Unhappy About US Politics? Then Fight Back!

Current Events Domestic United States Politics
1

I’m going to say something that may anger some people on this forum, but here goes. This is a slightly edited version of a comment I posted on Diana’s NoodleFood blog about the new Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC):

The ARC is a major new project for the ARI, and I hope it does well. Those of us who want to live in a free society someday should do our best to support it.

Of course, the ARC needs financial support, but at least as important (if not more important) is people willing to express and defend good ideas to the general public, whether it be in casual lunchtime conversation at work, posting comments on non-Objectivist blogs or the mainstream online news articles, writing letters to the editor of your local newspaper, or (for those so inclined) longer OpEds and/or articles.

As Yaron Brook said in his OCON 2008 lectures on cultural changes, the bad guys won because they were willing to express their ideas – i.e., “they wrote and they wrote and they wrote”.

I’m going to make a blunt statement which will piss off a few Objectivists:

[/soapbox on]

Most Objectivists who engage in online discussion forums directed towards other Objectivists are doing essentially

NOTHING

to further their values. Yes, it may be fun, but it accomplishes zero. On the other hand, saying those exact same things in the appropriate venue/context to non-Objectivists could plant the seeds of good ideas in active minds who will make a difference.

So if you see a news story that irks you, it’s fine to mention it in an online Objectivist discussion group, and vent about those bad ideas to a friendly audience. But don’t stop there. As Ayn Rand said, in “What Can One Do?” in

Philosophy: Who Needs It

, the most important thing you can do is to

“SPEAK”

. Tell other non-Objectivists that those bad ideas are wrong and that there is a positive rational alternative that is actually good for their lives that fits their American sense of life. Find a context in which you are comfortable articulating and defending your values.

If Americans in 1941 after Pearl Harbor just sat around and said, “Those Japanese are terrible; we’re in bad shape; boy, this sure sucks”, then we’d still be facing the Japanese Empire in the Pacific. Instead, they said “We’re going to fight back!”

And of course they won.

Similarly, if you want to live in a better world in 20-40 years, you can start fighting for it now. Fight back against the mystics and collectivists in the field of intellectual battle where it counts – in the public sphere. We have the better ideas – we just have to be willing to defend them. That’s how the anti-slavery abolitionists in the early 1800’s won - they had the right ideas and they were willing to articulate them over and over again. It was their combination of the right ideas and their

persistence

that led to their victory.

On the other hand, if you waste all your time preaching to the choir, then don’t be surprised if you look back in 40 years and realize that the 2008 choice of McCain vs. Obama looked fabulous in retrospect compared to the horrors of 2048.

This is not to criticize Objectivist forums and discussion groups per se – they serve a valuable purpose in helping Objectivists exchange ideas, refine one’s understanding, and correct confusions. But don’t stop there.

If you value your life, then speak and defend your ideas as if your life depended on it. Because in the long run, it will…

[/soapbox off]

Just as one example currently in the news, if you think this proposed $700 billion bailout is bad, it will take you less than 5 minutes to send your Senators and Representative a one-line e-mail saying, “I oppose the bailout”. You can find contact information for your elected officials as well as samples of longer letters here.

There are many intelligent on this forum who understand the principles of Objectivism extremely well and are able to articulate them clearly. If you’re one of them and you have 10,000 posts to your name here, but you haven’t written a single letter-to-the-editor to your local newspaper or to your elected officials, then you may wish to ask yourself if you are really making the best use of your valuable free time.

To those who have been fighting in the public sphere to defend reason, reality, egoism, individual rights, and capitalism – you have my deepest thanks.

To those who want to fight but don’t know how, I’d recommend that you read (or re-read) Ayn Rand’s classic essay “What Can One Do?” in Philosophy: Who Needs It. I also highly recommend the 3-part lecture series by Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate on the main page of the ARI website entitled, “Cultural Movements: Creating Change”. The third lecture in particular gives numerous concrete suggestions on how one can effectively fight for a culture of reason.

To those who say, “We’re living in a cultural sewer; we’re doomed; there’s nothing to be done” and therefore choose to do nothing, my only response is the one that Hank Rearden gave to the cowardly businessmen in Atlas Shrugged: “I regret that I shall be obliged to save your goddamned necks along with mine”.

If you aren’t comfortable writing and speaking on your own, you can always steer people towards already-existing good content on the websites for the ARI, the ARC, the The Objective Standard, or non-Objectivist publications like Forbes that carry excellent columns by Yaron Brook and other Objectivists. This leverages the work already done by other Objectivists. When appropriate, post a brief comment on a relevant newspaper article website or non-Objectivist blog post that links to one of these Objectivist OpEds or articles.

