 |
Comments |
|
 | Saturday, September 12, 2009 at 14:27:12 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Dan G.
Diana, there's been talk that these parties have been organized/led by supporters of Ron Paul and members of the Birch society. In your experience, is this so, and do you think this leads to a problem of guilt by association? |
|
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 at 17:06:38 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Ryan O.
E-mail: ryanmoshea(at)gmail.com
Is there video of Yaron's speech yet? |
|
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 at 18:45:35 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: author
Dan G.,
You're not going to get a straight answer to your question. The fact of the matter is that except for Objectivists, the entire American population is philosophically corrupt. To consistently follow the precedent established by the leaders of the ARI faction of Objectivism through their treatment of David Kelley would require a hermit's lifestyle. That they don't follow it means that who and what they engage with is completely arbitrary - just as arbitrary as their decree that Libertarians, more than any other group, are not worthy of attempts to be enlightened.
People like Diana, who envision themselves are the future of the ARI, are counting on you not challenging them on this glaring contradiction between their words and their actions. Sure, they could (and should) use some of their superior (relative to TAS) resources to develop a sophisticated strategy for engagement with non-Objectivist, but likely sympathetic people (no matter what flawed group they happen to belong to), but that would require explicitly conceeding that David Kelley, while he might have been wrong with the methods he was experimenting with, at least raised a valid point. A point which they have been pretending for two decades was resolved, but which - as your question indicates - clearly is not.
They can't hide from it completely - reality has required that they must do something (and this random interest in the Tea Party movement is it) - but that won't stop them from still trying to hide from the essential issue. |
|
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 at 19:42:46 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/
"author", ye who won't even show your real name, and who seem bent on slamming what we value, I can only hope you go away so I don't have to keep scrolling over your comments. |
|
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 at 20:18:11 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: William B.
E-mail: wbeaumo1(at)gmail.com
"author", don't expect anyone to directly address your points given your hostile attitude. Your attitude signals to everyone that you don't want to have rational debate, you don't want to ask honest questions, you just want to caricaturize your enemies and throw around insults. Why do you even comment here if you hate the bloggers on this site so much? |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 7:13:07 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: PMB
The application of principles isn't easy. The principle that it is wrong to sanction evil leaves open the question: what qualifies as sanctioning evil? That's not always obvious, in the same way that the principle that all property should be private leaves open many complex questions of application regarding intellectual property, water rights, etc.
No serious thinker has said speaking alongside or in front of people with whom one disagrees. Indeed, the fact that ARI speakers are regularly appearing at events organized by non-Objectivists, or that they regularly appear alongside non-Objectivists, should be a tip off to critics that perhaps their characterization of ARI is a caricature.
The point about Libertarians is that one should not speak in front of anti-government kooks when doing so lends legitimacy to anti-government kooks...or makes you look like an anti-government kook. But how that applies is complex, and it certainly doesn't mean never speaking to libertarians. (By the way, the previous poster is wrong about a factual point: most of these tea parties have not been organized by Ron Paul supporters or the Birch Society. The latest was organized mainly by FreedomWorks, which Dick Armey heads.)
Look at the issue another way. ARI's approach allows them to say to Americans, "Don't group us in with those libertarians you've written off. We have a new, distinctive message." The result? Well, just turn on your TV or open a newspaper. Atlas Shrugged is selling faster than ever before, Glenn Beck is respectfully discussing the fundamental differences in ethics between Objectivism and conservatism, Objectivist philosophers are being taken seriously in academia, the top newspapers are publishing Objectivist op-eds, a tea party that draws hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of people includes Yaron Brook as a speaker...you get the point. While ARI is criticized as insular, it's approach has resulted in massive exposure. The "non-insular," "open Objectivists," who so eager work to become part of the marginalized libertarian in-crowd, haven't even succeeded at that.
No surprise there. The moral is the practical. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 9:08:52 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Dan, that's one of the concerns I have. One of the Sunday talk shows today talked about the "thousands of conservatives" who marched yesterday on Washington DC, which enabled Axelrod and the administration to write them off as "not a mainstream viewpoint." I think the danger is that we'll be associated more with what we are against rather than what we are for.
