Draft

[gnargtharst]

Eric Mathis writes: "...of the millions who devour Atlas Shrugged only a tiny percentage become full fledged Objectivists."

This is true. But unanimous, monolithic philosophic agreement isn't necessary for a cultural renaissance. Of the many who read John Locke, for example, only one grew up to be the third president of the United States. The majority of the population will always be ballast, for good or bad, regarding philosphic principles.

EM continues: "...as someone who spends hundreds of hours each year reading scholarly journals in philosophy, political science and economics, I see no evidence whatever of an Objectivist renaissance among academics."

Well maybe you're reading the wrong things. Maybe the influence hasn't reached your particular experience yet. Most journals cling to an editorial status quo; the more specialized, the more this effect applies. But the trend is there: Alan Gotthelf at University of Pittsburgh, Tara Smith's upcoming publication for [i forget the publishing company -- a prestigious academically-oriented book publisher. If somebody remembers please feel free to post it]. University chairs and departments endowed by Objectivists, the Anthem Fellowship Program and the Ayn Rand Business Library at Auburn [again, going by memeory here; feel free to correct if necessary]. The number of Objectivist students entering acedemia growing exponentially. This list could go on for quite a while...

EM: "But let us go ahead and suppose that Ayn Rand’s philosophy will grow three times as fast in its second 50 years as in its first -- where does that leave us?"

Assuming we could quantify such a thing, it would leave us 300% better off than in 1956. But why the supposition? What rationale justifies 3x as a measure?

Let's consider another example: let's suppose that computer memory available for home computer users increases 3 times faster in the 50-year period after 1980, as it did in the 50 years before 1980. At that rate people will be able to play Pac Man on their home computer well before the 22nd century!

Fact is, intellectual movements tend to simmer and ferment, and then progress in exponential bursts. The Renaissance did not produce great art and culture at a rate 3 times the progress of the dark ages, it exploded a hundred times that fast.

The industrial revolution didn't continue the rate of progress and wealth of previous ages, it surpassed previous ages' wealth in terms beyond description. Objectivism further improves on these movements, in its noncontradicotry alliance with reality. If you'd be interested in making a long-term bet, a la Simon and Ehrlich, about the future state of Objectivism, I'd be more than happy to take your money.

EM: "That would be like counseling Midas Mulligan to forget about Galt’s Gulch and spend his money giving away copies of Bastiat’s The Law..."

It would be like that, except for one thing: Midas Mulligan was a fictional character. His real-world creator, Ayn Rand, regarded Utopian fantasies as naive.

EM: "Call me selfish, but my philosophy is to free myself first."

You are free, Eric Mathis. Note the computer under your fingers and the uncensored message in front of your eyes.

Moose notes: "many more people are exposed to [Objectivsm] than there used to be. Well, any person with a basic knowledge of statistics can tell you that part of that is because the population has grown."

If the rate of population growth equalled the rate at which Ayn Rand's name is increasingly mentioned in the media, you wouldn't have had the elbow room to type that sentence.

From Moose: "Even so, many people who become somewhat familiar with it just let it slide off their backs, or even become adamantly opposed to it."

That's their problem, not mine. Historically, that same has been true of every new idea from anaesthesia to heavier-than-air flight. The existence of ballast doesn't tell me much about the direction of the ship.

From Moose: "If you need an example of this, go to [a sp. forum] and read the discussions [of "Objectivsm" and "Ayn Rand"].

Now why would I do that? I know idiots exist; I don't need to immerse myself in their culture.

[The Wrath]

Oh, that's just silly semantics. They agree with the principles of Objectivism, so they might just as well be called Objectivists.

[Eric Mathis]

This is true. But unanimous, monolithic philosophic agreement isn't necessary for a cultural renaissance. Of the many who read John Locke, for example, only one grew up to be the third president of the United States. The majority of the population will always be ballast, for good or bad, regarding philosphic principles.

[gnargtharst]

I read the above response by Eric Mathis, but could not read/understand a good bit of it. If you'd like to edit and repost, I'd be happy to respond when I get a chance.

