Daedalus

You'll find a number of web sources to confirm that fact, including this one: The 1972 oil nationalizations in Iraq pushed the US and UK companies completely out of the country. Before that date, they held a three-quarter share of the Iraq Petroleum Company, including Iraq’s entire national reserves. After 1972, all that oil disappeared from their balance sheets. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2...aniesiniraq.htm Justice demands that Iraq, like every other country that seized American property, be brought to account and made to restore the stolen goods. It is true that former oil men Bush and Cheney are not taking any steps in this direction. But it is no less true that if the U.S. withdraws now, Iraq will fall into the hands of pro-Iranian fanatics who will employ Iraq’s considerable resources in their war against the pro-freedom, pro-reason West. We will then have to turn around and re-conquer this evil nation to put an end to another state that sponsors terrorism. And at what cost? Thousands of more lives? Hundreds of billions of more tax dollars? The discovery of major oil deposits in Iraq in 1927 was the work of the Turkish Petroleum Company, a consortium of European oil companies. The government of Iraq granted a concession to the consortium to explore for and extract oil in return for a payment to the government of a royalty for every ton of oil extracted. The fact that U.S. companies entered into a similar agreement with Iraq's government at a later date does not mitigate the injustice of nationalizing their assets. The government of Iraq unilaterally broke its contract with Western oil companies and seized their assets. This is called socialism. I don't call a 1972 expropriation "ancestoral." Nor is it true that only non-U.S. companies were affected by nationalization. Mobil and Exxon also lost assets. Tracinski's rallying cry also applies to Iraq, present and future: "No oil for corrupt Saudi princes, and no more blood spilled by the terrorists they support."

It is not a red herring at all. Control over one’s identity -- which is essential to survival in the 21st century -- is the very issue at stake in how one’s name is used. It is important not only to those with a concern about their credit rating but also to those who make a living by means of the printed word. For example, in Ayn Rand’s lifetime, National Review published two lengthy attacks on her, full of exaggerations and outright lies. The first, by Whittaker Chambers, compared the heroes in Atlas Shrugged to Nazi exterminators. In a later hit piece, M. Stanton Evans attempted to portray Ayn Rand and her associates as cult leaders. Had Ayn Rand been in full legal control of her name, neither article could have been printed -- and thousands of potential converts to Objectivism would not have had a poisonous first impression of America’s greatest philosopher-novelist. Now, disagreement with Ayn Rand or me or anyone else is certainly within one’s rights. However, Ayn Rand (or her estate) should be able to control how her name is used in electronic and printed media -- just as they control how the text of We the Living is printed and sold. Most authors would be only too happy to grant magazines and journals the right to review their works, taking the good with the bad. But it is not only moral but essential that a writer not permit his name and words to be used by his enemies.

Perhaps you will be so kind as to cite how Exxon, Mobil, Shell and Partex were compensated for their assets in Iraq which the government of that country nationalized in 1973. Then a socialized oil industry is what Iraq had after 1973. It happens not to be Americans only because those Americans who held oil resources in Iraq (the stockholders of Exxon, for example) were dispossessed of their property by the looting Baghdad government. Restoring their rights is no different than the U.S. restoring freedom of the seas in the Tripolitan War, 1800-1815. Note that I said "technology" not "ideas." I was referring to U.S. and European expertise and capital investment which discovered petroleum in Iraq and brought it to market. As Robert Tracinski has observed, The Arab chieftains who ruled the region had no idea the oil was there and no idea what to use it for; they were still riding camels. But once the West discovered the oil and put it to use--running our factories and automobiles--the chieftains began to tax the oil. When that wasn't enough, they simply stole the oil fields, beginning with the de facto nationalization of the Saudi oil fields in 1950. http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSes...ws_iv_ctrl=1087 When it comes to taking back our oil, what’s good for Exxon is good for America.

I regard my name as my property for the same reason I regard my arm and leg as my property. My limbs are required for my survival as a rational being -- and so is my name. When someone represents himself as me, he is stealing my good name and reputation. To put it in Objectivist terms, my identity is not "the means to the ends or the welfare of others."

I am interested only in protecting the rights of Americans -- and that includes those whose work and technology made Iraq's oil wealth possible. I'm not a military expert, but I have serious doubts about reclaiming American assets in the Middle East unless we first subdue the local savages by armed might.

That's right. Protection of property rights extends even to those we loathe. I'm not particularly happy about Hillary owning a mansion in New York, but I don't deny her right to it.

While I recognize that my views are not reflected in current law, I regard one's name as a form of intellectual property. And, yes, a proper legal code would allow you veto power over any website entitled "Why softwareNerd Is Wrong?" or "Why I support softwareNerd."

