleasures she's likely to receive. I guess the moral of the story is that honesty is contextual.

By "emotional" or "gut" reaction I meant the process you just described but done quickly. But your point is well taken.

I agree with this. In any discussion about the current marriage contract, I always imagine what a fully free market in mariage would be like; and by that I mean if the government's only involvement in the marriage business was to enforce legally entered into marriage contracts and provide courts to interpret the contracts where clauses are either contradictory or vague. The common law courts excell at this. It seems to me that one of the big problems with current marriage is that the government provides a "one size fits all" contract with "till death to us part" as sort of the expected duration. This to me is rediculous. I think in a free market contracts would be of various lengths. For example, I would like to get married but I would like a contract of say 3 to 5 years of length. At the conclusion of such a term, my partner and I would decide if we were still growing together and if we should "renew" our marriage agreemeent. I think this would encourage people to improve themselves and constantly expect and give value in their relationships. The way it is now, once you're married, its almost innevitable that all self-improvement stops. There are a ton of other ways a fully privatized marriage industry would improve the relations of the partners and the quality of the homes (especially for children). But I think an Objectivist audience would already know most of this.

What would an objective moral evaluation of the 3rd Punic War be? I ask because I have difficulty evaluating historical eras different from my own. Would the standard by the highest possible according to Obectivism or the best (ie most rational) for that era? Was the decision to raze Carthage to the ground the correct one or was it needless warmongering? The Hannibalic war seems easier to evalute, but I'm uncertain if the last Punic War was a neccessary pre-emptive attack. Any help would be appreciated.

This thread would be a good place to list all the Obectivist oriented blogs. I'll start with some that I follow: http://www.noumenalself.com/ (He's probably the best O'ist blogger, but he needs to have less of a life and chain himself to his computer and update more!) http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/index.html (Dianna deserves alot of credit for exposing TOC. I love when she compares TOC's press releases to ARI's. ) http://charlottecapitalist.blogspot.com/ (I just discovered this one. Really good, especially at showing alturist politicis in Charlotte, NC.) http://drhurd.com/ (not really a blog, but updated daily) http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/ http://asonofliberty.blogspot.com/ http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/ (A TOC guy, but the best TOC writer there is (IMO). His commentary is virtually indistinguishable from Rob Trazcinsky's. Apparently, he has a beef against Peikoff and ARI for some reason. But I think most ARI people would find his writing of value.) http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ (rarely updated which is a shame because Provenzo is good.) http://alexandermarriott.blogspot.com/ http://thucydides.blogs.com/contemporary_history/ Add any others you are aware of.

The argument for lying to her seems to be that it will ease her suffering in the short run, and that's all she has. So, since the morality of lying is contextual, this instance would not be immoral because it is not harming anyone and instead relieving another person's pain. That's the argument Hal and Adam Reed (from Solo's forum) are putting forth. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm undecided on this. My emotional reaction matches JMegan's. I don't see how lying to her mom was neccessary and further, I don't see why the "value" that the lie bought could not have been achieved in another way. Also, I think alot of this would depend on the type of person the mother was. If it were me on the death bed, I would not want to be lied to, for I would know that faking reality could not bring genuine happiness. But if Barabara's mom was not that integrated of a person, then maybe the lie could be justified. Although I still don't think that it was the ideal way to handle things. But I still find it interesting that Nathaniel was so easily led into a situation where he not only lied, but put on a whole show. To me, this says so much about his character (or lack thereof). Betsy Speicher referred to him as a "snake oil salesman". Now I know why.