[Eric Mathis]

I read the above response by Eric Mathis, but could not read/understand a good bit of it. If you'd like to edit and repost, I'd be happy to respond when I get a chance.

This is true. But unanimous, monolithic philosophic agreement isn't necessary for a cultural renaissance. Of the many who read John Locke, for example, only one grew up to be the third president of the United States. The majority of the population will always be ballast, for good or bad, regarding philosphic principles.

The writings of John Locke and the English libertarian “Cato,” were well known and highly regarded among the men of wealth and influence in the American colonies. Please offer some evidence that anything like this is taking shape with regard to Ayn Rand and those who have influence over modern American society.

Well maybe you're reading the wrong things. Maybe the influence hasn't reached your particular experience yet. Most journals cling to an editorial status quo; the more specialized, the more this effect applies. But the trend is there: Alan Gotthelf at University of Pittsburgh, Tara Smith's upcoming publication for [i forget the publishing company -- a prestigious academically-oriented book publisher. If somebody remembers please feel free to post it]. University chairs and departments endowed by Objectivists, the Anthem Fellowship Program and the Ayn Rand Business Library at Auburn [again, going by memeory here; feel free to correct if necessary]. The number of Objectivist students entering acedemia growing exponentially. This list could go on for quite a while...

Great! The growth of Objectivists entering academic positions and publishing in academic journals is both exciting and commendable. But it hardly suggests that there is a “renaissance” in Objectivism at the university level. I no longer have Lexus/Nexus access, but any real demonstration of the rise of Objectivism in academia would have to pass a comparison test of Lexis/Nexus five years ago with it today.

Assuming we could quantify such a thing, it would leave us 300% better off than in 1956. But why the supposition? What rationale justifies 3x as a measure?

My guess is that we will not be politically better off even if we have three times the number of Objectivists as we have today -- and if we are it will only be a matter of coincidence. Three times the number is still a very tiny percentage of the electorate and only a tiny percentage of those who exert influence over politics and popular culture.

Let's consider another example: let's suppose that computer memory available for home computer users increases 3 times faster in the 50-year period after 1980, as it did in the 50 years before 1980. At that rate people will be able to play Pac Man on their home computer well before the 22nd century!

Non sequitur. Just because there was a home computer revolution, it doesn’t follow that Objectivism will enjoy the same success. You still have not presented any compelling evidence that Objectivism is going to become the dominant philosophical model 30, 40 or even 50 years hence.

Fact is, intellectual movements tend to simmer and ferment, and then progress in exponential bursts. The Renaissance did not produce great art and culture at a rate 3 times the progress of the dark ages, it exploded a hundred times that fast.

The industrial revolution didn't continue the rate of progress and wealth of previous ages, it surpassed previous ages' wealth in terms beyond description. Objectivism further improves on these movements, in its noncontradicotry alliance with reality. If you'd be interested in making a long-term bet, a la Simon and Ehrlich, about the future state of Objectivism, I'd be more than happy to take your money.

The superiority of an idea is no guarantee of its success in popular culture. For example, the intellectual validity of theism was thoroughly refuted by the middle of the 18th century. But it’s still very much a part of our culture and shows no sign of going away.

It would be like that, except for one thing: Midas Mulligan was a fictional character. His real-world creator, Ayn Rand, regarded Utopian fantasies as naive.

I’m disappointed to hear that Rand thought that the heroes of her great novel were naïve.

You are free, Eric Mathis. Note the computer under your fingers and the uncensored message in front of your eyes.

If I’m free what happened to all that money I sent the IRS last month?

[punk]

I hate to go back to the stated topic...but....

The Army has missed its recruitment goals for the last three months straight. It missed April by 42%. My recollection is that it was actually missing the goals several months prior to that but revising the stated goals downward after the fact so that it could "meet" them (so the amount they missed by must have been smaller).

In some period of time if this trend continues the military is not going to have the manpower to continue to pursue all of its obligations.

It seems to me very clear that this is something of a referendum on the desire of the American people to pursue the Iraq War.