I'm disappointed that no one prominent either on the GOP or "Blue Dog" leadership has chosen to put forth a realistic alternative to the president's plan. For instance, the Whole Foods CEO put out a well-publicized list of true market reforms. Why not take up that idea? The Democrats are right that people are fed up with the current system. Just saying what we are against will only go so far. Let's assume for a moment that either no bill is passed, or whatever does pass is so watered down it doesn't change much. The issue will crop up again in the future, perhaps again during this administration, who will have all the more reason to pass something stronger, perhaps even single-payer. Instead, all we're seeing from the GOP is a concession on their moral argument, along with attempts at "bills of rights" for Medicare recipients. All we're seeing from the Blue Dogs are cost concerns that can be papered over relatively easily.
Stated otherwise, I think the Town Halls and Tea Parties may be effective in stalling this particular set of bills being debated, but to get past this fall, the focus will need to shift away to something else. My suggestion is direct outreach of the "Whole Foods" plan. Bombard right-leaning Democratic congressmen and senators (who hold the keys to getting bills passed right now) with messages urging them to insist on these reforms in any type of bill. Bombard any intelligent members of the GOP with a message to put this out. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 9:22:31 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: RussK
E-mail: rkeni(a_t)netscape.net
PMB:
They won't get it, they don't want to. "Author" presents ARI or the "ARI faction" as having started to do something different, opportunistically neglecting prior participation in things like the Elian Gonzalez deportation protests. There's no want of an honest discussion, as William B. pointed out. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 9:35:23 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: tom
E-mail: tom(at)frontrangeobjectivism.com
URL: http://www.republicmedia.tv
I received a link to a video of the entire DC rally: http://www.republicmedia.tv - Yaron Brook's speech is at 2:02:20
If someone has the software and the time maybe they could clip it out of here and put it on YouTube before it goes away ? |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 10:01:18 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Dan G.
author: Piss off.
PMB and KPO'M: Thanks. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 10:55:28 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: daughter
E-mail: daughterofaynrand(at)gmail.com
I was rather horrified to see "Who is John Galt" signs in the crowd on CNN News video. And then Rachel Maddow referred to "Atlas Shrugged" on her 9/11 broadcast. The majority of the American people view these tea parties as dominated by right wing conservatives -- BIBLE THUMPERS!!! Not Objectivists. You've got a PR problem there. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 11:40:20 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: BrianS
"You've got a PR problem there"
I'm sorry, but you've mistaken an opportunity as a problem. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 12:06:47 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com
If our goal is to be immune from distortions from the leftist media, then the task is impossible. The only alternative is to be silent. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 12:43:23 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: BrianS
Andrew,
I think silence is exactly what some seek from Objectivists. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 13:06:27 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: daughter
E-mail: daughterofaynrand(at)gmail.com
Brian, I think you are right on. Silence is definitely something some seek from Objectivists. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 14:21:50 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.newclarion.com
Funny thing; while "author" and what other sad remnants of David Kelley's distraction continue replaying the same line of twenty years ago, even the libertarians of whom they are so solicitous, find themselves facing the sanction issue. Of course, they don't dare call it that, for obvious reasons.
One particularly rich example is Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy, who has echoed the Kelleyite line before, even citing Barbara Branden as a reputable source -- who now finds it necessary to address the "fellow traveller" issue in the face of charges to that effect from Mark Kleiman: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252441421
Andrew is correct, in that there will always be every sort of distortion from every quarter. There will always be those who invent all sorts of bullship and pass it off as "Objectivist". The best we can do is the same thing that owners of quality brands do, and for the same reason: we make sure that people can clearly differentiate between our product, and the cheap knockoffs.
That latter concept illustrates why the worst distortions are not necessarily those who come from our explicit enemies, namely Leftists who make up straw men and burn them down. Our worst enemies are the ones why *supply* them with such straw men; purported "allies", current or former, who pass off inferior product under our label.