(For example something like, "The free market is not to blame for the current banking crisis. Instead, it was caused by government policies, as described by Yaron Brook in this recent Forbes article ‘The Government Did It’ at www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html "

We still have a legitimate shot at winning this battle of ideas. But time is running short. The ARI believes we may only have about 20 years to start turning the culture around.

As in all areas of life, if we want to attain any goals we have to act to achieve them. Each of has to decide in the context of his or her life how and in what fashion they wish to fight for their values. But it is in your own self-interest to do so. The rest is up to you.

2

Another thing you can do if you use Facebook/LinkedIn/MySpace/YouTube, etc is add Objectivist groups to your profile and monitor and repost their content on your profile.

3

A sincere thanks for a kick in the pants, Mr. Hsieh. Your assertiveness gives me hope for the possibility of a brighter future, and inspires me to take it into my own hands as far as I am able.

4

Paul,

Your post gets at something I was just thinking yesterday. That was a really good post. Cheers.

5

Most Objectivists who engage in online discussion forums directed towards other Objectivists are doing essentially NOTHING to further their values.

I don’t agree with this. There are lots of people here who are new to the philosophy and an argument here or there can help them along. They are coming here to find answers and it’s important to provide good ones. In addition, I get value from interacting with other Objectivists. It fuels my soul to know there are others out there fighting the same fight and I learn by example how others apply the philosophy.

I like to think, for instance, my discussions on global warming haven’t been in vain.

The way I view it, the bigger these online discussion groups become the better, assuming Objectivism is being discussed. If this were a ghost town I’d be concerned for our future.

Other than that, I’m with you and appreciate your passion. I am very much proactive on non-Objectivist forums. For example, during the recent McCain-Obama debate I was on a chat group with other strangers who were listening to the debate and in the context of the chat I was able to bring up Ayn Rand and individual rights. I recommended reading her arguments. Lots of people were communicating with me in the process. I sometimes post Objectivist arguments on Little Green Footballs and I post occasional ARI press releases. I try to bring things up in the context of the discussions, so that they make sense to others. I even bring up such arguments in the context of non-political/philosophical forums. Rest assured, I’m very much interested in seeing the ideas spread and I do what I can where it makes sense to me to do so.

6

There is a lot to be said here. I agree that the first truly productive thing that someone who is interested in fighting for Objectivist values in our society can do is the sort of advocacy Paul describes–and it is true there is some benefit in even “micro” advocacy if you don’t have access to even the letters page of your newspaper.

That having been said, these forums do have a great deal of value because they give people a place to themselves learn (very important–no point in heading off to the front line with no combat skills), recuperate, etc. Think of them as behind-the-front-lines support. This is proper in its context but one must remember the real, directly mission-oriented work is done elsewhere.

For my part, I got burned out on advocacy back when I was a Libertarian; and haven’t found my gumption yet to head for the front lines (I suspect it’s coming, though; I am finally getting irate enough to think about advocacy). Meanwhile, though, to carry the “front lines” analogy a little further, I am on the “home front” giving not inconsiderable amounts of money to those who manufacture munitions for the fighters. (I suspect most on this forum are just getting started in life and have more energy than money; I am well over twenty years into my productive life and the reverse is true right now, more money than gumption. I am working towards having energy, time and money. ALL are useful.)

7

Thank you Paul, your point is an excellent one.

8

I’ve been worried about the echo-chamber effect. That’s when you only, or mostly, talk and have discussions with people who share your views. It can also lead to working up a rage because we all can see what’s wrong and yet things keep going wrong.

So, let’s try something useful: what websites do you all recommend?

I’ve no recomendations, yet. I’ve psoted now and then in blogs like LGF and Michelle Malkin, but to little effect. The threads sie down or are pushed down too quickly, and the regulars are busier with witticisms among themselves. I haven’t tried emailing the bloggers themselves, though.

IN any case I think discussion board with a format similar to this one are better places to post on a daily basis. Better yet would be to get a moderator or admin post in one, but that’s extra. So, any recomendations?

9

I’ve been worried about the echo-chamber effect. That’s when you only, or mostly, talk and have discussions with people who share your views. It can also lead to working up a rage because we all can see what’s wrong and yet things keep going wrong.

So, let’s try something useful: what websites do you all recommend?