If the people do not support the war by being willing to fight in it, then the government is immoral to continue to fight it, and should begin pulling out.

[The Wrath]

Since when is morality defined by what the American people want? Pulling out of Iraq would be admitting defeat and would be seen as a victory for Islamofascism over the West. What's immoral isn't the fact that we're still fighting the war. What's immoral is the fact that we haven't blown the Middle East off the face of the earth.

[punk]

Well...

1. It is immoral to force people to fight in war (i.e. a draft is immoral)

2. It is immoral to keep an army in the field if it is undermanned and unable to function properly as a result

3. I think it is immoral at a certain point to maintain people in the military beyond their contractual obligations without a national emergeny. Even if you disagree with that you will agree that this is going to drive morale down and they are going to have to be let go eventually.

I guess 2 currently isn't the case but without some way to get people to fight we just have to wait for attrition to make 2 be the case.

I would think the moral thing to do would be to pull out before it was painfully obvious that 2 was the case.

Where do you plan to get the manpower from without a draft given that enlistments are down?

[The Wrath]

If we would fight a proper war, we wouldn't need anymore manpower. If Bush had decided to unleash the dogs of war instead of pussyfooting around like we have been, we could have easily destroyed the insurgence in less than a year. It's never too late to make the right decision.

[EC]

Yeah... Nuclear weapons!

Edited May 9, 2005 by Rational_One

[Eric Mathis]

Yeah... Nuclear weapons!

If nuclear weapons are the answer, why not reduce the entire U.S. armed forces to just a few missile launch crews?

[gnargtharst]

EM wrote: "The writings of John Locke and the English libertarian “Cato,” were well known and highly regarded among the men of wealth and influence in the American colonies. Please offer some evidence that anything like this is taking shape with regard to Ayn Rand and those who have influence over modern American society."

What evidence do you wish? It's a rather large order, if you want a thorough list. You want multi-millionaires? Monroe Trout. John McCaskey. You want top-500 NYSE and Nasdaq coporate heads? John Allison, BBT Bank. T.J. Rodgers, Cypress Semidonductor. You want eveidence of recent influence among businessmen in the tech sector? Just google "silicon valley" and "Ayn Rand", and get back to me after you've read the first thousand entries. Rand's influence among doctors? Small business owners? Within the culture at large? Just link to Ayn Rand News via Google, the link of which is provided on this site's homepage. Who else has influence in modern American society? University intellectuals? I've already pointed to O-ism's inroads into academia in previous posts. What is it you'd regard as "evidence", if not pages an pages of evidence?

EM continues: "...The growth of Objectivists entering academic positions and publishing in academic journals is both exciting and commendable. But it hardly suggests that there is a “renaissance” in Objectivism at the university level."

It hardly suggests this? Orders-of-magnitude greater numbers and quality of Objectivists teaching and publishing seems to suggest exactly that.

EM: "...I no longer have Lexus/Nexus access, but any real demonstration of the rise of Objectivism in academia would have to pass a comparison test of Lexis/Nexus five years ago with it today."

Well, then, I'll make this line of discussion easier: Access the LN database through whichever method you wish. When you show me that there has been no increase in academic tratment of Objectivism/Ayn Rand since Q2 2000, I will pay for your LN subscription.

EM: "...My guess is that we will not be politically better off even if we have three times the number of Objectivists as we have today -- and if we are it will only be a matter of coincidence."

Can you offer any reason why I should regard your "guess" as relevant here?

"Three times the number is still a very tiny percentage of the electorate and only a tiny percentage of those who exert influence over politics and popular culture."

The electorate do not have to be philosophers. Their teachers' teachers do. When there are three times more Objectivist professors in universities -- which looks to be inevitable within about 10 years -- we'll find out whether their influence is 3 times as much, or much more than that.

EM [referring to my example of the growth of home computer influence]: "Non sequitur. Just because there was a home computer revolution, it doesn’t follow that Objectivism will enjoy the same success."

