Wednesday, November 04, 2009 |
 |
Libertarian vs. Objectivist Thinking |
 |
By Greg Perkins @ 2:00 PM   
The Cato Institute recently hosted a book forum with the authors of the two new Rand biographies, Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne C. Heller, and Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns. Cato's David Boaz ran the forum, setting the context, introducing the authors, and running the Q&A.
I am interested in the two books, so I wanted to hear the authors as they presented some of their thoughts and showed their mettle in the back-and-forth. The bottom line? Burns seems honest in her scholarship and sincere in her engagement. She said a lot of interesting things, and I want to hear more from her despite some weaknesses due to a lack of grounding in Rand's system of thought. Heller didn't come across nearly as well, which left me much less interested in her work. And then there's Boaz.
Boaz began by speaking of the enduring influence of Rand, especially on libertarians and conservatives, and about the recent surge in interest in her and her work. He agreed with a Liberty magazine review of Heller's book, saying that "There can be no question about the fact that Rand remains America’s most influential libertarian, with the possible exception of Milton Friedman, and America’s most influential novelist of ideas." Extending this, Boaz characterized Atlas Shrugged as a libertarian book, and Rand as a libertarian who has done more than anybody in our time to introduce people to libertarian ideas.
What got my attention was Boaz's treatment of the elephant in the room: he chuckled that many listening may wince at his talking that way, that indeed Rand would have disagreed with being classified as a libertarian (this would be an understatement) and that "many of her fans maintain that point even now." He dismissed all of this, saying in effect that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. You see, "anybody who believes in individual rights, free enterprise, and strictly limited government is a libertarian. And Ayn Rand certainly did." QED. Yet, he informs us, somehow this impeccable logic is lost on the "high priests" of Rand's estate, who refused to let any of her material appear in his book, The Libertarian Reader.
As an Objectivist, I see a different puzzle here: Many people, libertarians in particular, clearly admire and profit from Rand's ability to analyze and integrate, to identify widespread and longstanding false alternatives and package deals time and again, and to then offer something better. So I find it odd that when they see Rand apparently ignoring the incredibly straightforward point that she fits their definition, that they don't pause to consider whether there might be some more basic reason for her balking so.
And of course there is. Here's a hint: it's an epistemology thing.
Concepts are important. They are how we organize our knowledge of the world so we can act in service to our lives. Good concepts are immensely helpful (see the basic ideas that ushered in the fruits of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution), and bad ones can really hurt us. What if, for example, your moral system left you seeing the bully and the victim who fights back as morally indistinguishable? As we've seen with pacifism, the result of such thinking is unjust and destructive to all concerned, both personally and socially: victims are morally if not legally discouraged from defending themselves, predators are only emboldened, and this view naturally translates to unjust and destructive cultural sentiments, laws, and policies like those against simply "violence". So it makes all the difference to distinguish sharply between aggressive and defensive use of force because these are in fact morally opposite things with existentially opposite effects on human lives. Examples abound, but the general point to appreciate is that Objectivists are methodologically careful about this sort of thing because they grasp that accepting any concept which treats essentially identical things as opposites, or opposite things as essentially identical, ultimately means inviting difficulty if not disaster in our efforts to successfully navigate reality.
Now consider the libertarian way of thinking about political classification. Rejecting the generally useless left-right spectrum, they offer a two-dimensional approach based on degrees of personal and economic freedom which is often shared via their educational and recruiting tool, the Nolan Chart. In this view, libertarianism is neither left nor right, and it stands fundamentally opposed to totalitarianism. This sets up the natural axis of size or extent of government as their key normative criterion, which is pretty easy to pick out in their policies and rhetoric and reactions to world events. This is also why libertarians have always had influential anarchists in their ranks: even those who might be wary of the "extreme" of anarchism have no principled objection to it because, in their own basic way of thinking, anarchism is the natural full opposite of the evil of totalitarianism -- indeed, they have framed it as the pinnacle of libertarianism.