Objectivists will be split on Trump. For me, he's a mixed economy businessman; no more no less. As for his philosophy, its mixed and his politics is decidedly left of center. When he ran for President, his econmic plan was a huge tax on the rich. As for him being a "self made man from the start". This is wrong. Trump's father was one of the most powerful and politically connected men in New York. Trump not only inherrited a fortune but he also was born into a family that had a ton of political connections especially in the real estate business. Trump's father profitted from being politically connected to New York chief central planners such as men like Robert Moses. Yes, the Trumps are businessmen and they have produced values to be sure, but they are not the best example of market driven businessmen, in fact they are pretty damn good examples of political pull oriented businessmen. For example, Donald Trump is notorious for using the Eminent Domain clause to have people's land confiscated and resold to him for his real estate (especially New Jersey Casino and hotel) projects. For this, in my eyes, he is a bastard. Also, he has made alot of his money in the Atlantic City Casino and hotel business. There aren't many more political-pull oriented businesses then Gambling. Trump is far from Hank Rearden. Sadly, he is more like Orren Boyle. I liked Trump too when I was new to Objectivism, then I learned more about the man. There are better examples of businessmen to admire. Martha Stewert is a good example, despite the fact that she is a political liberal. She was a stock broker and started her company from scratch. She built an empire all on her own. She is far more admirable than Trump.

If you can stomach it, here is the latest from Sciabarra: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/nota...ves/000373.html Here is the money quote: "If we abstract from this discussion any consideration of Rand's or Churchill's or even Bin Laden's philosophical or political positions, if we abstract from this discussion any consideration of the lives and/or broader ideological commitments of these individuals, I find no way of avoiding the implication of comparability." Is it me, or is this man completely clueless?

Here is a link to a Barbara Banden Story she posted at SoloHQ: http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Branden/Mot...h_Dignity.shtml To sum it up, she tells how after she was seperated from Nathaniel Branded, her mother was dying. Basically on her death bed, her mother whished that she and Nathaniel were together again. So she and Branden staged a visit to her mother where they pretended to be reconcilliated for the mother's sake. She said she told Ayn Rand who supposedly said, "I would have done the same thing." What to make of this? In the comments section of the post, an Adam Reed makes the point that this is not an immoral lie because of the context of her mother's illness. He then throws an insult at all those who think it would be immoral by calling them "intrinsicists". I would like to get a sense of what people here think of this. For me, it illustrates the ease with which Nathaniel Branden will deceive and his skill at lying. For my part, I can't understand why Barbara Branden couldn't just tell her mom the truth, but phrase it positively such as, "we are still seperated mom, but its for the best, because this way we will both be free to find much more fulfilling romantic relationships." Would that have been so hard?

I was recccommended the book, The Drama of the Gifted Child by Alice Miller. I read it and am not impressed, but I don't have a background in psychology. Her main contention seems to be that suffering durring childhood due to bad parenting is responsible for most if not all of a person's problems latter in life. She even makes some historical claims based on it. She almost comes out and says that WWII would not have happened if the Germans had been kinder to their children! My gut reaction is that she has identified some valid points but has reduced them to overwhelming simplicity. Does anyone have any knowledge of her? And can they give me some insight from an Objectivist perspective?

Yaron Brook has made this point repeatedly. He also made an intersting point that shortly after Bagdad was taken and American victory was evident, Iraqis were demanding water and electricity be provided to them. He expressed incredulity at how a war can be fought this way, with the conquered making demands on their conquerors. He raised the point that this did not happen in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in post WWll Japan. This is what happens when the only way you can justify fighting a war is to bring "freedom" to the enemy instead of threatening them with death and destruction. As much as I love America, I don't believe that I could serve in her Armed Forces. My stomach would turn with the alturistic crusades that I would be commanded to risk my life on. In all probability I would spit on the Geneva Convention and shoot everything in my path not wearing an American Flag. I would be sent to Guantanamo and be locked away forever. Al Queda terrorists would be released before I would ever see the light of day. Such is the perversion of our time.