Of course it was a non sequitur. That was its point. You had given an example wherein O-ist influence had prgressed at a certain rate for a certain time period, with the implication that it would then likely continue at that rate. My coutner-example illustrated that such are dangerous assumptions.

EM: "You still have not presented any compelling evidence that Objectivism is going to become the dominant philosophical model 30, 40 or even 50 years hence."

Of course I haven't. One does not "present compelling evidence" of the state of intellectual movements 50 years into the future. People have free will. Nothing man-made can be guaranteed for the future. I have, however, offered plenty of evidence that the Objectivist movement is growing. Financially, professionally, culturally.

EM: "I’m disappointed to hear that Rand thought that the heroes of her great novel were naïve."

You can attempt to attribute to me things I didn't say, all you want. Rand was clear: she regarded the culture as flawed but capable of correction. She regarded utopians as naive.

EM: "If I’m free what happened to all that money I sent the IRS last month?"

This topic -- whether or not we are free in our current culture -- has been done ad nauseum on this, and other, fora. I've said my piece on it elsewhere, and have nothing more to contribute here.

Let's close this digreesion -- for which I apologize to other forum mebers (I'm not that swift navigating the forum site, and realize I should have started another thread, but didnt' want to lose all the posting in a cyber-limbo mistake) -- with a challenge:

EM, you come up with some objective, exact, discrete measurements, by which you'd concede an either growing or waning influence of Objectivism in the culture. Present these terms here, including the time frame, and we'll bet $1.00, just like Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich did. At the designated date in the future, you present the evidence exactly as you agreed in the terms, and the winner walks away one dollar and considerable I-told-you-so rights richer.

Sound fair?

[A Kat]

I don't think the draft is going to happen. But if it does, and they decide to draft the ladies as well, I got a plan to get out of it. My friend and I have agreed to go put on a nice make-out show for the army recruiters so we get the boot for being icky lesbians. I know it sucks to fake reality, but if they're going to be stupid enough to continue to exclude people based on their sex lives I'm taking advantage of their stupidity. They don't have to know me and my buddy both dig the fellas...

On a more disturbing note, the draft may not be popular, but this idea of "national service" is. You know, the notion of taking young people out of high school or college and forcing them to "serve their country" in a non-military way, doing other pet projects for the government. A lot of people are in favor of this, even my own damn mom! I tried to explain to her that I own my life and that it's immoral for the government to make (yet another) claim on it, but she's of the mind that "we owe it to the nation to give back to the community", whatever that means. I think we should be focusing our energy on stopping the much more real possibility of this national service crap.

[Praxus]

If nuclear weapons are the answer, why not reduce the entire U.S. armed forces to just a few missile launch crews?

Simply because we need more nukes then that to use as a deterrent to Chinese and Russian aggression. We need a regular force, because sometimes it is in our interest to convert nations to Capitalist Republics instead of killing them all and irradiating their natural resources.

[Yes]

We need a regular force because it is always within our interests to defend ourselves against known, and ever-present, enemies of freedom, such as rogue Middle East states who sponsor terrorism.

I view our attacking such a rogue state and imposing a constitutional republic on them as being a consequence of our right to defend our self-interests.

That can be done with a sound strategy based upon principle, and with an all-enlisted armed force.

To impose a draft to achieve an end of "adequate recruitment" is akin to imposing slavery upon those drafted.

[Eric Mathis]

EM, you come up with some objective, exact, discrete measurements, by which you'd concede an either growing or waning influence of Objectivism in the culture. Present these terms here, including the time frame, and we'll bet $1.00, just like Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich did. At the designated date in the future, you present the evidence exactly as you agreed in the terms, and the winner walks away one dollar and considerable I-told-you-so rights richer.

Sound fair?

Once the answer "Objectivist" starts appearing in opinion polls at a rate greater than 2% in response to the question, "What is your political philosophy," then I'll concede that Ayn Rand's philosophy is making significant inroads into the culture. I’ll grant that pollsters may be reluctant to record such responses, so I’ll give an alternate measurement. If we designate governors, congressmen, senators and the president and vice-president as major politicians, then a significant measure of growing Objectivist influence would be the election of at least one percent of that number (five or six) running on explicitly Objectivist platforms.