We can now appreciate what Rand was signaling with her outrage at being grouped or associated in any way with anarchists in particular and libertarians in general: she was refusing the mental, personal, and social chaos that flows from a fundamentally flawed way of seeing things. Rand understood that the essential concept in politics is individual rights, and so she identified totalitarianism and anarchism as indistinguishable in what's important: their complete lack of an objective recognition and systematic protection of man's rights. In contrast, as noted above, the libertarian way of thinking mis-classifies totalitarianism and anarchism as moral opposites by focusing on the inessential characteristic of size. If the purpose of politics is to sort out and enact the conditions required for people to successfully live among one another, this kind of confusion is about as disastrous as it gets -- even while self-consciously seeking the good, the conceptual lens of libertarianism will drive you to its opposite.
And conversely, the libertarian framework fails to capture crucial differences. Consider a powerful government that performs all and only its proper functions in the defense of man's rights, and one that happens to have all the same laws and institutions but also has, say, conscription on the books just in case war breaks out. These two governments are all but indistinguishable (and neither is smiled on) in the libertarians' basic classification scheme based on size. But Objectivists see these two as moral opposites because one is committed to the essential task of the defense of man's rights and the other is not. Even though not currently violating any rights, the government with conscription laws clearly rejects the key principle of the field. It has no principled defense against the slippery slope to serfdom we've seen play out in history all too many times.
The politics of liberty that Objectivism advocates really does depend on a particular philosophical foundation. The Libertarian movement might be in a better position to understand this if they weren't so eager to set aside the fact that fundamental ideas are critically important.
While scholarly leaders like Boaz should surely know better, there are plenty of people who innocently adopt the libertarian way of thinking about government because it seems to line up reasonably well with fundamental American values like strictly limited government, respect for rights, and capitalism. (Indeed, I was just such a person.) But even innocent use doesn't mitigate the very real problems and dangers discussed above. So Objectivists will continue to pointedly reject the libertarian label and its conceptual basis in the interests of moving our culture toward one that genuinely values liberty.Labels: Epistemology, False Friends of Objectivism, Libertarianism, Objectivism
| | |  E-mail Greg Perkins PermaLink ( )  Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts  via Feed Reader  via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts  M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, July 03, 2009 |
|
Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:54 AM
Paul and I just finished four lovely days of hiking in Acadia, Maine. (I'll blog some about that later today, if I can.) We've had not-so-great internet access, however, so I'm a bit behind on some internet-dependent tasks, including blogging. However, tomorrow I'll start a daily (but short) blog post on OCON.
However, I want to mention that Dr. Tom Stevens -- of the so-called Objectivist Party has written the most absurdly offensive blog post possible: Farrah Fawcett's E-Mail Reveals Ayn Rand Thought Their Sharing The Same Birth Date Had Significance. I won't pain you by quoting the pompous blog post, but basically he accuses Ayn Rand of relying faith, superstition, and mysticism because she apparently made an offhand remark to Farrah Fawcett about them sharing a birthday.
Sheesh.Labels: False Friends of Objectivism, Libertarianism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, January 15, 2009 |
|
Scientology, Seizures, and Science ??? |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Ed Hudgins of The Atlas Society recently published a new op-ed. In the midst of a major financial crisis, not to mention the upcoming change in administration to the frighteningly mystic-altruist-collectivist Barack Obama, Mr. Hudgins decided to focus on a very, very important issue. Can you guess? Oh, I'm sure you never will.
It's ripped from the tabloids! Entitled Scientology, Seizures, and Science, it uses the death of John Travolta's 16-year-old son from a seizure as a pretext to attack Scientology. So it's not just focused on a culturally insignificant religious fringe, but it's also in poor taste.
Bravo, TAS! Every time I think you've hit bottom, you outdo yourself with another inanity!
Honestly, I just can't figure out why any person who even kinda sorta likes Atlas Shrugged could find this organization worthy of financial support. They're a joke.Labels: False Friends of Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, December 26, 2008 |
|
IOS/TOC/TAS Death Watch |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:20 PM
That pretend-Objectivist organization lately known as "The Atlas Society" has canceled its 2009 Summer Seminar due to financial woes. They intend to spend the time and money saved working on their ancient booby-trap of a web site. Robert Campbell posted the letter he received from Will Thomas. Here it is, in full:
Thanks again for sending me your presentation ideas for the planned 2009 Summer Seminar on Objectivism in Theory and Practice. I’m sorry to say that we will not be holding a Seminar next year after all.
