Izrunas

For the past year, there have been a number of uncertainties regarding the AOBP. While my company has been responsible for hosting the aob.biz web site, I was only recently asked to serve as the association's executive director and take the lead on the development of AOBP into a healthy, vibrant association that is a net asset to its members. I did not intend to come off as disingenuous about the email link--I answered as I did because I am not the lead developer of the site and I had only the assumption that it had been fixed. Your point is taken that I should have been more clear in how I answered. As for the confidentiality of member information, the AOBP explicitly requires that information not be divulged to non-members and the association itself uses the data solely for the operation of the association and does not grant access nor sell its master database to any third party. Your point is well taken as to the length of time that had been required to fix a seemingly simple issue-- but that's why I have spent a large amount of my work time recently assuring that the project moved forward. I appreciate your desire to trust the association--and it is my goal to assure that all members will have excellent cause to trust it moving forward. In an effort to engender more accessibility, the contact information has been expanded to include a working contact form, mailing address and telephone. I invite you to continue to watch us as we grow the AOBP. As for me, I am Eriks Goodwin-Pfister, and as of very recently, I am the Executive Director of the Association of Objectivist Business Professionals. I may be reached at (202) 380-3190, ext. 444.

While I can understand complaining about a broken link on a site (which appears to have been fixed), I am curious why it matters who the "key members" of an organization are when the organization's primary function is to be connecting people for the purpose of doing business? Shouldn't folks be more concerned with judging the individuals with whom they are considering doing business instead of worrying about who happens to have forked over a membership fee to the organization?

Here's the latest information I have: Yes, they're getting ready to re-launch their online presence (on or before July 4th, 2009). They are soliciting input as to desired features, and will, of course, focus primarily on the "Directory of Members" functionality as that is the reason people want to join. Articles are being requested from leading Objectivist authors and will be used during a rather massive ad campaign to launch the AOB. The name has been tweaked a little... The Association of Objectivist Business Professionals. The new slogan is "Do Business With People You Trust" Interested parties are being asked to sign up on the mailing list form that is on the current front page. NOTE: The current folks who are launching AOB have no connection to the former organization of a similar name.

I find it odd to have a discussion about a "symbol" for Objectivism... but let's at least acknowledge that Miss Rand quite clearly indicated in AS that the symbol (branding, if you will) is the REAL dollar sign, i.e., the narrow U superimposed over an S (the monogram of the United States). Since that symbol is permanently tied to the idea of a gold-based currency ($1 = 1/20th of 1 oz of gold), I see no need to improve on the "symbol." I agree with people who want things like "tokens", but warn that symbols can lose their meaning quickly if they become "cool" or "popular". It is precisely because of the "baggage" of the dollar sign that I am fine with it. For those put off by it-- so be it since they have given into philosophical nonsense. Thoughts?

I disagree. The strength of American individualism is still here and safe. The Euro/Canadian state-centric mentality is a radical departure from what is here. When push comes to shove, even the most liberal Democrat and most religious Republican will stand up and demand his freedom to govern his own life (even if he does not truly understand what it implies or requires).

So how is that any different from a Republican, Libertarian, etc.? You say that a Democrat "violates his allegiance [sic] to American principles" (which Republicans do as well), yet I do not recall anything about being required to goosestep to any particular ideology as a condition to be an American. In fact, I seem to recall something about Freedom of Speech, etc. Since a Traitor is someone that commits Treason, it may be useful to review the definition of Treason under US Constitutional Law: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." (Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution). While I wholeheartedly agree with attacking vicious irrationality, I am opposed to the improper use of terms. Incidentally, someone else said something about assuming that "almost every American is irrational"... While that may be true, doesn't it smack of a malevolent universe premise? Even if they are, so what? Isn't the purpose of philosophy to provide a framework within which one can achieve personal happiness and growth and success? To quote Rand, "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." So I'd say, spend more time learning, growing and achieving and less time in vitriolic tirades about the irrational stupidity of other men. Since the original topic of this thread is "Objectivism vs. Tolerationists," I'll address that briefly: "Objectivism" is a closed system authored (copyrighted) by Ayn Rand. It is closed because she is dead. An Objectivist is an Objectivist and a non-Objectivist is a non-Objectivist. Period. Rand wrote Objectivism. If one disagrees with it, they are free to write their own philosophy and call it something else. Why (rhetorical question here) do so many people feel the need to attain unearned credibility by calling their work Objectivism and thus try to ride on Miss Rand's coat tails? If one thinks they can out-do Ayn Rand's work, please do so and put one's own name on it so you get proper credit. Now, a more relevant question is that of working with people of "common cause" which is where so many get into trouble. Sure, you may have common goals (so you think), but those who seek the same "goal" as you yet do not share the same reasons are potentially the worst possible enemy of your goal. Look at the Republicans and their occasional lip service to capitalism right after voting in a new, massive social program. I refer to the ever-true point, "In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that has anything to gain." I admit that the heavy influence of "American Pragmatism" (work with whomever will help you achieve your goal-- and do not think about the long term effects of that work) is sometimes difficult to see past, but it is well worth it. What good is a victory if the mystics are standing next to us as co-victors? Now, to address my final point.... there is great debate over "irrational people" and whatnot. Well, here it is: "There are errors of knowledge and there are errors of conviction-- The first is forgivable, the second is not." Based on this, when one asks, "Is it proper to be friends with a non-Objectivist who has never read Rand?" the answer is "perhaps" and depends on one's own analysis of core values of the person, etc. But when it comes to someone who has "read Rand" missed the point and redoubles their efforts on behalf of the enemy, then that person should certainly be written off as pointless. I do not judge my friends by their memorization of Rand, I judge them by the content of their character and their actions. Ignoring non-essentials is not "toleration" but ignoring primaries such as an explicit academic support of Marxism certainly would be-- and should be condemned by any rational man.