I do not expect either event to happen in my lifetime, much less in 10 or 20 years. So I can’t really offer you a time frame in which you could reasonably collect on your bet.

[BurgessLau]

Once the answer "Objectivist" starts appearing in opinion polls at a rate greater than 2% in response to the question, "What is your political philosophy," then I'll concede that Ayn Rand's philosophy is making significant inroads into the culture.

Politics, as a branch of philosophy, is only the tip of an iceberg -- that is, only one, derivative branch of a whole philosophy. So, given that, I am puzzled about why you would choose the rise of a philosophy's political principles as the earliest proof of "significant inroads into the culture."

I am also perplexed about why you would choose polling as evidence. What does the number of people in a society have to do with a new, radical philosophy making "significant inroads into the culture"?

Perhaps, too, your comments would be clearer if you explain what you mean by "significant."

[Eric Mathis]

Politics, as a branch of philosophy, is only the tip of an iceberg -- that is, only one, derivative branch of a whole philosophy. So, given that, I am puzzled about why you would choose the rise of a philosophy's political principles as the earliest proof of "significant inroads into the culture."

I am also perplexed about why you would choose polling as evidence. What does the number of people in a society have to do with a new, radical philosophy making "significant inroads into the culture"?

Perhaps, too, your comments would be clearer if you explain what you mean by "significant."

Let’s review. The discussion began in Post #9 when Moose wrote, "I advocate starting our own island anyway." I agreed with Moose and offered the opinion that it would be easier to establish a politically free state outside the U.S. than convert a large nation to Objectivism. Since then quarqthart and I have been debating whether Objectivism has been growing at such a rate that it would have any political impact on our lives in the near future. Quarqthart says yes; I say no. quarqthart asked me to come up with “objective, exact, discrete measurements, by which you'd concede an either growing or waning influence of Objectivism in the culture.”

I chose to focus on political philosophy because unless a substantial portion of the population agrees with the practice of laissez faire, there will be no pressure on government to institute it. I never said that politics was “the earliest proof of ‘significant inroads into the culture.’" The point is not that politics precedes fundamental principles, but that laissez faire will remain only a pipe-dream so long as the larger population is antagonistic to it. I chose polling as a measure of change in ideas because it has some reliability as a barometer of popular opinion. If you would prefer some other "objective, exact, discrete measurement," then hit the reply button at the bottom of this post.

Now if it is possible for a new radical philosophy to make significant inroads into the culture without getting large numbers of adherents behind it, I’d like to know how. And if you need a definition of “significant,” I’ll offer this from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: “Having or likely to have a major effect.”

[BurgessLau]

Eric Mathis, thank you for the recapitulation. It is very clear and informative.

I have questions for you or anyone else in this thread.

Since then quarqthart and I have been debating whether Objectivism has been growing at such a rate that it would have any political impact on our lives in the near future. Quarqthart says yes; I say no. [...]

[bold added for emphasis, throughout these quotations]

I am confused by several points. First, here you say any political impact. That leaves the amount open in range from tiny (inessential) to pervasive (essential).

The point is not that politics precedes fundamental principles, but that laissez faire will remain only a pipe-dream so long as the larger population is antagonistic to it. 

Here, however, you are speaking of a wholesale, basic change -- in which the whole political system respects individual rights. That is not just any (no matter how small) impact; that is radical effect. I do not see how this discussion can be resolved without sticking to one or the other as an expectation to be gauged.

Next, I am unclear what you mean by "larger population" and similar terms. Do you mean the whole population? Only the sane adults out of prison? Only eligible voters? Only the eligible who regularly vote? Only regular voters who are "swing voters" and thus in a minority? Clarification is needed here because the numerical answers are very different for each question.

I chose polling as a measure of change in ideas because it has some reliability as a barometer of popular opinion.  If you would prefer some other "objective, exact, discrete measurement," then hit the reply button at the bottom of this post.