I've just reread this thread and I couldn't resist posting my comments on some of the various posters. Kudos for MisterSwig and AisA. I have enjoyed their posts the most. BurgessLau is a very intelligent man and asks many questions. Almost to the point of irritation. Al Kufr is in a world of his own. His obsession with military tactics is annoying and his posts have essentially become unreadable. Jack Wakeland sounds like a smart and intellectually active man and he has many valid insights to offer on the subject of foreign policy. But his analysis also contains too many flaws. I agree with Yaron Brook who answered when I asked him directly that he thought that some altruistic premises had infected Wakeland's thinking process. As a result, I disagree with the bulk of Jack's commentary. And I would not want be a soldier in an army with him as a policy maker. However, I would enlist tommorrow if Yaron Brook were calling the shots. Lastly it seems that there are two fundamental types of people in these various war threads; one group that has no problem with the use of massive retaliatory violence and another that will only accept much more restrained agression. I am part of the former group and would not have lost a seconds worth of sleep if we had already killed 10 million in Iraq (let alone 4000 Mr. Wakeland which you are so proud of) and were planning to kill 10 million more in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria seperately. I care about the Unites States. I could give a damn if the rest of the world goes to hell in a hand cart.

As to the daily practice of a lawyer, the best thing you could do is work for a law firm as an assistent in some capacity. You will learn that most of lawyering involves preparing and filing documents with the court. Outside of trial experience (or appellate work), law really is largely papper shuffling. So if you don't like the office type of environment and working many hours behind a desk, then don't go into law. Now there is the research part of the job and you will have to get used to spending long hours in a law library or behind a computer using legal search engines (Lexus & Westlaw). And much of what you research will not be as intellectually stimulating as you would like, especially if you are researching federal or state regs in which case watching paint dry is more fun. But that's part of the job. From your research, you will choose a legal theory to advocate on behalf of your client and then you will try to persuade the court or to persuade opposing counsel (say for a settlement). If you like the specialty you are in, you will be able to deal with the details because it will have a broader meaning to you. Also realize that much of legal practice in the modern setting is professional linguistic distortion. It sucks but thats the reality. For example, if you have a case arguing for a client that wants to get a building permit to build a bar on his property, you will have to consult the zoning statutes. Now in those statutes there may be a provision that allows an exemption to the code if your client can prove that his proposed bar will not increase "traffic flow" past the limit set by law. Well how do you figure that out? You'll have to go through three building inspectors a fire chief and a county superintendent to get the actual numbers. It will take months and your client will understandably be complaining to you every week. But each time he calls you, your boss (the senior partner) is going to force you to charge him for every phone call, when in reality he was on hold more than half the time. Then you will have to spend another six months trying to bend the definitionless term "smooth traffic flow" to fit the facts of your client's situation while the county will be bending it to fit its "facts". At the end of the whole thing your client will not get his permit but it will come out that in actuality, the county didn't want his bar there because they wanted the real estate owner to contract with a multiplex because it would be popular with constituents and bring in added tax revenues. (This is an actual case from when I clerked for a state judge.) This is what I mean by saying that you will have to have the stomach for this. Now as for being influential in shapping legal precedents, my brief answer is that you will not be able to in any meaningful way. You will learn if you haven't already that among the last things to be changed in a culture are the laws. Legal change always lags behind ideological change. The best you could hope to do is to work for an organization like the Institute For Justice and try to win isolated cases and slowly inject some pro-capitalistic precendents in the legal system. But my experience tells me that you will only succeed on the superficial level. You will not be able to force the courts to recognize a constitutional right protecting freedom of contract, or the right to do with one's property what one sees fit (non-itiatory force rule obeyed of course). That will require a philosophical revolution not a legal one (which will follow). So if you are truly more theoretically oriented, I would say become a law professor. Become a master of your specialty. Write law review articles and eventually a treatise incorporating Objectivist philosophy and in that way you will be able to influence the precedents of the future. But sadly, only in that way. I fear the legal system along with everything else will get alot worse before it gets better.

Thoyd, could you expound more on this. I too have been confronted with the argument of psychological egoism (although I did not know it by that name), mostly from libertarian types. Could you give the argument against it. My own understanding is a little muddled. Thanks.