I submit as evidence the three men whose attention I have recently attracted in comments to some of my posts over at The New Clarion. All of them claim familiarity with Objectivism; two as former Objectivists (Lee Stranahan and Greg Paulhus), and one who claims to actually BE one (Clayton Jones); and yet, in those very comments, all three of them eventually reveal themselves as possessing not even the slightest grasp of Objectivism's fundamentals.
http://www.newclarion.com/2009/09/health-care-in-canada-chewing-off ...
http://www.newclarion.com/2009/07/epistemological-primitivism-in-ac ...
http://www.newclarion.com/2009/03/the-stranahan-syndrome/
So yes, there's only so much we can do about the distortions. Fortunately, what we can do is pretty strong: we take care over the question of sanction. After twenty years, what was clear in principle has been borne out in practice. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 14:53:06 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
I'm not looking to be silent. I'm out there promoting a plan (the one espoused by the Whole Foods CEO). Distortions are inevitable, but if people can see that the protestors have some real ideas, the distortions are easier to dispel. Otherwise, the assumption will be that the protestors support the status quo. I don't think anyone with even a basic understanding of Objectivism or capitalism could assert that the current system is ideal. It is semi-socialist as it is (governments in the US spend nearly as much, per capita, as governments in the UK and Canada on health care). Paulhus and Stranahan would likely argue that it is the "private option" that is the source of our runaway health costs. I'd argue it is government's unhealthy constraints on and influence over the private sector that are a large part of it. However, in any case, I think it is critical to start supporting a viable alternative. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 15:09:57 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
KPO'M: I don't tend to do public speaking or face to face to recommend my ideas. Instead, I favor written and especially online media.
I agree with you that it's relevant to point at Mackey's proposals, which, if not flawless, are stunning better than either Obama's proposals or what we have now. Indeed, Obama helped this out (ironically) by starting his speech out by noting both single payer and free market medicine (with the unmaking of the employee health benefits system) as radical solutions that his plan seeks to avoid; that is, he laid the ground for arguing that free market health care is not simply continuing what we have now.
But another tactic I think has some merit is to point out that the Democratic Party proposals have the effect of forcing thirty million uninsured Americans to buy health insurance at prices they don't feel they can afford, with fines to punish those who don't comply, which argues that health insurance at that price is not a benefit to them; while, on the other hand, they bring the insurance companies thirty million new customers who are legally forbidden to say, "No, I can't pay for that." In other words, it's classic special interest legislation designed to enrich the medical industry at the expense of the public. (Much as Ayn Rand portrayed in Atlas Shrugged, with Taggart Transcontinental and Associated Steel!) It's worth noting in this connection, if one has space, that all the major organizations in the industry seem to be eager to endorse the Democratic proposals.
I think it could also be productive to point out that, even though Obama has said that he wants to bring health care costs under control, nothing in his actual proposals has that effect. He isn't doing away with the health insurance industry in its current form, which has helped to drive up costs, but is bring them millions of forced new customers. He's taking away most of the out of pocket costs of medical services for people who have insurance, encouraging the casual purchase of unnecessary services. He's not taking down the major barriers to competition between insurance firms, but raising them higher. He's having the government provide (limited) subsidies to health insurance, and no subsidized industry ever lowers its costs. And he's doing nothing whatever to increase the supply of any medical goods, services, or facilities. So far from bringing costs down, his plan can be expected at best to let them continue shooting upward, and likely to increase the rate of growth in costs.
I note, though, that I haven't yet tested that last argument; I've just been thinking it out. If I try it, I'll let you know how it works. |
|
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 22:33:29 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
That is a good point WHS, about mandates. Another point that Obama raised unwittingly is mentioning how auto insurance is mandatory in most states. Usually that means that the poor get forced into paying exorbitant amounts for whatever minimum coverage the state requires, which usually is nowhere near enough to cover a serious accident anyway. In the end, they wind up getting hurt regardless of what happens. The "best" part is that the insurers have exactly the "market" you describe (forced sales), and on top of that they get to sell the rest of us "underinsured motorist coverage" to cover the shortfalls caused by the minimum coverage levels in other people's protection! |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
