Rebuilding The World Trade Center

[argive99]

Every now and then I punish myself by reading Arthur Silber's Light of Reason Blog. Silber is a Chriss Sciabarra clone and refers to himself as a 'contextual libertarian'. He despisees ARI and believes they are all dogmatic 'religous objectivists'. I read his blog for the same reason that I occasionally read Sciabarra's writing over at SoloHQ; to constantly remind myself of the difference between those who understand Objectivism and those who don't. One of Silber's latest posts is a discussion of the rebuilding of the World Trade Center. Silbur starts out accurately describing that the entire World Trade Center complex was built by the State Owned Port Authority. It is a state owned and run commercial complex financed by municiple bonds. Silber goes on to state that this is an example of state business collusion or what Ayn Rand called the 'New Facism.' Fair enough.

He finishes his piece by linking to three articles from Capitalism Magazine which are all on the theme that the building should be built bigger and more beautiful than the originals; that New York and the nation should reclaim two of its most beautiful structures. Silber lambastes the writers of these articles, Capmag, and by extension (allthough unnamed) everyone associated with Peikoff or ARI. His complaint is that the original Towers were not representative of true capitalism, and that the Capmag writers were idiots for not stating this. He concludes that these writers (and all of ARI by extension) have betrayed the legacy of Ayn Rand and this is further proof that we are all neo-conservatives (which is the theme of almost every post of his).

I know its a waste of time to argue with the arbitrary or the irrational, but is it me or did he totally miss the mark? The Capmag writers were not addressing the issue of the Trade Center's financing, only the philosophical issue of building tall, proud skyscrappers. It was understood that the towers are going to be rebuilt and in the context of state owned enterprises. This is wrong but this is the way things are now. To argue that the towers should be uncompromisingly tall and beautiful is not betraying Rand's legacy but applying it to the present context.

I'm wondering, should the main arguments and activist efforts with regard to the rebuilding of the World Trade Center be that they should be privatized or that they should be rebuilt in a non-apologetic or appeasing manner? Does Silber have a point (which I hate to give him credit for but I will if its right) or is he, as usual, arguing way out of context?

I could write more about Silber and his intellectual methodology (which I think is horrendously flawed) but I'll leave it at that.

Link to Silber's post:

http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P2104_0_1_0

Link to a great World Trade Center Design:

http://www.triroc.com/wtc/

[stephen_speicher]

Every now and then I punish myself by reading Arthur Silber's Light of Reason Blog. Silber is a Chriss Sciabarra clone and refers to himself as a 'contextual libertarian'. He despisees ARI and believes they are all dogmatic 'religous objectivists'. I read his blog for the same reason that I occasionally read Sciabarra's writing over at SoloHQ; to constantly remind myself of the difference between those who understand Objectivism and those who don't.

Next time you read one of these characters, just picture a clown with a big red nose and floppy shoes, minus the laughs. Works every time.

[AwakeAndFree]

Next time you read one of these characters, just picture a clown with a big red nose and floppy shoes, minus the laughs. Works every time. 

I read something similar when the Ayn Rand stamp was issued by the Post Office. ARI people were thrilled, and the TOC people said the Post Office was an evil monopoly that shouldn't have the right to produce stamps of Ayn Rand...

Idiots.

[RadCap]

This is a tangent, but speaking of stamps, I ran across an interesting site. Apparently you can get your stamps printed with your own photos, artwork, etc.. It costs more than just the 37 cents per stamp, but is good as a specialty item.

http://photo.stamps.com/

[Bryan]

Does Silber have a point (which I hate to give him credit for but I will if its right) or is he, as usual, arguing way out of context?

Silber is off base. Whether they are publicly or privately funded, the WTC will be rebuilt. Even if the funding for the construction project is of dubious morality, this does not mean that one cannot have an opinion for what the design of the building(s) should be.

[argive99]

This was inevitable from Silber. Rand's philosophy is now too 'flawed' especially in its false aesthetics, naive psychology and its failure to advocate anachro-capitalism. And of course all those ARI Objectivists are fools.

http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=2122_0_1_0_C

It seems the same pattern always follows. A person will spend years saying they are some version of enlightened Objectivist but that the philosophy needs to add this theory or correct that flaw, etc. Then, years later they come out and say they argree with Rand about some things but have realized that she was wrong about everything else. Followed ultimately by their complete denunciation of Rand and other Objectivists.

I'll lay money that Silber will be denouncing Rand inside of two years if not way sooner. I can see now why people despise the Brandens.

[Yes]

As an architect and a capitalist, I find it disheartening that the decisions of what is to replace the World Trade Center should be left to the whims of bureaucrats.