I’ve no recomendations, yet. I’ve psoted now and then in blogs like LGF and Michelle Malkin, but to little effect. The threads sie down or are pushed down too quickly, and the regulars are busier with witticisms among themselves. I haven’t tried emailing the bloggers themselves, though.

IN any case I think discussion board with a format similar to this one are better places to post on a daily basis. Better yet would be to get a moderator or admin post in one, but that’s extra. So, any recomendations?

I don’t think it’s a waste of time on LGF. Getting the ideas out there a piece at a time is a way to do it and the regulars there are more interested in ideas than your average Joe. Also, you can post links there, including to your own blog. If the link is appreciated, it’ll get a higher rating and be noticed by more people.

I can say that I’ve definitely reached a few people on various forums. I even changed one guy from a leftist to an Objectivist. This was on a computer graphics forum. I wasn’t trying to change him, btw, he was just impressed with my arguments concerning America’s self defense against Islamo-fascists.

However, I do have one general recommendation. Maybe use this website as Grand Central Station for a letter writing campaign. Pick a subject to write about every week or so and have several of us send in our own letters to newspaper X or senator Y, and then come back here and report that it’s been done. Perhaps even post our letters here. That way this place becomes more proactive about spreading the ideas. It’d be a way of harnessing the power of the forum. Maybe have a competition for the letter that gets the most play. We could call it Objectivism Online Campaign of The Week.

That’s my two cents. :stuck_out_tongue:

10

I hear you, Dr. Hsieh, point well taken. I want to remind people that this can be done as simply as just talking to people you see every day. I know this can seem difficult because, speaking for myself at least, I’m an introvert, and I know many other of us are as well. It’s also tough not to make people feel like you are trying to sell them something or proselytize them. I like to do little things here and there like just saying, “I don’t agree, and here’s why” or, “Did you ever think maybe it seems like a contradiction because one of the premises is wrong?” or just encouraging people to think things through logically, all the way through. Just talking to people on a casual basis day-to-day can plant seeds like you wouldn’t believe. It’s not going to make people Objectivists, necessarily, but it can certainly remind them that their reason is there to be used. Even if they fire back at you, the honest ones will be using their reason to do so and may go, “Hey, you know what, I hadn’t thought of it that way” in mid-challenge.

11

Thanks for all the replies. I’d like to respond to some of the excellent points that have been raised:

  1. First, I didn’t engage in any sort of public outreach until about two years ago, when Lin Zinser started the FIRM project (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) here in Colorado, to oppose the big bipartisan push to impose socialized medicine (aka “universal health care”) in our state. I have no formal training in writing. Before 2007, I’d frequently see news stories espousing all sorts of bad ideas on economics, health care, environmentalism, crime/law, etc., and just feel frustrated with the state of the culture and powerless to do anything about it.

But after the supporters of the FIRM project spent much of 2007 and early 2008 speaking and writing against socialized medicine and seeing our efforts pay off (resulting in the eventual derailment of the statists’ plans), it made me realize that principled defense of Objectivist ideas could have a positive effect in the real world. A small group of people were able to shift the debate from, “What kind of new government programs do we need?” to “Should we have any new government programs at all?”. Although we didn’t persuade everyone, the idea of free market health care reform became a legitimate part of the debate, and we had an influence far out of proportion to our small numbers. Both supporters and opponents of our views told Lin and others in FIRM that we were influential in the debate. So this is the context from which I am writing.

  1. My post was not meant as a criticism of Objectivist discussion forums per se, such as this one. As I mentioned earlier, internal discussions between Objectivists can be valuable in helping disseminate good ideas amongst Objectivists, and helping Objectivists better understand points of difficulty and/or potential confusion. And I certainly recognize and respect the value of the spiritual fuel one gets from discussing ideas with a friendly audience that shares one’s philosophical context.

  2. Behind-the-scenes support is also extremely valuable. I know Steve D’Ippolito from his involvement in the various Front Range Objectivism activities and I can personally attest to the ample intellectual, moral, and material support he gives behind the scenes to those who are spreading good ideas in a more visible fashion. I want to publicly commend him for that support.

  3. On multiple occasions, I’ve seen an Objectivist post something to an Objectivist discussion group about some typical bad mainstream news story on, say, environmentalism. He’ll offer his own analysis as to what’s wrong with the story and also articulate an insightful response to the bad ideas. And it will be a good piece, cutting through to the essential point in a way that conservatives and liberals are incapable of doing.

In that case, my gut reaction is: “That’s excellent! But don’t stop there. You should send your write-up to the newspaper where that story originally appeared, not just in a forum for other Objectivists!”