I understand now, thanks to your review, that you were responding to a specific challenge, but why would anyone in this thread seek a numerical indicator -- and only one, at that -- rather than survey the culture as a whole, perform philosophical detection on it, and then compare those results to results for the culture one or two philosophical generations ago?

Shouldn't any such survey focus not only on the dominant voices in the culture -- but also on the "extreme" voices as well? Even though extreme voices are, by definition, in the minority, one can gauge the direction of a culture by the growth or recession of its extreme voices. Communists, among many others, have a voice in our culture today; so do Objectivists. Which voice is rising? Which voice is shrinking? Answers could be indicators of a future direction of their respective agendas.

Now if it is possible for a new radical philosophy to make significant inroads into the culture without getting large numbers of adherents behind it, I’d like to know how.

Here you speak of inroads. What I find confusing, again, is the cycling back and forth between tiny and radical change. An "inroad" is the start of something; it is not the wholesale, radical result years later. Which is the issue? Is it an evaluation of evidence of the start of change that might lead someday to wholesale change -- or is it an evaluation of evidence of wholesale change in a given timeframe?

And if you need a definition of "significant,” I’ll offer this from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:  “Having or likely to have a major effect.”

I asked about the meaning of "significant." Of course, a dictionary "definition" that actually only offers "major" as a synonym for "significant" is merely shifting the question. That question remains: What constitutes "significant/major" change? Would it be measured numerically, somehow, or would it be assessed in terms of essentials of the political system, culture, or society overall?

Will there be a draft in the U. S. in the next few years? This whole discussion about Objectivism's effect, if any, does prepare us to answer that question. But of course the success or failure of Objectivism will have far wider effects than only on young men and women -- and the would-be slave masters who want to use them as cannon fodder for crusades of various sorts.

The issue is not will we have laissez-faire in the next generation versus the situation is hopeless. Instead, the issue is this: Are there objective grounds for hope that, if present trends (both good and bad) continue, our lives will improve in the next generation or so?

I hope that anyone who believes the answer to the last questions is a "no" will start a new thread discussing the only alternative offered so far: Starting a new country somewhere. (I did a search for "new country" and found no thread, but then again my search skills are poor.)

[Eric Mathis]

Eric Mathis, thank you for the recapitulation. It is very clear and informative.

I have questions for you or anyone else in this thread.

I am confused by several points. First, here you say any political impact. That leaves the amount open in range from tiny (inessential) to pervasive (essential).

Here, however, you are speaking of a wholesale, basic change -- in which the whole political system respects individual rights. That is not just any (no matter how small) impact; that is radical effect. I do not see how this discussion can be resolved without sticking to one or the other as an expectation to be gauged.

I should be more specific. I do not doubt that individual Objectivists can, as a part of a much greater whole, affect public policy. So, of course, Objectivism will have some political impact to the good -- and has done so already. Martin Anderson, one of Nixon’s advisors was an Objectivist, and helped influence the change in draft policy in the 1970s. What I question is 1) that the United States is going to reverse direction and take major steps towards laissez faire capitalism in the near future (20-30 years), and 2) that the Objectivist philosophy will be a major factor in that radical change.

Next, I am unclear what you mean by "larger population" and similar terms. Do you mean the whole population? Only the sane adults out of prison? Only eligible voters? Only the eligible who regularly vote? Only regular voters who are "swing voters" and thus in a minority? Clarification is needed here because the numerical answers are very different for each question.

I meant the majority of voters or a voting bloc large enough to regularly affect the outcome of elections and push the nation steadily towards laissez faire.

I understand now, thanks to your review, that you were responding to a specific challenge, but why would anyone in this thread seek a numerical indicator -- and only one, at that -- rather than survey the culture as a whole, perform philosophical detection on it, and then compare those results to results for the culture one or two philosophical generations ago?

Shouldn't any such survey focus not only on the dominant voices in the culture -- but also on the "extreme" voices as well? Even though extreme voices are, by definition, in the minority, one can gauge the direction of a culture by the growth or recession of its extreme voices. Communists, among many others, have a voice in our culture today; so do Objectivists. Which voice is rising? Which voice is shrinking? Answers could be indicators of a future direction of their respective agendas.