While I agree that it is important to have factually valid informtion, I don't think the problem here is with the facts at our disposal. The recurring issue with these war threads is one of applied morality. The main areas of contention seem to be how to properly define an "innocent" and what level of force should be used against the enemy. Many Objectivists believe (as I do) in total war and are not concerned with enemy casualties. Others have focussed far more on the "appropriate" levels of violence used in retaliation and what are and are not valid targets. Yaron Brook has taken the Objectivist Ethics and reached the conclusion that a moral culture when defending itself can use whatever level of force it is capable of when it is attacked by an enemy culture that is threatening its destruction. Jack Wakeland has argued for a much more delimited retaliation. Also Yaron Brook has reached the ethical conclusion that an enemy does not deserve to be rebuilt after it has been destroyed (especially at our own expense). Jack Wakeland sees the rebuilding process as neccessary to ensure victory. I agree that they both hold the same broad philosophical principles. But IMO, Mr. Wakeland looses the forest for the trees. He can describe in the greatest of detail the tactics and weaponry of warfare and yet he is sloppier in his thinking when it comes to applying broad abstract principles to the current scene. For that, I trust Dr. Brook's conclusions far more as his focus is always on morality primarily and on tactics only secondarily. Dr. Brook would never advocate endangering the lives of American soldiers in senseless door to door urban combat while Jack Wakeland countless times has seemingly glorified such a strategy. To be candid, my assessment of the overall value of The Intellectual Activist (daily and monthly) has diminished as a result. I'm debating on whether or not it is even worth renewing my subscriptions. IMO, there are just too many concessions to the foreign policy premises of the Neo-Cons for my taste.

Jack, There is something else that you and Dr. Brook disagree on and that is the possibility of bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East (and lets just define democracy here as a constitiutional republic). I asked Dr. Brook point blank if he agreed with the "colonial solution" as presented by you and Rober T. and he answered in one word, "no". He predicted that in five years from now Iraq will either be embroiled in civil war or it will be a de facto Islamic state, possibly even a client state of Iran. Also, Dr. Brook doesn't give a rat's ass (to use an expression) about civilian casualties, "innocents" or collateral damage. He basically said as much. His only concern is with America's defense and the lives of American soldiers. And I don't understand how urban combat can be said to be more effective than an arial assault that destroys the whole area. To quote Burgess Laughlin from his post earlier in this thread, "... what point is there in engaging in small-unit tactics in urban warfare if one's morality calls for the devastation of whole neighborhoods that support, harbor, or even merely tolerate enemies of the Allies in this war?" You have amazing insights and I enjoy your writing on the subject, but in my opinion, you are way too lenient. I agree with Dr. Brook when he said about your (and Robert T's) statement that Bush's "forward strategy of freedom" is essentially a watered down version of the right strategy that (quoting from memory) "it is a disaster from start to finish and probably worse than doing nothing at all."

This both fascinates and maddens me, namely how people with the same philosophical premises can respond so fundamentally differently to an artwork. Also, how they can stress different elements of the piece to arrive at radically different evaluations of it. Stephen offered a magnificent description of Phantom of the Opera, only thing is it doesn't sound anything like the boring three hour spectacle I suffered through when I saw it on Broadway, not to mention that I was never comfortable with that damn chandelier swinging over my head. I identify with Andrew's experience. I found it malevolent, dark, and almost unbearable. I saw nothing of Cyranno in it. Both Ferrar's and Jacobi's rendition of Cyranno captivated me and gave me two of the best dramatic experiences of my life. Phantom put me to sleep. I wonder if the reaction to this movie ultimately revolves around other factors such as past experiences and differing psychologies. I respect those that loved the play, however I just don't share that love. Lastly, I saw Phantom of the Opera the same week I saw the single greatest play I have ever seen in my life. A musical which gave me the most enjoyable entertainment experience of my life. I will always remember that night and try to recapture the rapture of seeing it for the first time. The play I am talking about was The Scarlet Pimpernel. It played about four years ago and when Douglas Sills was the Pimpernel the show was pure magic. Now that story has shades of Cyerano in it. That was an uplifting, joyous emotionally refueling tale. I did not want that play to ever end. For the three or so hours I was in an artistic heaven. As for Phantom, aside for the title song, I couln't stand the music, the characters left me stale and the swinging chandalier suspended on a very thin cord over my head gave me no peace. I could not stand anyone in that play. The female lead struck me as a ditz, the boyfriend as a suburban, country club airhead, and the phantom as a warped, obssessive nutcase. I couldn't wait for it to end. And with midtown parking on a wednsday night and orchestra seats, the whole night set me back $300 bucks. Boy, I wish I could get a refund.