If you have already done the hard work of coming up with a clear, concise analysis of an issue and posting it to some place like OO.net, then the additional work involved in e-mailing it to the letters section of the newspaper is trivial in comparison. Plus you’ll gain far more visibility for your ideas and get a lot more “bang” for the intellectual “buck” you’ve already expended.

  1. Composing a short letter intended for the general public is an excellent way of helping refine one’s own understanding of an issue. Until I started doing my own writing aimed at a general audience, my understanding of some important issues in Objectivism (such as the nature of rights) was still a bit “floating”. But when I started writing short letters (and later longer OpEds) on why health care is not a right, it forced me to really get a handle on this issue and it helped me solidify my understanding.

As in any field of study, you don’t really understand a concept (such as how the bubblesort algorithm works or how an airplane wing generates lift) until you can explain it to others. So if gaining a greater understanding of Objectivist ideas is important to you, public advocacy of those ideas is an excellent way of making those ideas clearer to yourself as well as to others, just like doing the homework problems for college Physics 101 was a good way to really get a grasp on the central concepts covered in the lectures in physics class.

  1. Public advocacy is not any kind of grim painful “duty”, and should not be viewed as such. Instead, it should be viewed as an opportunity to further one’s self-interest. My purpose is not to lay any kind of guilt trip on those who don’t engage in public advocacy. Everyone has to decide how and what fashion they wish to further their values in the context of their lives.

But I do wish to argue that those who have 10,000 posts to their name here on ObjectivismOnline (and who have generally written excellent material), but who never speak out to articulate those same ideas to non-Objectivists are probably not acting in their self-interest as effectively as they could. I’m not saying that they should completely stop posting to OO.net and spend all that time engaging in public advocacy. But they may wish to consider re-allocating some fraction of their time from speaking solely to Objectivists into venues where non-Objectivists will also hear their good ideas.

From personal experience, I can attest to the rewards of this sort of external advocacy – in particular in seeing one ideas persuade others and having a positive effect on the culture. One also gains a respect for others’ rationality and for mankind in general when one sees that there are still people open to reason. Seeing one’s ideas spread successfully in the public sphere goes a long ways towards dispelling the pessimism and powerlessness that one might otherwise feel (and that I felt prior to 2007).

  1. I haven’t followed Thales’ discussions of global warming on this forum, so I can’t comment about his specific work. But as a general observation, if one’s discussion of ideas here results in some direct or indirect spread of those ideas into the wider culture, then I’m all for it. So I certainly hope that anything Thales has written here and elsewhere percolates out to others.

But if one’s discussion of ideas here does not eventually reach non-Objectivists in the wider culture in some form, then unfortunately it accomplishes nothing. It would be as if one wrote a steady stream of eloquent material for one’s own blog that was read by a small circle of friends, but those ideas were never circulated outside of that circle. Yes, it may be fun, and yes, one may have gained some personal satisfaction from the exercise. But could he say that he actually did anything to advance values that were important to him? Did he actually spent that block of time as optimally as he could have?

  1. Various forms of “micro-activism”, such as the one-on-one discussions mentioned by themadkat are also extremely valuable. One does not have to be writing lengthy articles or churning out OpEds in order to fight for one’s values. The important thing is to speak out in whatever fashion and venue best suits one’s temperament in the full context of one’s life. And once you become known as having well thought-out views on various subjects, active-minded people will naturally gravitate towards you to seek your insights on other difficult subjects that they are wrestling with.

  2. If you are interested in public advocacy of Objectivist ideas, but would like further assistance in formulating arguments, etc., please consider joining the OActivists mailing list. This list is intended to allow others to exchange ideas on how to make good arguments, share examples of letters and essays intended for the general public, discuss effective stategies for spreading good ideas, and alert each other to opportunities to engage in this sort of activism.

More information can be found here:

<http://www.olist.com/oactivists/>

(Just bear in mind that the OActivists list is not intended to duplicate general discussion forums such as OO.net – instead, the purpose is to facilitate outreach by Objectivists to non-Objectivists.)

In conclusion, I thank everyone for their thoughtful responses. This thread is exactly the sort of discussion I hoped to elicit.

In a separate reply on this thread, I’ll also post some key excerpts from Rand’s essay, “What Can One Do?”. This was the framework from which I’m drawing much of my material, and I think others may find it helpful as well.