Such bureaucrats have spent an enormous amount of time bickering over details such as memorials, the Freedom Tower, rental space, etc. This is a prime example of the inability of bureaucrats to reach any semblance of a consensus on the final design of the complex.

I wish this project were totally privatized.

[Luke]

I read something similar when the Ayn Rand stamp was issued by the Post Office. ARI people were thrilled, and the TOC people said the Post Office was an evil monopoly that shouldn't have the right to produce stamps of Ayn Rand...

Idiots.

Bigger and better trade towers will cost more money. If that money is coming from taxpayers why is it so dumb to focus on that? The pyramids were built with slave labor. At the time would it have been moral to say, "These guys don't cost anything and can't fight back, so let's make them stay out here in the sun and build the biggest pyramid possible?"

[argive99]

Bigger and better trade towers will cost more money. If that money is coming from taxpayers why is it so dumb to focus on that? The pyramids were built with slave labor. At the time would it have been moral to say, "These guys don't cost anything and can't fight back, so let's make them stay out here in the sun and build the biggest pyramid possible?"

No one is saying that Silber was dumb for focusing on the state owned aspects of the Twin Towers. But Silber is an ass for denouncing the ARI (or Capmag) writers for arguing for big, beautiful skyscrapers in the context of the present reality of the Port Authourity. They own the land and they are going to build something there. So the writers were arguing for self-esteem made visable through architecture not self-loathing. Silber is an idiot for not recognizing the validity of such an argument, but then again Silber is just about the most idiotic, out of context thinker that has ever called himself an Objectivist.

Oh I forgot, he no longer thinks that Rand was all that special. After all she wasn't an anachro-capitalist:

http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=2122_0_1_0_C

Good riddance to another garbage 'intellectual'.

[WorthyLoverOfExistence]

He despisees ARI and believes they are all dogmatic 'religous objectivists'.

Sometimes people feel so insignificant and so powerless, that they have to attack big targets to give themselves a sense of pseudo-self esteem. The bigger the targets the better. I can't believe they think it could really work - it must be just a kind of "fidgity" thing they do to help evade the anxiety they feel about their inner emptiness, but I psychologize...

Thanks for the WTC URL.

[Maynard]

http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P2104_0_1_0

Thanks for linking to Silber's piece.

What he says (in this piece, but not in others) is well-nigh incontrovertible. To anyone here who doubts it, I advise you to read it - in full focus - particularly Ayn Rand's quote. You will see the difference between the conceptual mentality (which forms principles) and the anti-conceptual (which cannot see past concretes: "duh, Ayn Rand liked skyscrapers, they're the essence of achievement, so big skyscrapers are good, period! who cares who's paying for them, or whether there is any commercial reason to build them, or any of that other intellectual stuff - what are you, a cheese-eating appeasement monkey? If you don't agree, then look at this Cox and Forkim cartoon that explains it all....")

The intellectual disgrace of the Capitalism Magazine site is bottomless. When the site first appeared, is when I began having doubts about the intellectual quality of the current crop of young "Objectivists" ... and about other things.

So far, no one here has engaged Silber's argument (or dealt with the point of the poster here who made a trenchant reference to the excuses we might make for the Egyptian pyramids). Instead, we've had grousings about how Silber is an "idiot" because he left the reservation. I suppose Silber's point is unanswerable, since no one has answered it....

[Betsy]

The intellectual disgrace of the Capitalism Magazine site is bottomless. When the site first appeared, is when I began having doubts about the intellectual quality of the current crop of young "Objectivists" ... and about other things.

Talk about overgeneralization!

How about judging people as individuals -- which they are -- and losing the collective judgement and group-think?

[Charlotte Corday]

Link to a great World Trade Center Design:

http://www.triroc.com/wtc/

I think the discussion regarding Silber's article is fascinating. But, if I may, I'd like to shift the topic to purely aesthetic considerations -- and I trust I will not be accused of dropping context by doing so.

I viewed the link recommended by Argive99, and see that the design by Gardner and Belton is basically a rehash of the original Twin Towers.

Between 1970 and 1991, the Twin Towers were not only Manhattan's tallest buildings; they were also its ugliest. In their own way, they perfectly represented the product of a state bureaucracy: massive, unimaginative, tediously repetitive, and costly. They sat on the lower end of the city's previously majestic skyline like two thermometers in the mouth of a sick patient.