The Summer Seminar is a vital part of our community-building and academic efforts. We do not intend to abandon those goals. Actually, we envision resuming the Summer Seminar tradition in 2010.
Our decision to suspend the Summer Seminar in 2009 is due to the economic circumstances and a constructive rearrangement of staff priorities looking forward.
It’s obvious to everyone that the future lies on the internet. It has become clear to us at TAS that one of our most urgent priorities is to update, invigorate, and expand our website to make it a more powerful vehicle for outreach and education about open Objectivism. With the web, we can and do reach hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. The Summer Seminar, for all that is an intense and uplifting personal experience, can only touch, at most, a few hundred people each year. If we have to choose between the two, the choice is clear.
Making our internet plans a reality will require taking substantial amounts of staff time, including mine, away from other projects and refocusing on web projects. Even in normal economic times, we would not be able to avoid the conflict by hiring additional staff, since key aspects of the web project require the expertise of current staff.
So please look for us to put up an improved and livelier web presence in 2009, and keep an eye out next Fall for the call for proposals for our 2010 seminars. Assuming things continue according to plan, I'll be writing back to you in the Fall to see if you would like to renew your proposals. I'm sorry we won't be able to invite you to speak this year. My best guess is that the Summer Seminar will not be resumed in 2010 -- or ever. IOS/TOC/TAS is a dying beast.
In recent years, their summer seminar has been ailing in a serious way. It went from about 300 attendees in 2003 (when I last attended) to something like 100 in 2008. (In contrast, ARI's OCON has grown from about 300 attendees in 2003 to over 500 in 2007 and 2008.)
The only other discernible activity of the organization has been its magazine, The New Individualist. That failed to draw a broad readership, as they'd hoped. More importantly, its editor Robert Bidinotto left TAS entirely in mid-October, apparently on not-so-friendly terms. (That link is temporarily unavailable, unfortunately.)
Oh, and no one seems to know what the heck David Kelley does with his time; he hasn't produced anything substantial in many years.
In short, IOS/TOC/TAS has been dying for some years now. And with the Ayn Rand Center now open and active in Washington, I don't think it can survive much longer. As someone who wasted far too much precious time with them, I think I've earned the right to say, "Good riddance to bad rubbish!"Labels: False Friends of Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, December 03, 2008 |
|
Alan Greenspan vs. Ayn Rand and Freedom |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
If you haven't yet read Alan Greenspan vs. Ayn Rand and Freedom by Harry Binswanger, published in Capitalism Magazine, I strongly recommend that you do so. It's a great article to send to people to who claim -- whether honestly or not -- that Alan Greenspan's actions over the last 25 years or so represent Ayn Rand's philosophy in any way, shape, or form.
Consider Dr. Binswanger's list of Alan Greenspan's betrayals of Ayn Rand's principles:
I can't say I knew Alan Greenspan, though, being an associate of Ayn Rand, I met him a few times in the 1960s. But by 1970--almost 40 years ago--I and a couple of other Objectivists in that circle already realized that Greenspan was compromising on her philosophy. Little did we know how far his anti-Rand journey would take him. As the years rolled on,
- he was hailed as the man who "saved" Social Security--by extending its confiscatory power,
- when Bill Clinton's State of the Union address called for socialized medicine, he rose to his feet, standing next to Hillary Clinton in giving a standing ovation to that proposal,
- he became head of the mammothly anti-capitalist Federal Reserve, directing the government's manipulation of money and credit,
- he provided a laudatory dust-jacket blurb for a book attacking Ayn Rand (by a woman he had "irrevocably" condemned in print in 1968). Yet he repeatedly refused to contribute to or lend his name to the Ayn Rand Institute,
- he wrote, in 1995, that government central banking is a necessity: "Only a central bank, with unlimited power to create money can guarantee that such a process ["a cascading sequence of defaults"] will be thwarted before it becomes destructive." (Note that we just witnessed this "cascading sequence of defaults" despite --or, actually, caused by --our central bank.),
- he wrote in his autobiography about coming to reject Objectivism: "as contradictions inherent in my new notions began to emerge . . . the fervor receded",
- and now he has blamed free markets (as if we had them!) for his failures at the Fed. In conceding that his "ideology" was wrong, he was understood to be saying Ayn Rand was wrong--even though he had long ago forgotten or evaded every essential of what Ayn Rand stood for.
