Atlas51184

http://www.amazon.com/Objective-Communication-Writing-Speaking-Arguing/dp/0451418158/

Stephen, You mention Nozick and Hospers. Part of the Peikoff/Schwartz argument is that there is no valid concept the CCD of which is "amount of government". Do you agree with that, and classify Nozick's, Hospers', and Rothbard's political philosophies together on some other grounds?

Ninth, "In practice [schwartz's article] has meant guilt by association and has led to suffocating insularity among ARI affiliated Objectivists." ARI affiliated intellectuals have been working in various capacities with non-anarchist 'libertarian' intellectuals (mostly economists and policy people) for at least the last 15 years. So I don't know what you're talking about. Rothbard and the LP. See previous post. He was a member of the founding committee, along with anarchist Roy Childs. Rothbard was the dominant figure in 70s and 80s libertarianism. Respect for Rand. I take it that respect for Rand means respect for Rand. What's Dave Harriman have to do with anything?

Catching up on the thread... Stephen and Ninth, I think your knowledge of libertarian history is deficient. The first sentence of the wikipedia article on Cato: "The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. Founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Murray Rothbard, Ed Crane and Charles Koch." The first paragraph from the History of the Libertarian Party article: "The Libertarian Party was formed in Colorado Springs in the home of David Nolan on December 11, 1971, after several months of debate among members of the Committee to Form a Libertarian Party, founded July 17. [...] This group included John Hospers, Edward Crane, Manuel Klausner, Murray Rothbard, Roy Childs, Theodora (Tonie) Nathan, and Jim Dean." I recognize two anarchist names. If one is worried about sanctioning Rothbard (or other anarchists), one would rightly be wary of groups he helped found.

Ninth, My source for Allison's plans isn't linkable; it's what he said during a presentation about it, and AFAIK it's not been put online. During that presentation, Yaron Brook said that Rand's (and ARI's) antipathy to "libertarians" has always been antipathy towards Rothbardian anarchists. Libertarian = Rothbardian. You ask why Schwartz didn't say explicitly that he meant Rothbard when he wrote about libertarians. In paragraph three of the "Perversion of Liberty" essay: "Murray Rothbard, widely viewed as the father of the movement..." The context of the rest of the essay shows that Schwartz agrees with that view. In the 70s and 80s, wasn't the libertarian movement dominated by Rothbardians and anarchists? Rothbard was a founder of both Cato and the LP, and weren't most of the journals/magazines cited by Schwartz connected to Rothbard? Obviously, the libertarian movement has changed since then. But you can't look at these things out of their historical context. If in 1985 "libertarian" was mostly associated with Rothbard and anarchist friends, it's a safe bet that's who Schwartz was talking about when he criticized libertarians. And, who were the non-Rothbardian or non-anarchists cited by Schwartz? I'm looking at the footnotes now and no names stand out. Reason is cited, but the article is by Rothbard. Brudnoy. If Peikoff associates with people like Brudnoy, but not anarchists, isn't that evidence he means by "libertarian" Rothbardians/anarchists? Why attribute to Peikoff (or ARI) a contradiction when there's a better supported alternative interpretation of what's happening? And an interpretation that's the one the current president of ARI has endorsed, at that! Edit: Lest I be accused of inventing scuttlebutt, my notes on the Allison discussion show that he said those disrespectful of Rand will change their attitudes or find other employment. Not that they will be fired outright. "Respectful" didn't have any implication of them becoming Objectivist. Also, Allison said that he will be there for a number of years and in that time he will be grooming an Objectivist replacement. And, he wasn't going to take the job until Yaron Brook convinced him to.

There's an obvious mistake about half-way through the video, in one of your text graphics. The "Libertarian = Right-Wing" text is targeted at Peikoff, right? But he's attributing that position to the radio host, and Peikoff himself says that it's the wrong definition. And I don't think "Nolan Chart" gets to determine the correct definition of 'libertarian.' The Nolan Chart says so and so... who cares? I don't understand where the snark is coming from in that part. Hasn't "libertarian" become, for many people" a word like "conservative" and "liberal"? A not very clear concept that means to them something like "socially liberal and economically conservative"? Such a libertarian isn't what Peikoff/Schwartz ever had in mind when they talked about sanction, I don't think. I always took it that Rand, Peikoff, and Schwartz meant by "libertarian" "Rothbardian." Weren't all Schwartz's examples of libertarians examples of Rothbardian anarchists? If that's so, then I don't see any hypocrisy going on here. The Kochs own Cato and Charles is an Obejctivist, and Allison has promised to remove anarchists and persons disrespectful of Rand from the Cato payroll. Sounds like Cato moving in an Objectivist direction to me.

Peter Schwartz - Contextual Knowledge Darryl Wright - Reason and Selfishness Darryl Wright - Ayn Rand's Ethics: From The Fountainhead to Atlas Shrugged Darryl Wright - Ayn Rand and the History of Ethics M. Northrup Buechner - A General Theory of Objective Prices M. Northrup Buechner - Objective Value vs. Modern Economics John Ridpath - Debate: Is Capitalism or Socialism the Moral System? Harry Binswanger - Psycho-Epistemology I Harry Binswanger - Psychol-Epistemology II Dina Schein Garmong - Reclaiming Egoism and Morality Yaron Brook - This Rise of Totalitarian Islam Allan Gotthelf - Aristotle as Scientist: A Proper Verdict Bo Dragsdahl - Karl Popper's Assualt on Science All are tapes, except for "Ayn Rand's Ethics: From The Fountainhead to Atlas Shrugged." Everything is in excellent condition. http://cgi.ebay.com/...em=140819574084

Windelband's History of Philosophy was for a long time a must read for Objectivists. I think LP recommends it in his course. It might hold you over for a few months while you wait for ARB to release the LP course. Jones' multivolume History is also frequently recommended.

That's not a good criticism, because it's not a criticism of Rand's theory. Rand says concepts have to be formed on the basis of perception. That's different than saying concepts have to be formed from their referents. A paleontologist forms the concept "dinosaur" by studying fossils, not dinosaurs. Generally, if some trivial observation refutes a philosophical theory, you've not presented the theory correctly. That goes for non-Objectivism, as well.

Previous discussion of TEW on this forum.

Ex-wife.

What if not all manmade physical objects are property?

www.newyorkobjectivistsociety.org

An email list for GLBT Objectivists: http://www.olist.com/ohomos.html There are quite a few GLBT Objectivists, including well known Objectivist leaders. So you probably just haven't met the right ones yet.

Rand talks about language in her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. She rejects the linguistic turn and any claim that philosophical problems can be solved by analyzing language, so philosophy of language isn't a central concern for Objectivism. I don't know of anything on philosophy of language by other Objectivist philosophers, but perhaps there would be something in the forthcoming Ayn Rand: A Companion to Her Works and Thought. Alan Gotthelf makes some comments about Rand's views on philosophy of language in a draft of one of his papers for that book: Ayn Rand on Concepts.