Political-economic issues aside, I abhorred the WTC’s blemish on the face of America’s greatest city. I particularly resented the fact that they replaced the magnificent Empire State Building as New York’s tallest structure. The Empire State Building was one of the great achievements of modern architectural design (before it descended into the grim plainness of the Bauhaus School). Its indentations, its set-back walls, its tapering summit -- each contributed to a triumphant, soaring beauty. I would have loved the building in any case, but the fact that it was also, for a time, the home of Objectivism’s first outreach organization added to its allure -- as did its key role in the movie King Kong.

If the government chooses to put up those same old boxes again, the new WTC will stand as an apt monument to the mentality of government: gray, dull and pointless.

[Som Guy]

Well I think it is silly to argue over how much the building will cost, and who is paying for it because we do not in fact know how they are going to pay for it. Will they use higher taxes, divert funds from some other government function, like subsidies. The only thing to do is hope that all that is spent is spent on building as close to a thing as there would be if it had been privatized.

[oldsalt]

It is my understanding that the real estate concern who had bought a 99 year lease of the towers (not long before they were attacked) is the party that will pay for the bulk of the building (part of which will be paid by the insurer). Most of the problems concerning the design have stemmed from this fact. The actual builder has had to contend with the State of New York and the Port Authority's ideas about the design. The State awarded the design to one guy and the developer has his own design. The builder has effectively ignored the design backed by the State, finally giving in enough to bastardize the developers design by sticking a symbolic "flame" to the top of their building. If all of that sounds confusing, blame Governor Pataki.

It's all a big mess.

By the way, the pyramids were not built by slave labor. This is a canard perpetuated by the biblical narative and has been refuted by the historical records in Egypt and by archaeological studies.

[Prae]

How about judging people as individuals -- which they are -- and losing the collective judgement and group-think?

of all the people i have met in my experience only a handful have been individuals. some seem to consciously give up their identities, others sub-consciously. but to say that all people are individuals seems like a generalization.

[Betsy]

of all the people i have met in my experience only a handful have been individuals. some seem to consciously give up their identities, others sub-consciously. but to say that all people are individuals seems like a generalization.

Are you saying that some individuals consciously give up their identities and other individuals do so subconsciously? If so, then they are not individualists.

But (with the exception of siamese twins who share a brain) everyone is an individual.

[Prae]

Are you saying that some individuals consciously give up their identities and other individuals do so subconsciously?  If so, then they are not individualists.

But (with the exception of siamese twins who share a brain) everyone is an individual.

what constitutes being an individual? from what i am reading from you i am lead to believe all one needs to do is be born without someone else physically attached to them. in that case i'm going to tell all of the people at church today that i was wrong about them. but then again i always did feel that refering to them as sheep felt wrong.

[order]

I'm wondering, should the main arguments and activist efforts with regard to the rebuilding of the World Trade Center be that they should be privatized or that they should be rebuilt in a non-apologetic or appeasing manner? Does Silber have a point (which I hate to give him credit for but I will if its right) or is he, as usual, arguing way out of context?

I don't think either of the options you present are worthwhile. Should the World Trade Center be privatized? Yes. The state has no business owning property in this manner. However, the state will never give up the WTC. It was and will be a tremendous source of income.

Should we argue about what is to be done with the site? No. Any public action with regard to the site would be an infringement on the rights of Larry Silverstein.

Larry Silverstein paid 3.2 billion dollars for a 99 year lease-hold on the World Trade Center. For all intents and purposes, the site belongs to him. The Port Authority gets their rent check every month, and Silverstein is responsible for everything else. He was responsible for managing the site in its entirety.

Despite the destruction of the towers, it’s still Silverstein’s responsibility to pay the ground rent. It’s his responsibility to collect the insurance from the destruction. And it’s his responsibility to use the insurance money to rebuild the site.

Who, then should decide what goes on that site? Grieving friends and families of victims? Residents of New York City? The city and state of New York? A New York Times poll? Americans west of the Hudson? Objectivist activists? No. Silverstein is the only individual equipped to make the decisions about how to rebuild, and if there is going to be any activism with regard to the site, it should be to exclude public involvement.

Roland Betts, chairman of the Ground Zero Site Committee for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation said, “I’m not sympathetic to Silverstein. I just said, look, you see this as your property. We see this as belonging to the citizens of New York and of the world.” It is this attitude that we should be fighting.

Just as a note to the whole aesthetic issue: Bigger, taller, better than ever, beautiful—all of these are not a primary concern. The WTC is an investment—a source of cashflow. Why do you think the PANYNJ leased it out? Why do you think Silverstein signed the lease? The site was poorly managed by the government. The rents were significantly below market. There was a great deal of money to be made. The rebuilding of the site should be focused on that end—maximizing rentable square footage and usability. Form will follow function.