Can it get any worse than that? Yes, it can -- and Dr. Binswanger lays out the case clearly. In essence, "a man who betrays Ayn Rand, and who wrecks the economy of the U.S. in carrying out that betrayal, then succeeds in shifting the blame onto Ayn Rand and capitalism." Lovely, no?
Go read the whole thing. And then post a link to it in the comments of every annoying blogger who claims that the current financial crisis is a refutation of Ayn Rand's ideas.Labels: Activism, False Friends of Objectivism, Finance
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, December 02, 2008 |
|
Reflections from Reason |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:46 PM
Do we need a reminder of even how some of the better elements of the libertarian movement can be hostile to Ayn Rand? Perhaps not, but here's one that ran across my inbox a little while ago. It's a tidbit from a December 2008 Reason article on the origins of their magazine:
[Tibor] Machan: Manny [Klausner] was never an Objectivist, and even Bob [Poole] was more mild-mannered about it. I was the philosophically grounded one, but I stylistically repudiated the atmospherics of the Objectivist world. I was excommunicated back in 1963 from the Rand thing. [Oh whatever, Tibor.]
[Bob] Poole: We wanted a magazine for thinking people, not Randians. As time went on and various marketing strategies were tried it became clear that Rand was some people's cup of tea and not others', and if we wanted to be influential being an explicitly Objectivist magazine was not the recipe for doing that. [Emphasis added.] Bob Poole's first comment is offensive as stated, but I'm willing to be generous, given that this was an "oral history." Perhaps he meant that he wanted a magazine for all thinking people, not just Randians. (I've seen Poole speak a few times; he never struck me as hostile to Objectivists. However, my memory might not be what it should on that score.)
However, it's his second comment -- that "Rand was some people's cup of tea and not others'" -- that's just so very libertarian. Reason couldn't possibly insist that their writers agree on any fundamental principles, like respect for reason, right? No way! That might alienate some people, namely people whose "cup of tea" is supernaturalism, mysticism, and altruism. So anything goes -- and the result is today's often disgustingly postmodern Reason. (Or rather, that's what it became after the departure of the sensible and interesting Virginia Postrel some years ago. I've paid it very little attention since that decline.)
The libertarian movement took so many ideas from Ayn Rand, while often spitting in her face in a manner worthy of James Taggart. If only they'd learned her most basic lesson -- that philosophy matters because it's the fundamental motor of human life -- the history of the last 50 years might be different.Labels: False Friends of Objectivism, Libertarianism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, October 24, 2008 |
|
Mr. Greenspan = Dr. Stadler |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:38 PM
Gun Van Horn gives Alan Greenspan a much-needed ass-kicking for his repudiation of free markets. And here's the Ayn Rand Institute's press release on it:
Greenspan Has No Free Market Philosophy
October 24, 2008
Washington, D.C. --Opponents of the free market are giddy at Alan Greenspan's declaration that the financial crisis has exposed a "flaw" in his "free market ideology." Greenspan says he is "in a state of shocked disbelief" because he "looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity"--and it didn't.
But according to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, "any belief Greenspan ever had in truly free markets was abandoned long ago. While Greenspan long ago wrote in favor of a truly free market in banking, including the gold standard that such markets always adopt, he then proceeded to work for two decades as leader and chief advocate of the Federal Reserve, which continually inflates the money supply and manipulates interest rates. Advocates of free banking understand that when the government inflates the currency, it artificially increases prices and causes booms in certain sectors of the economy, followed by inevitable busts. But not only did Greenspan lead the inflation behind the .com bubble and the real estate boom, he blamed the market for their treacherous collapses. Greenspan should have recognized that what he wrote in 1966 of the boom preceding the 1929 crash applied here: 'The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market--triggering a fantastic speculative boom.' Instead, he superficially blamed 'infectious greed.'