As I’ve said before, I have not seen any evidence that Objectivism is a rising voice in our culture. It certainly was a rising voice 1957-1968, but only because there was no Objectivism pre-1957. Is it growing at the same pace as it did in its first decade? I think not.

Here you speak of inroads. What I find confusing, again, is the cycling back and forth between tiny and radical change. An "inroad" is the start of something; it is not the wholesale, radical result years later. Which is the issue? Is it an evaluation of evidence of the start of change that might lead someday to wholesale change -- or is it an evaluation of evidence of wholesale change in a given timeframe?

I asked about the meaning of "significant." Of course, a dictionary "definition" that actually only offers "major" as a synonym for "significant" is merely shifting the question. That question remains: What constitutes "significant/major" change? Would it be measured numerically, somehow, or would it be assessed in terms of essentials of the political system, culture, or society overall?

“Significant/major” change would be reducing government to its size (relative to the population) prior to World War I. I have seen no evidence that we have are witnessing “the start of change that might lead someday to wholesalechange” within my lifetime.

Will there be a draft in the U. S. in the next few years? This whole discussion about Objectivism's effect, if any, does prepare us to answer that question. But of course the success or failure of Objectivism will have far wider effects than only on young men and women -- and the would-be slave masters who want to use them as cannon fodder for crusades of various sorts.

The issue is not will we have laissez-faire in the next generation versus the situation is hopeless. Instead, the issue is this: Are there objective grounds for hope that, if present trends (both good and bad) continue, our lives will improve in the next generation or so?

I hope that anyone who believes the answer to the last questions is a "no" will start a new thread discussing the only alternative offered so far: Starting a new country somewhere. (I did a search for "new country" and found no thread, but then again my search skills are poor.)

I would be glad to share my thoughts on founding a laissez faire nation or enclave within a nation. However, most of the work in this area is being done by libertarians, and I believe there is some forum prohibition on linking to such sites.

[gnargtharst]

"2%" is specific and discrete. But not many of the other terms are.

"Polls"? Just any polls? Are there specific criteria? Gallup Corporation? Minimum sample? I'm not trying to get too tricky here, but there has to be some specificity as to the polling, or else I could simply post a poll here at this forum and collect my $1 immediately.

However, these details are stillborn because of one other major flaw I'd not concede: calling one's political philosophy "Objectivist".

I'm an Objectivist and I don't even call my political philosophy Objectivist. I'd refer to it as "Capitalist", or "Freedom", or "individual rights-respecting", etc.

Do you have another suggestion about a specific poll answer?

I'm already daydreaming about how I'll spend my $1!

[Eric Mathis]

"2%" is specific and discrete. But not many of the other terms are.

"Polls"? Just any polls? Are there specific criteria? Gallup Corporation? Minimum sample? I'm not trying to get too tricky here, but there has to be some specificity as to the polling, or else I could simply post a poll here at this forum and collect my $1 immediately.

I had previously admitted that polls would likely be imperfect and offered as an alternate measure the number of major politicians with an Objectivist political outlook elected to office. If you want “Objectivist political outlook” defined, I’d say open agreement with both the rationale and policy recommendations of Objectivists on at least eight of the following:

1. Abolish all business regulatory bureaux, including the ICC, FTC, EPA, Anti-Trust Divison, etc.

2. Reinstate the gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve and all banking regulation.

3. Repeal all labor legislation including minimum wage, OSHA, right to work, child labor, etc.

4. End federal regulation of the airwaves and of the communications industry.

5. Abolish all federal laws with respect to gender and racial quotas and considerations.

6. Abolish the federal income tax and all other federal taxes.

7. Abolish all federal welfare payments, housing subsidies and job training/employment programs.

8. Abolish all federal subsidies to corporations, farmers, artists, small businesses and foreign countries.

9. End all federal subsidies to education.

10. Sell off all federal assets that compete with private industries, such as the Post Office, Amtrack, recreational facilities, etc.