Let me chime in here. I went to law school and although I did not end up practicing, I found the experience to be ultimately very intellectual rewarding. I say ultimately because it was tough sitting through 3 years of every corrupt philosophical justification for countless wrong laws imaginable. But the study of jurisprudence (the science of law) is fascinating and there are so many areas for an Objectivist to pursue. I'll bullet point a few of them: * You could become a law professor and specialize in any one of a number of important legal areas. Look up Adam Mossof on the various Objectivist web sites. He is an Objectivist law professor at the Univ. of Chicago. He specializes in the history of property, real and intellectual. He has written some amazing articles which trace the various property rights doctrines from the times of the ancients through the European Natural Law thinkers up to the corruption of the modern day. As a law proffessor you would be able to do valid research which could lead you towards writing a treatise. And you could do this while educating a new generation of legal thinkers. The university environment will be difficult but the more Objectivist law professors there are, the greater influence Ayn Rand will have on legal theory. * You could practice for a legal institution dedicated to objective law. There are a few of them. One of them is the Institute For Justice. Prominent Objectivist Michael Berliner's daughter works for them. They are dedicated to fighting for the rights of property holders against government regulations and takings (usually environmentally inspired) as well as other private property areas. This could be very rewarding as you will have a chance at securing some level of justice to actual individuals here and now. While you won't be able to change current legal philosophy wholesale, you will be able to inject some sounder legal doctrines into the system one case at a time. * If You are truly heroic, you could take the path towards being a judge. This would require clerking for a judge for a number of years and probably also being an academic. This will require involvement with politics which would probably mean you would have to align yourself to some extent with some conservative organizations. This would not be easy to stomach for an Objectivist, but it would be nice to know that an Objectivist actually broke through to that level. * You could always go into private practice in a field that you like and can personally stomach and make a very good living. There are going to be bad laws no matter what specialty you choose but there are some areas that are "healthier" than others. Wills and Trusts might interest you not to mention that they are lucrative. * You could be a tax attorney and help clients safeguard as much of their money as possible, although the problem here is that you will have to be very pragmatic most of the time and use whatever legal loophole is available to help your client. And few clients will want to challenge the government on principle. These are just a few options. Basically you can be an academic or a practioner. If you practice, you can choose the where and what for of your practice. If you work for an institue dedicated to fighting for objective law, you will invariably have a chance at Constitutional practice as many of these cases will apply for Certiari (to be in front of the Supreme Ct.) If you are more theoretical as you indicate, then become a legal intellectual and be one of the first Objectivist Lord Blakstone's and write legal treatises that will serve as foundational legal philosophy for future centuries. Best of luck.