– PSH

12

[As mentioned earlier, here are some key excerpts from Ayn Rand’s essay, “What Can One Do?” in Philosophy: Who Needs It. I’m providing this as spiritual guidance and fuel for those who wish to fight for a better world. – PSH]

==========

…If you are seriously interested in fighting for a better world, begin by identifying the nature of the problem. The battle is primarily intellectual (

philosophical

), not political. Politics is the last consequence, the practical implementation, of the fundamental (metaphysical-epistemological-ethical) ideas that dominate a given nation’s culture.

…In an intellectual battle, you do not need to convert everyone. History is made by minorities – or, more precisely, history is made by intellectual movements, which are created by minorities. Who belongs to these minorities? Anyone who is able and willing actively to concern himself with intellectual issues. Here, it is not quantity, but quality that counts (the

quality

– and consistency – of the ideas one is advocating).

…An organized movement has to be preceded by an educational campaign, which requires trained – self-trained – teachers (self-trained in the sense that a philosopher can offer you the material of knowledge, but it is your own mind that has to absorb it). Such training is the first requirement for being a doctor during an ideological epidemic – and the precondition of any attempt to “change the world.”

…If you want to influence a country’s intellectual trend, the first step is to bring order to your own ideas and integrate them into a consistent case, to the best of your knowledge and ability. This does not mean memorizing and reciting slogans and principles, Objectivist or otherwise: knowledge necessarily includes the ability to apply abstract principles to concrete problems, to recognize the principles in specific issues, to demonstrate them, and to advocate a consistent course of action.

…If you like condensations (provided you bear in mind their full meaning), I will say: when you ask “What can one do?” – the answer is

“SPEAK”

(provided you know what you are saying).

A few suggestions: do not wait for a national audience. Speak on any scale open to you, large or small—to your friends, your associates, your professional organizations, or any legitimate public forum. You can never tell when your words will reach the right mind at the right time. You will see no immediate results – but it is of such activities that public opinion is made.

Do not pass up a chance to express your views on important issues. Write letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines, to TV and radio commentators and, above all, to your Congressmen (who depend on their constituents). If your letters are brief and rational (rather than incoherently emotional), they will have more influence than you suspect.

The opportunities to speak are all around you. I suggest that you make the following experiment: take an ideological “inventory” of one week, i.e., note how many times people utter the wrong political, social and

moral

notions as if these were self-evident truths, with

your

silent sanction. Then make it a habit to object to such remarks – no, not to make lengthy speeches, which are seldom appropriate, but merely to say: “I don’t agree.” (And be prepared to explain why, if the speaker wants to know.) This is one of the best ways to stop the spread of vicious bromides.

…It is a mistake to think that an intellectual movement requires some special duty or self-sacrificial effort on your part. It requires something much more difficult: a profound conviction that ideas are important to you and to your own life. If you integrate that conviction to every aspect of your life, you will find many opportunities to enlighten others.

…If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. But time is on our side – because we have an indestructible weapon and an invincible ally (if we learn how to use them): reason and reality.

13

We still have a legitimate shot at winning this battle of ideas. But time is running short. The ARI believes we may only have about 20 years to start turning the culture around.

Could you please provide the source and reasoning behind that statement?

14

Could you please provide the source and reasoning behind that statement?

The “20 year” figure is from the 3-part lecture series by Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate on “Cultural Change”. In particular, it’s in the third lecture. All three lectures are available for viewing from the main ARI website.

15

For what it’s worth, I (finally) started to speak up and share with my roommates and friends. I run a private forum for my friends “from home” to stay in contact and I seem to have swayed them all enough to read Atlas Shrugged. It makes me think about whether it’s possible to be an Objectivist and not even realize it because they seem to be as close as it gets without actually declaring it.

I’m in college though - a liberal arts one - so everyone around here is an Obama nut. It’s difficult especially for one as uncharasmatic as I to sway other peoples opinions, but I must say that I’ve made some impact on one of my roommates at least. He’s an ardent “Democrat”, though we both discover after each conversation between us that he really has no idea what a Democrat is/does/stands for. He “is” one because that’s the “nice” and “cool” thing to do in college. Last night he called me an egoist in an attempt to berate me for saying something he didn’t like. When I replied with “thank you” he was, as you might imagine, confused. He’s a philosophy major as well - the kind who likes to manipulate words in an attempt to confuse people and convert them to his way of thinking. He’s one of those people who thinks that anything published is “interesting” but he will never declare what’s right and what’s wrong unless he can already tell what the popular choice is.

