Atlas51184

Old Toad, "Because I am primarily interested in spreading Objectivism, which to my mind is the overall objective, I don’t see how it helps to make these topics semi-private, and I think doing so may be counterproductive." I fail to see how privacy is counterproductive. Who will benefit from the blog? Objectivists, only. Those are the people I have invited. How will it be counterproductive to keep it private? Is HBL counter productive as well? Or OAC? I've already had three people tell me they want to offer advice on the blog they would not be comfortable giving in public. They have their reasons, and I'm respecting them. I recognized before I started it that MANY Objectivists, myself included, wish to remain semi or totally anonymous. Anonymity is a big concern for graduate students, for instance. The contents of those posts may reveal information that could be used to identify them, so they prefer anonymity. "OK. I am sorry I annoyed you or anyone else." No one's annoyed. It's just useless to argue about the merits of the blog if you aren't going to even look at it, so I won't. I'm fine with discussing the privacy issue, but not if the arguments depend on speculation about what might be on the blog.

Old Toad, I think you're misunderstanding what the blog is trying to accomplish. You wrote, "In promoting Objectivism, the philosophy of reality and reason, I think we should have nothing to fear in the intellectual realm." The blog does not a will not contain articles advocating Objectivism. There will not be a post about why life is the standard of value, or about how Rand's epistemology compares to Kants. There will be posts on how to best organize an Objectivist club. There will be posts on what types of topics your LTE is most likely to be published. There will be posts on how to get your blog post picked up by major media. So consider my club organization example. Imagine you are having a meeting with some members of the North Texas Objectivist Society. You are planning out some future meetings and discussing ways to attract new members. Your front door is wide open and a dozen strangers come in and listen to everything you say while taking notes. Are you comfortable with that? Nothing sinister is happening at your meeting, and no one would be suspicious of your desire to keep it private. And that's exactly how it is with a blog. If it's not private anyone can come and read it or link to it. Understandably, some people are more comfortable sharing their experiences in private, without any random person listening in. Further, some people would like to participate, but what to do so anonymously. Keeping it private allows them to do so. It is no different from starting an email list for an Objectivist club, and keeping membership restricted to members. The only difference is the format. I like the blog format for my purposes, and dislike the email group format. That is why I made a private blog, rather than a private yahoo group. To be honest with you, I don't understand why anyone would worry one iota about the semi-private nature of the blog. If the fact that it is private is stopping you from even reading it, then I'm disapointed selfishly because I think you would have valuable advice to contribute. And I don't understand what is stopping you from even reading what little there is so far. All you need to do is send me a message asking for the password. You don't need to sign up for anything. Or even participate. If you look at it and decide it is of no actual or potential value, all you'd have to do is close the window and never think of it again. You've taken the time to get involved in a lengthy discussion about the blog. So why not spend 30 seconds sending me a one sentence email, and then 10 minutes to read what is there so far? Every criticism you offer after the quoted sentence simply does not apply, so I'm not interested in any more conversation until you've actually seen what is there. Another note: I will be changing the opening page quite a bit. It seems the page gives just enough for to speculate, but not enough to make an informed judgment. So I'm going to cut it down quite a bit.

By the way, I don't see this really as MY blog. I'm kicking off most of the conversations, but the real value is the interaction between Objectivists of varying experience. Older Objectivists know much more about spreading Objectivists than I. Grad students like Diana bring expertise from their fields. Leaders of clubs can give advice on running a good organization. Members know what attracted them. Etc. That's why at every point I have been encouraging comments and criticism. But I want the comments and criticism to be informed and constructive.

SoftwareNerd, Athena, Thank you for your comments. The only limitation on participation is that participants are Objectivists. Sophia, Tenure, and John would have been more then welcomed. Not so much any more given their attitude. SoftwareNerd: "I cross-posted Diana's post here because I saw it as a friendly invitation to fellow Objectivists." That's exactly what it was. "Instead, take ownership -- join up, find out what it is like, help, then if you think removing passwords will help, advocate it." In fact, I invited comments and criticisms of the idea in my announcement on the OBloggers list. Of the many people who have since contacted me, all like the privacy ideas. Some have offered alternatives to the password system. I've already made modifications based on reasonable criticism. I'm not married to the password idea though; it was simply the easiest way I could think of to keep the venture somewhat private.