Qwertz (see his response) is correct. "Objectivism" is not copyright- or trademark-protected. "Ayn Rand" is. That means that her name cannot be used (without permission of its owner) in the marketing of a particular product or service. I cannot, for example, set up an Ayn Rand psychotherapy clinic or an Ayn Rand high school or an Ayn Rand cigarette holder without license from the owner of Ayn Rand's name. However, under current law, I can mention her name in a discussion of philosophy, politics, the arts, etc. As an extremist in the defense of intellectual property rights, I believe that gaining legal protection over the use of a particular name and set of ideas is moral and should be protected to the full extent of the law. I support the right of the Ayn Rand Institute to regulate any printed or Internet-posted discussion of "Ayn Rand" and "Objectivism." That means that ARI (or Dr. Peikoff) would have the right to shut down any website that uses her name or the name of her philosophy in a way that the owner disapproves of. (The only problem with my argument is that the term "objectivism" was in use among scholars prior to Ayn Rand's adoption of the word in the late 1950s. Alas, she does not have original claim to the word.) The Objectivism Wiki, which is an extension of this website, defines Objectivism in this way: Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter). Since Ayn Rand specifically approved Dr. Peikoff's works in her lifetime and granted him intellectual authority after her demise, he has full authority to speak for Objectivism. Furthermore, since she willed Dr. Peikoff her intellectual authority over Objectivism, what Dr. Peikoff say is in fact Objectivism.

In the absence of U.S. troops in the Middle East, who do you suppose will be enforcing property rights and civil order there? The Fellowship of Muslims for Rationality? The chaos that would follow U.S. withdrawal is the very thing libertarians long for. Libertarianism is based on nothing more than subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism and as such must inevitably lead to a war of all against all. What strawmen, what lies, what poor scholarship? Read Mr. Schwartz’s “Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty” and the other essay at the Ayn Rand Institute that I linked to. He presents a devastating case against libertarianism and shows not only that it is an irrational philosophy, but evil and destructive as well. So what happens when New York City breaks up into a hundred or a thousand different republics? Suppose a pedestrian of the Republic of Bleeker St. and Broadway is robbed by a purse-snatcher from the Republic of Amsterdam Ave. and W. 145th St. Does the Republic of Bleeker St. and Broadway send its army into the territory of Amsterdam Ave. and W. 145th St.? And what if they are met by a local patrol who declare that they reject the claim of the professed victim? Then what happens? As Ayn Rand would say, “You take it from there.” So? As Mr. Schwartz says, “There are Marxists who do not see that their philosophy leads to totalitarian enslavement, there are Kantians who do not see that their philosophy leads to nihilism.” And there are libertarians who do not see that their philosophy would lead to the end of civilization.

If it is nonsense, then A = non-A. In another essay Mr. Schwartz provides several odious examples of libertarians tolerating and supporting the practitioners of force and mysticism, the Attilas and Witch Doctors of our age: It is a movement that embraces the advocates of child-molesting, the proponents of unilateral U.S. disarmament, the LSD-taking and bomb-throwing members of the New Left, the communist guerrillas in Central America and the baby-killing followers of Yassir Arafat. These views have all been accepted under the Libertarian umbrella (and remain accepted under it by everyone who still calls himself a Libertarian). It is these types of vermin that one is lifting into respectability whenever one sanctions Libertarianism—or whenever one maintains that ideas can be analyzed without being evaluated. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...ivism_sanctions Need examples? Just look at the Libertarian Party platform which calls for “the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad”! Imagine the chaos and bloodshed that would occur if U.S. troops were taken out of the Middle East. What a boost that would be for the baby-killing followers of Yassir Arafat! This “party of principle” also champions “the right to secession by political entities, private groups or individuals.” So once you, I and the rest of America secede from the U.S., what do we have left? That’s right, anarchy.

Libertarians are simply anarchists by another name. In "The Perversion of Liberty," Peter Schwartz pointed out that Libertarians direct their antipathy toward any limitation upon human conduct, including those enacted through the legitimate state function of identifying and banning the use of force. Law as such is an anathema to libertarians who reject all standards of behavior on principle. They abhor the law because it tells them in effect that they cannot do whatever they feel like doing. Without limitations on human conduct including banning the use of force, we would have full blown anarchy. Sure, there are some libertarians who pay lip service to limited government and the rule of law, but they are no different than leftists who deceptively call themselves

We must rely on the eternal vigilance of the voters not to allow this.

Ayn Rand wrote that one of government's proper functions is to "to protect men from foreign invaders" (VOS, p. 131). Suppose the enemies of the United States were to attack this nation by introducing a deadly virus into its food supply? Would it not be within the government's moral role both to apprehend bio-terrorists after the fact, as well as arm our nation and our national defense personnel with pro-active protection against this form of WMD? We issue soldiers tax-financed helmets, body armor and gas masks. We have spent over $50 billion towards a missile defense shield. So why not vaccines? And if vaccines against a certain virus are not available, why shouldn

If you don't think Provenzo's argument was cultish, why even bring up "cult" in your response? That is nothing more than guilt by association. False. Belief and truth are not synonymous. And the problem with that is . . . ? His reasons were sufficient to convince me not to watch V. I'd rather put on my old VHS tape of The Fountainhead.