"Should it be any shock that Greenspan now blames the free market for today's meltdown--rather than the Fed's policies, which fueled an inflationary housing boom, which rewarded reckless lenders and borrowers from Wall Street to Main Street? Greenspan didn't mention the word 'inflation' once in his testimony.
"Whatever Greenspan's economic philosophy is, it is not anything resembling a free market." I can't possibly express the depth of my disgust at Alan Greenspan. Well, let me try. By continuing to associate himself with the free market ideas of his former mentor, even while thoroughly contradicting them in word and deed as Fed Chairman, and then publicly repudiating them based on a government-created financial crisis, the man has done more damage to Objectivism than Barbara and Nathaniel Branden.
Way to go, Alan. You've done what I thought impossible. Dr. Stadler has nothing on you.Labels: False Friends of Objectivism, Finance, Politics
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, August 06, 2008 |
|
The Essential Difference |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:00 PM
For anyone still wondering about the difference between the Ayn Rand Institute and The Atlas Society, I offer the following two video interviews by UFM.edu:
(Courtesy of an anonymous contributor to the Sunday Open Thread, embedding not permitted.)
The interviewer is the same in both interviews. The questions are quite similar. Yet the interviews couldn't be more different.
Yaron Brook is clear and direct. With every question, he immediately hones in on the fundamental, often a crucial moral point. He clearly conveys the importance of the ideas he's espousing, and his confidence in the truth of his answers. He knows his stuff, and he makes us eager to hear more.
David Kelley wanders and stammers in his answers. He is routinely lost in his own pointless digressions and qualifications. He speaks in terms of his own beliefs, not in terms of the truth. He displays no facility with the answers to these basic questions, nor passion for what he's saying. It's painful to watch.
(David is much, much worse in this interview than I ever remember him. It seems that his commitment to a subjectivist approach to ideas, Objectivism in particular, continues to take its toll on him.)
The difference between the two interviews is so great that even I'm shocked. Yet it's so perfectly representative of the moral and epistemological gulf between the two organizations. And that's why I'm such an ardent supporter of the the Ayn Rand Institute, particularly under the guidance of Yaron Brook.Labels: ARI, False Friends of Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 |
|
Objectivist Party? |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:03 AM
Yesterday, I got the following FaceBook message from Tom Stevens. (I'm reproducing it because it's a form letter from someone wholly unknown to me.) It said:
I am the Objectivist Party Presidential Candidate and we need 9 registered Colorado voters to list as Presidential Electors. There is no obligation but if we do not get said registered voters, we will not be on the ballot.
If you could help by letting us list you, it would be appreciated.
In Liberty,
Dr. Tom Stevens
Presidential Candidate
Objectivist Party I wrote up a quick reply, then realized that my comments might be of interest to NoodleFood readers. So I put a bit more work into it, so that I could post it here. (Be forewarned, I wrote the comments below before I realized that this guy is a Libertarian. More on that below.) Here's my response:
Tom,
I can't grant your request. While I am a strong advocate of cultural and political activism, I think that attempting to change American culture via a third party is not just ineffective but downright counterproductive.
The problem with American politics today is not that Americans are looking for an Objectivist candidate but the major parties will only run statists. The majority of voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice between left-wing and right-wing statists on Election Day. Objectivists must work to change the culture toward secularism, reason, egoism, and individual rights. Only then can we expect better politicians to mount a credible campaign, let alone win elections.
That cultural change will be felt within the major parties -- so long as Objectivists don't sequester themselves into political irrelevance in their own unelectable political party. If Objectivists (and sympathizers) demand that the major parties court their vote, then political change for the better is possible.
The history of the political influence of the abolitionist movement bears out this analysis. Abolitionists created new political parties, some focused on the single issue of abolition and others broadly pro-liberty. All such parties failed to gather any significant votes; they had no positive impact. If anything, they had a negative impact, in that they siphoned off strong abolitionist voters that the fledgling Republican Party would have otherwise had to woo. Eventually, the Republican Party did adopt abolitionism -- due to effective cultural activism, not those minor abolitionist parties. By uncompromising moral arguments, a small band of committed abolitionists changed American hearts and minds about the evils of slavery in just a few decades. (Brad Thompson discusses this fascinating political history in his excellent lecture course, American Slavery, American Freedom. Hopefully I've remembered it reasonably accurately.)