Tenure, "So if someone raises skepticisms of you in a public forum among friends, skepticisms more specifically of your super secret fan club, they can face being denied entry in future? However, if they restrict any such skepticism to formal, written correspondence with you, they'll be alright?" Of course not. What I object to is John calling me childish, even though he hasn't a clue as to what is on the blog. He did not begin, as Old Toad did, by saying something like, "This is an interesting idea, but I have reservations about a, b, and c." I would have been completely unoffended by that, and would have patiently answered any lingering questions. (Old Toad runs a large Objectivist group, so I'd love for him to contribute to the discussions on the blog.) Instead John began with, "I don't know anything about the venture, but I'll declare in ignorance that anyone who is involved is childish." Critics and skeptics? Not a problem. People who insult the intellectual abilities of other people without evidence? I'm not interested in wasting my time on them. And, your "super secret fan club" comment betrays unwarranted hostility. I've offered to give the password to anyone who asks for it, and I encourage everyone I give it to to pass it on. No charge, no strings attatched, just agree to respect privacy. I've given the password to a dozen people I didn't even know existed 5 days ago. Kendall, "Now the issue fo the public announcement of it is one I would agree with. Generally announcing that you're going to have a private get together, and doing so publicly is bad form, an issue of manners." Just a quick correction. I didn't announce it publicly. I put an announcement on Diana's (private) OBlogger list, and I told a couple dozen people I know. I asked people to pass the word on. The blog is blocked from being picked up by google searches. I'm trying to make it as private as possible while still alerting its existence to as many people as possible. The whole point is for Objectivists to pool their collective wisdom on activism and persuasion, so the more the better. To everyone who objects to my privacy policy. PLEASE BE CONSISTENT. The OAC, HBL, and Diana's OBloggers list all have similar privacy conditions; those hostile to Objectivism need not apply. Will you all now start threads denouncing OAC as childish? Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate must be childish assholes just like me, because they don't let you into the OAC unless you sign something that says you won't share OAC info and material. But nope. I'm the jerk. I took my time to set something up that many people already find of value. I invited all of you to be part of it. So far we have two good discussion on spreading Objectivsm, one started by me, the other started by Diana. But Sophia, John, Tenure, none of you took one second to research the project before declaring the whole thing bullshit and anyone who benefits from it childish and irresponsible. Nice.

John, Toad, You're reading way too much into the privacy issue. I simply do not want certain people to benefit from this advice, and I am also aware that many Objectivists who would have constructive advice to share may not want to do so in a public forum for all to see. John, "Consider the one about providing factual refutations – Toad is correct, why on earth need a discussion of that be kept secret? “ZOMG! They know our counterarguments to their lies!” Err, so?" "I saw a group of people engaged in childish play-acting" Have you really? I don't recall sending you a password, so I'm doubtful that you saw much of anything. But your obnoxiousness is noted. You won't have to worry about my childish antics pulling you down in the future. If you ever warm up to the idea don't bother emailing me for info. To anyone who is interested but maybe a little skeptical - please send an email to the address listed on the blog and I'll answer your questions in as much detail as you need. That way if you decide to be rude you can at least do so based on some evidence.

Old Toad, Maybe you aren't familiar with blogs like this. They are dedicated to scouring the internet for comments made by Objectivists, mocking anything related to Ayn Rand. (I'm sure that's who is meant by "the other team," not potential 'converts.') I don't want any advice I trade with other Objectivists to be fodder for those types of people. Also, a lot of Objectivists, students for example, are concerned about anonymity. The privacy policy would allow them to post as they want without having to worry about who might be googling them. So I think the privacy policy is a good idea.

The general theme of the conference strikes me as being about culture, cultural change, intellectual activism. Something along those lines. There is a general session called something like "Cultural Change" given by Onkar Ghate and Yaron Brook. There's another called "Ayn Rand as Intellectual Activist." There were a few more along those lines, as well. Looks to be a good line up.

Why is Fox Business Network not respectable? I've only watched it a little, but it seemed like exactly the same thing as CNBC, just different faces.

Yes, wanting to be "free" to enslave black people is the same as wanting to be free of English taxes and impressment. Those glorious southerners were fighting against the "federal tyranny" of enforced emancipation. Let me guess, jws1776 is a libertarian.

The post is racist as well. "He is a Traitor for accepting a knighthood from a Holy Roman Emperor Bloodline Family" Why does the queen's bloodline matter? She can't control what her ancestors did hundreds of years ago.

Since Rand never saw or spoke to the Brandens after 1968, Ms. Branden isn't in a position to know anything about Rand's personality "till the end of her days." That Rand was miserable until her death is contradicted by the testimony of Leonard Peikoff, as well as Charles and Mary Ann Sures. As PARC proves, Barbara has been willing to lie about and distort the testimony of others, as well. PARC proves beyond any reasonable doubt that both Barbara and Nathaniel Branden have systematically lied about Rand. The case is overwhelming. So to take the testimony of Barbara Branden as reliable (or even worth considering) is a mistake, to say the least.