I just reread this and it is excellent. This is the point that I wanted to make. Taken seperately, any one of the indirect pieces of evidence against Peterson could be questioned as coincedental or irrelevant. But taken in total. Give me a ****ing break. I have tremendous respect for both Free Capitalist and Dave Odden. In fact, if I just read their posts from this thread, I would think they were mentally challanged and not possessors of the first rate intellects that they have. But I'm dumbfounded by their views. Read Cole's description of the factually proven behavior of Peterson again and dare tell me that these aren't the actions of a guilty man. I say this right now. I would volunteer to throw the switch of the electric chair for Peterson's execution and not lose a second of sleep. If I wanted and evaluation of history, I would consult Free Capitalist before most historians. If I wanted an evaluation or explanation of the essence of language and linguistics, I would consult Dave Odden. But if I wanted to field a jury for a criminal case, I wouldn't want them within a hundred miles of the courtroom. No offense, but I can get a thousand liberal law professors or defense attorneys to say the same nonsense. As for 12 Angry Men, I made a mistake. I meant to say that the film stands for skepticism, not subjectivism. And yes, Fonda does expose the mental lethargy of the other 11 jurists, but he says repeatedly that no one can ever really know. Taken to the end, he argued for total skepticism and the destruction of objectivity. That was not a great movie, allthough it was very well acted. Sorry if I insulted anyone but this thread has given my both a stomach ache and a head ache, not to mention gas pains. <FC: Please don't curse in public forums. Get some Advil. >

I agree with pretty much everything Cole has said but here are my thoughts on this thread: 1) I'm shocked that there are Objectivists that dispute Peterson's guilt. A more guilty man since OJ has not existed. 2) Concerning the referrence to the movie "12 Guilty Men". When I was younger I liked that movie but I just recently rewatched it with a more analytical eye. That movie is philosophically *terrible*. It stands for epistemological subjectivism. The point of that movie is that you can never know anything with certainty. It reminded me of Kirasawa's "Roshomon". I would not use "12 Angry Men" to bolster any legal or philosophical argument. 3) Concerning the unborn fetus. The double murder charge was wrong as we all know. This is a bad development in American jurisprudence, ie considering an unborn fetus as a "person." Two things here: first, given the rise of Christian fundamentalism, is this trend really so suprising? Second, the erroneous double murder charge is irrelevant to Peterson's guilt of killing his wife. Don't be sidetracked by it. 4) Circumstantial Evidence - When I was in law school, prosecutors would tell us all the time that many cases are decided based on circumstantial evidence. Not every murder will have a smoking gun. Many times all you have is circumstantial evidence. But so what? On this board, we should all know the potency of the laws of logic. Iron clad cases can be made with "just" circumstantial evidence. As was the case with Peterson. 5) I'm incredulous about how those here have commented on the lack of evidence implicating Peterson. Please. The body is found where he was fishing, the call to his girlfriend, the suitcase full of hair dye, survival gear and money, etc, etc. As I said, a more guilty person is hard to imagine. In fact, I looked at the whole case differently. The major media was cheerleading for his innocence!! Dany Abrams was his biggest fan so to speak and kept saying for close to a year how the prosecution didn't make its case. In fact, I saw definite similarities to the OJ case. All the media "pundits" were united in their attack on *objectivity* as such. In fact, if I knew nothing else but that nearly every law professor and defense attorney saw him as "not guilty", then on that basis alone, having gone through 3 years of law school, I would be inclined to convict him. (I'm being humorous here but you should get my point.) 6) Lack of Exculpatory Evidence - Now I anticipate some of you saying that you can't prove a negative. But I don't think that applies here. In every criminal case, one of the chief ways to assure the innocence (or more techically, the lack of guilt) of the defendent is to offer exculpatory evidence. Not one shred of exculpatory evidence was offered in this case. Not one. Just like the OJ case, all the defense could do was to show the "flaws" in the Prosecutors case. (Actually in the OJ case, Cockeran had the audacity to suggest "Columbian drug lords" as a possibility) But if Peterson was innocent then that would by definition mean that someone else was guilty. Well? Where was that evidence? And don't tell me that's not relevant. It damn well is. If a defense attorney can show no evidence pointing in someone else's direction, that in itself suggests guilt. Combine that with everything else and as I said, a guiltier man is hard to imagine. 7) I will lose no sleep because of the death penalty being assigned to Peterson. In fact, its proof that the system is not totally corrupted which is what I would have felt had he been aquited. 8) The jury has said some stupid things. But they're not philosophers. I still think they approached the case rationally, taking the whole year long process into account. 9) I too was sick of the coverage. But much like Peikoff said in his Ford Hall Forum speech in '96, this was a good case for philosophical detection and I think it was much healthier than the OJ fiasco. 10) Lastly but not leastly, I find it so interesting to see the various opinions of different Objectivists. We all share the same premises but much like the divergent responses to art and movies, people are all over the map here. As I said, its interesting.