Today, if the small but growing number of Objectivists and sympathizers gravitate to an Objectivist political party, the Republicans and Democrats could safely ignore us for decades to come, knowing that they've already lost our vote. That's a license for more statism, not less.
Objectivists should follow the same model as the abolitionists: change American hearts and minds, and the politicians will follow. Political advocacy can and should be a large part of those efforts to change the culture, as seen in the activities of the Ayn Rand Institute and Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). Unlike running wholly unelectable candidates for office, that kind of activism works. And that's where Objectivists ought to be focusing their time and efforts. After writing most of the above, I examined the web site of this proposed Objectivist Party in more detail. In my first look, I'd noticed a strongly anti-libertarian statement in the platform itself, in the form of this quote from Harry Binswanger:
The "libertarians"...plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute...In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the "libertarians" are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivsim and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future. (Harry Binswanger: "Q & A Department: Anarchism," TOF, Aug. 1981, 12.) So, I thought, however counterproductive the endeavor, it didn't seem to be corrupt. That's one reason why I was willing to write such a detailed reply to the request. However, on reading the biographical information on Tom Stevens, the founder and 2008 presidential candidate, it became perfectly clear that he's a Big-L Libertarian in Objectivist clothing. See for yourself:
Dr. [Tom] Stevens is the Founder of the Objectivist Party. He was elected to the Judiciary Committee of the Libertarian Party in 2006 and re-elected in 2008. He served as a New York State Delegate to the Libertarian Party's National Convention in Atlanta in 2004, Portland in 2006, and Denver in 2008. He currently serves as President of the Libertarian Freedom Council, a national organization of students, young professionals and entrepreneurs and also serves as a member of the LPNY State Committee. In the Republican Presidential Primary, he was a supporter of Ron Paul and served as Political Consultant and New York State Coordinator for the Paul For President Coalition. (I might add that I find other aspects of the biography, particularly the range of college-level courses that he's taught somewhere unspecified "during the past few years," as suspect.)
So that makes clear to me the value of this endeavor so-called "Objectivist Party." Libertarians are not allies in the struggle for liberty. So while I think that my comments above are worthwhile as general points about political and cultural activism, this request was not worth so many electrons.
Update: July 3rd, 2009: For all that you need to know about Tom Stevens' view of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, see his blog post Farrah Fawcett's E-Mail Reveals Ayn Rand Thought Their Sharing The Same Birth Date Had Significance. First, you've got to be kidding -- only he's not. And second, UGH.Labels: Activism, False Friends of Objectivism, Libertarianism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, April 24, 2008 |
|
For the Record: Phoenix Objectivists |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:21 AM
This post is simply "for the record," in light of the distortions of the facts posted elsewhere.
Last Sunday, I was perusing that Branden-worshipping cesspool of a discussion forum known as "Objectivist Living." I noticed the following announcement in a thread entitled Phoenix Objectivists start new lecture series:
Posted by Mike Renzulli on Apr 19 2008, 01:47 PM:
When: Thursday, April 24th, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.
Where: Black Bear Diner
2410 West Bell Road
Phoenix, AZ
Admission: Attendees must buy something to eat.
Event Description: For our first meeting at our new location and the last of the month, we will listen to the first in a six-part pre-recorded lecture series done by Diana Mertz-Hsieh titled: Objectivism 101 which was a lecture Mrs. Hsieh gave at The Atlas Society's Summer Seminar in 2003.
Ayn Rand's novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged offer a unique and inspiring moral vision, but translating those ideals into daily life can be challenging. Through a mixture of lecture and discussion, Diana Mertz Hsieh will survey the basic principles of Objectivism, from metaphysics to aesthetics.
She will focus on both the theory and practice of the philosophy, contrasting it with common religious and cultural views. Ideas discussed in these six sessions will include reason as the only means to knowledge, free will as the choice to think or not, the integration of mind and body, emotions as automatic value judgments, life as the standard of value, the major virtues, the trader principle, capitalism as the only moral social system, and much more.