There is an implicit accusation of cultishness: "No matter how much people insist and persist that Objectivism is not a cult because its a philosophy of individuality, reading articles like that review which is written with the understanding that 'And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did.' is not comforting." There is no way I can know if any review of a book, play, movie, concert, album, restaurant or hotel is off base unless I read the book, watch the movie, attend the concert, play the album, eat at the restaurant and sleep in the hotel. So much for the value of reviews. So much for the careful management of my spare time. Can someone be against Objectivism and with you? Since Provenzo never made the statement "And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did," the alleged argument from intimidation is a phantom, and Provenzo's critics are attacking a strawman.

On another thread ( http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...wtopic=4102&hl= ), softwareNerd makes the point that "in today's context, Congressmen should not own stocks directly." The obvious reason being that Congressmen would have an incentive to approve legislation that would increase the value of their portfolios. Now if a future Congress were to be elected by wealthy voters only, would not the same tendency toward "the Aristocracy of Pull" be at work?

As a regular reader and admirer of Nicholas Provenzo, I know exactly what I am talking about. The merits of the movie have no bearing on the accusation that Mr. Provenzo is cultish. Anyone familiar with Mr. Provenzo's dedication to reason and the advancement of Objectivism will recognize the charge as the art of smearing at its worst.

I defended Nicholas Provenzo from the charge of cultism. One does not have to have viewed V for Vendetta to recognize that the assault on Provenzo's character is unwarranted.

1. I never said that Ayn Rand's position was correct because Ayn Rand said it. It is correct because it is consistent with reality, and I have offered reasons in support of its truth. 2. Who said that? Objectivism, by definition, is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If one opposes Objectivism in part, it does not follow that one opposes it in whole. 3. See point 1. above.

Your lack of comfort may stem from a conflict between your values and Objectivism. If "that review" you are referring to is Nicholas Provenzo's at http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/archives/...286989739726798, the author's criticisms were primarily political, not aesthetic: that V's "revolution" was not based on basic principles and that it constituted an implicit endorsement of anarchism. These points follow from fundamental Objectivist ethics. That Mr. Provenzo chose to address such moral weaknesses in the movie is not evidence of "cultish" behavior but of the highest personal integrity. And, by the way, Dr. Strangelove is a vile movie that engages in moral equation between Soviet aggression and American military defense. Its malicious twisting of reality and disgusting dismissal of American vigilance and patriotism sparked a sea change in American opinion that led to the defeat of Ayn Rand's candidate, Barry Goldwater, in 1964. See Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, Rick Perlstein. Hill and Wang.

Ayn Rand's essay "An Answer To Readers (About A Woman President)" is no more subjective than any of her other work in moral philosophy. Her insights are derived from real world experience and may be confirmed by reference to reality. Definitions are built on essentials. While not all men act rationally, rationality is a key component of man qua man. Similarly, while not all women are hero-worshippers, femininity and hero worship are key components of woman qua woman. A critic of Objectivism may respond to Ayn Rand's ethics of rational egoism by claiming that the values required for man's survival qua man must be altruistic. What is the counter-argument? Statistics? Would anyone care to submit such data? To compare her views with those of a religionist is insulting. There is nothing mystical or irrational about Ayn Rand's moral philosophy, including her views on women. Her philosophy is derived from the nature of reality. And that is precisely my point. It is not necessary to provide physical evidence to establish truths about the nature of women, any more than such evidence is required to form conclusions about the nature of man.

Presumably "highest bidders" would be those with great reserves of wealth. How is this any more corrupt than the suggestion made earlier that "the vote should be restricted to wealthy landowners"?

Yes. But spiritual self-immolation, which is what Ayn Rand mentioned, is another matter. If that is the case, then this prohibition on women serving as president is a tenet of Objectivist ethics and Objectivist philosophy. Accordingly, one would have to be in agreement with this principle to qualify as an Objectivist. "Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter)." http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.ph..._is_Objectivism Obviously your experiences lead you to conclusions different from Ayn Rand's and mine. It doesn't hurt my feelings that you disagree with Ayn Rand on this matter. On the other hand, I have no intention of overthrowing my own conclusions just because you can't see things my way. Ayn Rand identified a woman's essential characteristics the same way she identified those of man, by careful observation of reality. For example, she wrote that "The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness -- which means: the values required for man's survival qua man" (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 34). Now some collectivist could attack her by saying that she provides no support for such a statement. Where, the adversary might argue, is her explicit support for such a claim? Where are the quantifiers, the stastistical data, the case studies? In the absence of such support, must we reject Ayn Rand's view of man's nature? I think not.

Why not a points program similar to the prizes or cash rewards that credit card companies give their customers? For example, one vote for every $10,000 in contract insurance you purchase from the government. Naturally, those who buy millions of dollars of insurance would receive proportionately more votes. Similarly, those who make outright donations to the government would be rewarded with additional ballots.

A president does not deal with equals, but with hierachical inferiors. This would be intolerable for a rational woman, who, if she is in touch with her femininity, is a man worshipper. The authority of the president, while not cancelling out the authority of other officials, exceeds that of any other person in government.