He was 50 when he died of a stroke. Interestingly, his identical twin brother, Ray Mentzer (also a body building champion) died 12 hours earlier of kidney failure. However, Mike Mentzer was a chain smoker in his later years who rarely exercised. He had become very overweight. I think his death was due to genetic predispostion to certain illnesses coupled with an unhealthy lifestyle in his middle years. Its a trajedy.

Several points about this thread: 1) The Burj Tower is the most beautiful building I have ever seen. 2) Why aren't buildings like these built in the US? Is it because of all the stifling environmental regulations? Or the voluminous land-use regulations? Despite how beautiful the Burj Tower and Palm Islands are, it pains me to see these built somewhere else than the US. Not because of some petty nationalism but because it reminds me how much enconomic freedom we have really lost. 3) Dubai has some of the most beautiful architecture on the planet. How is this possible in an Islamic country? Watching the video of Palm Island there was such a contrast between these beautiful structures and the Arab residents wearing their primitive, tribal head scarves. Is the phenomon of Dubai the result of oil money? If so, then we have enriched our enemies to the point of impoverishing ourselves. They are building these structures which represent the best of Western Civilization in the middle of a culture which is waging war against that civilization. Dubai has always confused me. Is it a good sign or a travesty? 4) The Burj Tower makes the original World Trade Center look like the work of amateurs. I know they represented the capitalist West but they really were two big, non-descript rectangles. See #5. 5) As much as we all honor what the WTC stood for, it can not be forgotten that the original WTC was the product of a state-owned and state-run organization; namely the NY-NJ Port Authority. It was built entirely within the framework of socialized comercial real estate. Everything from the original motive of the project to its design to its heavily politicized construction was organized and run by Orren Boyle and Wesley Mouch type businessmen. The cheif culprit being Governer Rockefeller. Here is an article which describes the politics behind its construction: http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_the_twin_towers.html My point in mentioning this is that I don't think the argument should be that "we" should build the WTC bigger and better. But that the WTC should be in fully private hands and Larry Silverstein should decide how big he wants to build the new complex. He may have valid reasons for not building it so high. For starters, he should build it according to the economics of lower Manhattan not according to any collective "need" for symbols of rebirth. It would be great if the Burj Tower were in the center of lower Manhattan, but not if couldn't reach even half of its full occupancy. 6) I desperately want to see beautiful and powerful symbols of man's achievements too. But I want to see them in the context in which they belong, freedom. Not as superficial national monuments which are built on funds looted from tax payers and credited to pull pedlers and power lusters. I'll end with this from Ayn Rand, "The Monument Builders" 1962, written before the construction of the original WTC: "In America, human effort and material resources were not expropriated for public monuments and public projects, but were spent on the progress of the private, personal, individual well-being of individual citizens. America's greatness lies in the fact that her actual monuments are not public. The skyline of New York is a monument of a splendor that no pyramids or palaces will ever equal or approach. But America's skyscrapers were not built by public funds nor for a public purpose: they were built by the energy, initiative and wealth of private individuals for personal profit. And, instead of impoverishing the people, these skyscrapers, as they rose higher and higher, kept raising the people's standard of living--including the inhabitants of the slums, who lead a life of luxury compared to the life of an ancient Egytian slave or of a modern Soviet Socialist worker."