There are a lot of websites out there claiming to be about Objectivism; few are any good. This site ranges from bad to superficial to merely OK. Here is an example: Concepts are organized based on "similarity." Duh. Is there a theory which denies this? This paragraph tells you nothing important about Objectivism. And of course the last sentence is just plain false; people "waste their time forming arbitrary concepts" all the time. Ever hear of "god!?" Here is another: "Without an understanding of one's hierarchy of knowledge, it is possible to lose sight of some features of a concept." What is that supposed to mean? Nothing else on the website explains it. And who has tried to prove that logic doesn't exist? What would that even mean, that logic doesn't exist? Someone might try to claim logic is wrong or outdated, but that it doesn't exist? The whole site makes Objectivism look superficial. It's embarrassing. If you want to learn about philosophy, you should read something like W. T. Jones' A History of Philosophy. If you want to learn about Objectivist philosophy, you should study Rand's writing or OPAR, not random websites. If you need to link people to info about Objectivism, best to send them to The Ayn Rand Lexicon. If you need to point someone to a brief summary, link them to one written by real philosophers.

Related to this topic, see Tara Smith's recent paper in The Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, available online here.

I just read the article. While it cites data showing young evangelicals moving away from the Republican party, I don't see any data showing that those people are now supporting the Democrats.

Have you asked the .com people if they are willing to part with the address? I like ObjectivismOnline.

FYI to all interested: We've had two successful meetings so far, and our third is planned for mid-October. If you were reluctant to join before, the invitation is still open.

Indeterminism and quantum weirdness isn't thrust on us by facts or experiment, as too many physicists insist. You can read about a completely causal non-weird interpretation of QM here. Here is a link to an archive of Norsen's papers. And I'd agree too with Norsen, Harriman, and Bob Kolker; TEW is crank science. Two good books on this stuff, btw, are Quantum non-Locality and Relativity by Tim Maudlin, and Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics by J.S. Bell.

Not a Giuliani fan but... your post would sound like less of a rant if you spelled the man's name right. That would be G-i-u-l-i-a-n-i.

Objectivist physicist Travis Norsen deals with this kind of non-sense in this paper.

But this is evidence of a decline in the cultural power of socialism! Several decades ago, the academy was thoroughly and explicitly marxist/socialist. Now, according to you, they are all secretly socialist or socialist but they don't really know it. "As evidence that they really want full socialism and not just a mixed economy or a "social safety net," observe that no matter how many laws, regulations, and taxes the they get, it is never enough." This is evidence of no such thing, however. It is evidence that they want more regulations, more taxes, etc. When did Hilary Clinton or Robert Reich last advocate for government control of the means of production? They want the government to control health care. Do they want the government to control the computer industry? That's the difference between a mixed economy advocate (with an emphasis towards government control) and a socialist. At best, it's evidence for Peikoff's "ailing socialism" or whatever adjective he used. Remember, you wrote, "they really want full socialism and not just a mixed economy." That means, according to you, Hilary Clinton or whomever really wants the government to own the computer industry. blackdiamond, No one is saying, "Don't vote for a religious person." What has been said is, "Don't vote for a candidate (or party) who is going to further entwine religion and government." That's the voting part of the argument, at least.

Who are "they?" Who advocates explicit socialism, even if they don't name it that? I've not read "It Takes a Village." But I'm skeptical. How advocating increased social services make one a socialist and not a mixed economy pragmatist? Dorian, I've got my own copy of the constitution. It's irrelevent what is actually say and means if no one in government cares to enforce it. What happens when all three branches are dominated by those who think the first amendment doesn't forbid government support of religion?

Do you mean "socialism" literally? I don't think you'll have an easy time finding large numbers of academics who are in favor of socialism. Certainly, a majority are in favor of welfare, universal health care, etc. But that's not the same as being in favor of total government planning, i.e. socialism.

General comment: Peikoff's words were "are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner." How to quanitfy "frighteningly much sooner?" I say 20 years (subtract 10 for each word). That's five presidential elections. So president Gingrich followed by president Santorum followed by 1 term under a graduate of the Christian homeschool movement. Not out of the question, especially if the country keeps voting those types in because they are afraid the Dems will surrender to al-Queda. That progression wouldn't mean Christian stormtroopers knocking down doors, but it would be an America that is far from comfortable for certain citizens. It wouldn't be a comfortable place for homosexuals, and probably not atheists, either.

Why do you think the imposition of religion would require an amendment? The majority view amongst Christian nationalists is that there is a constitutional freedom of religion, but not necessarily a freedom from. So what happens if the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are dominated by judges who interpret the constitution as only protecting freedom of religion? States dominated by Christian nationalists, such as Texas, would be capable of imposing all kinds of religiously motivated laws. Since the thread is specifically on supporting the Democrats, let me mention this. Giuliani, McCain, and Romney have all promised more judges like Justices Alito and Roberts. As many commentators have noted, the current make up of the court is split down the middle with Kennedy a swing vote. Justice Stevens will be 89 when the next president takes office. If he dies during the next few years, and president Giuliani appoints another justice like Roberts, the court will be dominated by those who are persuaded by the freedom of religion theory. So maybe Rudy won't do much religiously motivated damage on the national level. But by appointing bad judges, he gives ambitious Christian nationalists more options on the state level.