Mrs. Hsieh is a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I was more than a bit surprised to learn that I was to be the lecture series! I'd not been contacted by anyone about playing my lectures at this meeting.
By way of background, the six-lecture series was given at the last Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center I attended. While I'm still reasonably proud of those lectures, precisely because I worked hard to clearly and accurately present Ayn Rand's Objectivism, I'm sure that I'd find all kinds of problems with them if I listened to them now. So as a general matter, I'm not too keen on the idea of anyone playing them before a group, particularly not without some strong warning that I do not vouch for the content and that I've disassociated myself from The Objectivist Center (today, The Atlas Society).
After some inquiries to Arizona friends, I was pointed to the web site for the Phoenix Objectivists. (That's not the same group as the Arizona Objectivists, a group that I've had nothing but good dealings with in the past.) Any possible willingness to allow my lectures to be played at the Phoenix Objectivists disappeared when I saw its page of links: it's a "Who's Who" list of dishonest pseudo-Objectivists, without a single link to anything associated with or supportive of the Ayn Rand Institute. It even lists "ARI Watch" (!!). Basically, I don't wish to provide any kind of value to the very people so invested in attacking me and mine. (I also saw from other web surfing that the group's leader Mike Renzulli is actively involved with the Libertarian Party.)
So I wrote the following letter to the e-mail address for the group listed on the web site.
From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:49:56 -0600
To:
Subject: My Objectivism 101 Lectures
Mike --
I recently saw your announcement to Objectivist Living about your forthcoming event(s) featuring my Objectivism 101 lectures. You should know that those lectures are copyrighted -- and that the copyright is held by me. (TOC's copyright expired after two years.) So you cannot play them before an audience without my permission.
Given what I've seen on the Phoenix Objectivists web site, I am not willing to grant you permission. You might be a decent fellow, but I do not wish to be associated the promotion of destructive and dishonest critics of Ayn Rand and Objectivism -- as found on your web site. (If you wish to know my reasons for those judgments, you are welcome to peruse the many essays I've written at http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/toc.html.)
If you choose to go ahead with your plans, I won't stop you. However, you should know that you would be violating my property rights. The moral wrong of that should be obvious.
You are welcome to forward this letter to anyone you please.
-- DMH In response, he asked for documentation of my claims. Meanwhile, he began a thread on Objectivist Living entitled Diana Mertz-Hsieh nasty gram (!!) with the following:
Posted by Mike Renzulli on Apr 21 2008, 05:48 PM
Well Folks,
Diana Mertz-Hsieh has struck again. As it turns out, she just sent me an e-mail stating that she doesn't give me permission to play her Objectivism 101 lectures for my group's meeting coming up this Thursday.
Hsieh says that she holds the copyright for it, that TAS's copyright for her lectures has expired and, while she will not stop me, she states that my doing so would be stealing her intellectual property.
I already have a call into Ed Hudgins at TAS to see if what she is saying is accurate. I may have to bag using the lectures until the legalities of doing so are cleared up unless someone on these boards knows otherwise.
Regardless if she is right or not, its one more feather in her cap of making an ass out of herself. As you might imagine from that "OL" crowd, the replies were even worse. (Note that Mike didn't actually see fit to post my actual e-mail, as I expressly gave him permission to do.) So, feeling less than generous at that point, I replied to his request for documentation as follows:
From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:40:31 -0600
To: M Renzulli
Subject: Re: My Objectivism 101 Lectures
You should have done your homework before you scheduled the event, e.g. by e-mailing me to inquire about any required permission. The fact that you failed to do so doesn't oblige me to rush to get you the documentation at the last minute. I'm certainly not going to do so while you and your friends on Objectivist Living are attacking me left and right for the mere assertion of my rights and other imaginary moral evils.
So here's what I'll say:
(1) My TOC contract was standard: the rights reverted to me after two years, if TOC didn't publish the lectures in some form other than "TOC Live.". TOC didn't do that, so the copyright is now held by me. You can inquire with TOC about that.