To that end, I’m not sure how to get through to this liberal arts crowd. I’m bored in my senior year though - so is it worth a try? Is it even possible? I’m skeptical, as always.

16

The “20 year” figure is from the 3-part lecture series by Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate on “Cultural Change”. In particular, it’s in the third lecture. All three lectures are available for viewing from the main ARI website.

Just to follow up on Paul’s statement. This is based upon the growing level of religious advocacy. Anyone who thinks America is less religious than in the past needs to listen to these lectures. What America is getting is a level of more philosophically consistent altruistic religiousness and the very well funded advocacy that goes along with it. Like never before religionists are waging a battle of ideas and they are way ahead, and very well funded.

17

By the way, thanks Paul for your follow up post. I was planning on posting something that disagreed with your first post, but given your qualifications, I have to wholeheartedly agree. Forums such as this have their place and from experience can be a cruicial lifeline, especially to those of us in the boon-docks who might be the only Objectivists in our region.

I would urge all objectivists to think of all their activities as a possible support of advocacy, either in building the skills and courage to do it yourselves or supporting someone else’s efforts. So if you feel as though you are at one level of advocacy, ask yourself what you could do at mabye just one level higher.

If you read this board with interest, then consider reading the blogs of those who are now advocating in the public sphere (if you don’t know how to use a NewsReader and read blog feeds lightning fast, then ask one of us. I can put the Obloggers blogroll in your hands in about 5 minutes. As Paul suggested join Diana’s list.

If you are able to post a news item and give your perspective on it in this forum, consider starting a blog. Diana also has a group called OBloggers, which you can join, and get examples of how others are writing for advocacy.

If you feel confident you’re an Objectivist, but feel like you don’t yet have enough understanding of the whole philosophy, then I urge you, don’t attempt to learn it by osmosis here. Get some real academic training. If you’re a student, consider applying to OAC. 1 course / semester for 4 years and you’ll have the equivalent of a minor in Objectivism. And most students get tuition waivers.

Challenge yourself to “kick it up a notch”. Just one…

This is about the pursuit of values…

18

The “20 year” figure is from the 3-part lecture series by Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate on “Cultural Change”. In particular, it’s in the third lecture. All three lectures are available for viewing from the main ARI website.

Thanks for the info. I do plan on listening to that lecture at some point, but I don’t know when I’ll have the time.

The thing is, I have a hard time swallowing that either Yaron Brook or Onkar Ghate can predict when the window of opportunity to change the culture closes. If it ever would. Could you briefly explain what methodology they used to get such a specific date as “20 years”?

19

Thanks for the info. I do plan on listening to that lecture at some point, but I don’t know when I’ll have the time.

The thing is, I have a hard time swallowing that either Yaron Brook or Onkar Ghate can predict when the window of opportunity to change the culture closes. If it ever would. Could you briefly explain what methodology they used to get such a specific date as “20 years”?

Your question misunderstands what they’ve claimed. It’s a rough estimate based on an analysis of the forces at work in the culture, not some kind of hard and fast number. Based on what I’ve seen from the religious right of late, I think the number might be too optimistic.

In general, I strongly recommend that you refrain from comment on these lectures until you’ve listened to them. It’s not fair to ask other people to spend their valuable time summarizing them for you, and any such summary would probably only result in pointless arguments based on your partial understanding.

20

However, I do have one general recommendation. Maybe use this website as Grand Central Station for a letter writing campaign. Pick a subject to write about every week or so and have several of us send in our own letters to newspaper X or senator Y, and then come back here and report that it’s been done. Perhaps even post our letters here. That way this place becomes more proactive about spreading the ideas. It’d be a way of harnessing the power of the forum. Maybe have a competition for the letter that gets the most play. We could call it Objectivism Online Campaign of The Week.

That’s my two cents. :slight_smile:

It is a daunting thing to try to speak for O’ism, many are probably less than certain if the way they are expressing their points gets not only the point across but is in line with Objectivist teaching and principlals.

To offer my own 2 cents and to expand on Thales idea…

I belong to this place. It’s focus is the Canadian Forces but it’s strength lies in the collaborative method of publishing. The members who are all members of another message board take on a topic as a group, providing not only ideas but proofreading and polishing the final product.

This method could work here I think, as many hands make light work and it should help to ensure that the exposure, and the message are what O’ism needs and what we as a community want to put out there.

For my part although I try to advocate Objectivist ideals on my blog but I am rarely blatant about it. Part of the reason for this is that I share the blog with another writer and he is more conservative than I and the other reason is as noted above.