There is an argument that Sciabarra and his cohorts (Silber and other various "Randian" libertarians) make all the time. They constantly refer to something they call the "welfare / warfare" phenomenon. They take this from Ayn Rand's identification of "parasites on parasitism"; namely that in a welfare state there will be political minded businessmen who will seek to establish markets by pull and subsidy rather than by merrit. All fine and good. But Sciabarra goes on to make claims that this phenomenon is at the heart of our foreign policy, that corporations are profitting from our overseas wars and even that one of the main motives for many of our engagements overseas is corporate profits. (Arthur Silber makes these points quite frequently also. He had a link to a report showing that US agri-giant Monsonto was granted a monopoly selling Iraqi farmers crop seeds. The Iraqis are not allowed to use their own seeds they had been growing for years but must buy them from Monsonto. If this is true, its yet another example of pragmatic bussinessmen.) He agrees that altruist motives are given but only as veneers for this military / industrial parasitism. (While he doesn't go as far, its not a far leap from his arguments to Micheal Moore's anti-corporate fantasy. But as I say, the pull pedlers phenomenon does exist nevertheless.) Here are links to his criticism of Peter Scwartz's book on rational foreign policy: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog/ Its a five part series with the title: "Peter Schwartz and the Abandonment of Rand’s Radical Legacy". Gee, do you think he has an axe to grind? My reason for posting this is that, on the surface anyway, I agree with one thing. Nowhere in Schwartz's book does he get into the history of American corporate interests in the middle east. Sciabarra in essence accuses him of rationalism, of broad sweeping ethical principles which ignore the details and context of the history of the American / Middle East relations. From Sciabarra: "Schwartz misses the underlying dynamic at work in the current political system. That’s because, almost without fail, he focuses on moral issues acontextually; he insists on pronouncing sweeping moral judgments on various global phenomena but frequently brackets out any discussion of the actual history—the actual context—within which these phenomena have evolved. We are left, in the end, with moral generalizations that are disconnected from the concrete circumstances with which Schwartz attempts to grapple." I have read Schwartz's book and I loved it. I thought it dealt with basic principles and in my thinking, if the US had followed Schwartz's policies, situations like the one we find ourselves in today would never have happened. So I am trying to figure out if there is any relevance to Sciabarra's criticism and the fact that Scwartz did not include in his book historical descriptions of America's past and present corrupt economic relations with the middle east. I also note that Sciabarra does not disagree with any of Scwartz's "sweeping moral judgements". He just says they are ungrounded. Some final notes. I am not a fan of Sciabarra. I ocassionally read his essays because I find through correcting his mistakes I end up with greater knowledge of Objectivism. My comments on Schwartz's book are very similar to the comments made by Free Capitalist on Yaron Brook's Morality of War lecture; ie that I fully endorse it but would like to see more historical details added to give the arguments greater context and completeness.

I see what you mean and I agree. There are no factions within the Objectivist philosophy. There is the philosophy as Ayn Rand left it and there are those that understand it and those that don't. What I was trying to get at is that there are factions within the Objectivist movement. Allthough you could argue that TOC and the others are not spreading Objectivism but a bastardized version of it and thus are not in the business of spreading Objectivism. But what I was really trying to show is that there are a group of people who are making their living off of Ayn Rand's name and they usually share animosity towards each other and constantly attach each other's work. Actually let me be specific about that: all the ersatz Objectivists are constantly attacking ARI and there associates and proclaiming that they (ARI) are abandoning the true legacy of Ayn Rand. For example, here are some links to Chriss Sciabbarra's negative commentary on Peter Schwartz's book of foriegn policy: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog/ You will find the same thing on Solo's site and Branden has made a career of pointing out the "failures" of Objectivism. My point is to show that there are hostilities to be found in this intellectual movement although I wish there weren't. Chriss Wolf is one such example. He is a TOCer who has a site somewhere dedicated to a bunch of articles attacking Leonard Peikoff. From what I understand about the history of intellectual movements, this is natural. But that being said, I can't help but wonder if Objectivism wouldn't have been farther along if it weren't constantly plagued by those who want to rewrite the philosophy.