Even that yardstick, I admit, has drawbacks; that is why I asked for a mere one percent of all major politicians in the U.S.

[gnargtharst]

Okay, this bet thing is getting a tad off-track. What I asked for was some/any criteria by which you'd acknowledge the growth of Objectivism in the culture. You not only gave the criteria --Objectivist politicians -- but a "level" (2%) to reach. Wouldn't you agree that the election of any major politician with O-ist principles was a sign that it's growing in the culture? (Especially with politicians, which as BurgessLaughlin pointed out, would suggest that it's become so influential in the culture that it's reached all the way to the politicans) Further, aren't these rather subjective/difficult to prove criteria -- not only a policy but a policy motivated by philosophically consistent principles. This paves the way for a future argument along the lines of "Sure Candidate X advocates lowering taxes but he's just pandering to altruist sentiments among the wroking class..." etc.

I was thinking something more along the lines of: 5 years from today, will there be more Objectivsts -- let's say those whose works are offered for sale through ARI or some subsidiary -- inhabiting philosophy departments at important schools (defined as any of the following X # of schools), etc.... or will there be fewer?

Or: In 5 years, will respectable academic publishers like Cambridge University Press, or Oxford University Press, publish more, or less, titles by O-ists containing the phrases "Ayn Rand", "Objectivism", "Objectivist", etc.

These kinds of criteria indicate important inroads into the culture and they are easy to quantify (e.g., for my second example, there are 0 such books today; 1 or more books published within 5 years would win me my $1).

[Eric Mathis]

Okay, this bet thing is getting a tad off-track. What I asked for was some/any criteria by which you'd acknowledge the growth of Objectivism in the culture. You not only gave the criteria --Objectivist politicians -- but a "level" (2%) to reach. Wouldn't you agree that the election of any major politician with O-ist principles was a sign that it's growing in the culture?

I would indeed. That is why my bet stipulated major politicians in “agreement with both the rationale and policy recommendations of Objectivists”

Further, aren't these rather subjective/difficult to prove criteria -- not only a policy but a policy motivated by philosophically consistent principles. This paves the way for a future argument along the lines of "Sure Candidate X advocates lowering taxes but he's just pandering to altruist sentiments among the wroking class..." etc.

When I called for one per cent of politicians in agreement “with both the rationale and policy” of Objectivism, I pretty well ruled out any pandering to altruist sentiments.

I was thinking something more along the lines of: 5 years from today, will there be more Objectivsts -- let's say those whose works are offered for sale through ARI or some subsidiary -- inhabiting philosophy departments at important schools (defined as any of the following X # of schools), etc.... or will there be fewer?

In five years time there could be ten times the number of Objectivists in philosophy departments at “important” schools -- and we may be sliding even further down the road to tyranny. And this is the central question in the debate. Since the first page of this thread I have argued that achieving a laissez faire society in a new country is more likely than making sufficient cultural/political change in the U.S. to bring about a free society here. So what if we experience a rise in professional Objectivist intellectuals? That no more indicates a forthcoming Objectivist America than the rapid growth of atheism among intellectuals in the 20th century prefigured an abandonment of religion among the populace.

These kinds of criteria indicate important inroads into the culture and they are easy to quantify (e.g., for my second example, there are 0 such books today; 1 or more books published within 5 years would win me my $1).

An “inroad” into the culture does not necessitate future widespread acceptance or even influence over those with any clout in society. General Semantics, for example, made a sensation in academia and even popular fiction in the 1940s and 1950s and then came to a dead end. Yes, you can argue that G.M. is false and Objectivism is true. But the truth of an idea is no guarantor of its success. Compared to classical liberalism, Marxism was a farrago of falsehoods and contradictions -- but it enjoyed enormous success in its first 100 years.

[Ordr]

Rangel is, once again, trying to reinstate the draft; perhaps hoping for more support now that Obama is in office. It seems to go hand-in-hand with the fascistic "national service" plans that Obama and Emmanuel have advocated.