(2) The difference between listening rights and performance rights is well-established in copyright law. You're playing my lecture at a public event in a public venue, advertised on the web to anyone and everyone, not at a private party for friends. You can inquire with a lawyer about that.
-- DMH Since then, Mike has begun a new OL thread solely devoted to wild speculations about my psychology, without the slightest bit of concern for my actual and stated reasons for rejecting The Objectivist Center, condemning people like Nathaniel Branden and Chris Sciabarra, and now endorsing the Ayn Rand Institute. He likens me to a religious dogmatist and a communist enforcer. He claims that I've sold my soul for the cause. He claims that I'm seeking to appease the ARI hierarchy for the sake of publication venues and job opportunities. Um, okay.
Mike also sent me two further e-mails. He told me that he expects an apology from me if I'm wrong in my legal claims. He said he'll do the same if he's wrong, but given his absolutely libelous personal attacks on me on OL, that's of no value whatsoever. He's also suggested that I just ask him nicely not to play the lectures. Fat chance of that: I shouldn't have to ask nicely for him to respect my rights, particularly not while he spits in my face. (Do I need to ask a car thief to please not take my car?!?)
In any case, yesterday afternoon, I finally dug up my old "Speaker's Agreements" with The Objectivist Center. The following e-mail to the relevant folks at The Atlas Society explains the exact terms of the contract:
From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:44:43 -0600
To: Gene Holloway , Ed Hudgins
Conversation: Termination of Rights to Lecture Recordings
Subject: Termination of Rights to Lecture Recordings
Ed and Gene --
Due to the plans of Mike Renzulli to play one of my past TOC lectures at a public event this week despite my protests, I recently reviewed my speaker's agreements with TOC for lectures given in 2001, 2002, and 2003. (I could not find my contract for my 2000 lecture.)
Before I reviewed the contracts, my recollection was that all rights to the recording automatically reverted to me after two years, provided that TOC didn't publish an official recording (as opposed to a "TOC Live" tape). However, that's not quite accurate, as you can see from the following quoted clause:
"If TOC fails to produce or arrange the production of the Recording for use as a permanent product carried by The Objectivism Store within 24 months following the delivery of the Work, either party has the right to terminate this portion of the agreement. In case of termination of this agreement under this clause, all rights to the Recording, except the right of TOC to maintain a copy for archival purposes, revert to Speaker."
(The same basic clause is found in my 2001 and 2002 contracts. I presume that it is also in my 2000 contract.)
So: I hereby terminate all of TOC's (or The Atlas Society's) rights to recordings of my past lectures, except the right to maintain a copy for archival purposes.
Obviously, I can't imagine that you'd ever want to do anything with my past lectures for TOC, but I did wish to officially terminate your rights to them, in case such a strange situation ever arises again.
Also, I should mention that as far as I understand the contract, TOC has never had any right to license the work to be played in public. (As far as I know, you've not done that with Mike Renzulli.)
I have attached a scan of the relevant page of the 2003 contract.
Finally, please confirm your receipt of this e-mail and acknowledge the termination of rights.
Thank you,
Diana Mertz Hsieh As for the question of rights to public performance, Paul found this handy summary of the relevant law (and this one and this one and this one and this one) for me. It's very clear that an event open to the public, held in a public venue, and advertised on public message boards and web sites does not qualify as a private performance on par with inviting friends over to watch a movie.
Also, I should mention that I've spoken repeatedly with two lawyers about this matters over the past few days. Both of them used to speak at TOC, and so they are familiar with TOC's "Speaker's Agreements." On both legal and moral grounds, they wholly support my right to refuse permission to play these lectures.
I don't expect any further troubles on this issue -- except more of the usual crap from OL -- but I did wish to set the record straight. To put it bluntly, Mike Renzulli hasn't a legal or moral leg to stand on. He doesn't have the right to play my lectures before an audience just because he bought the tapes. I don't have any obligation to assist a man who actively subverts my values. He's also behaved in a less than gentleman-like fashion, without any provocation. Still, I won't hold my breath waiting for that apology.Labels: False Friends of Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, March 26, 2007 |
|
Ted Haggard and Nathaniel Branden |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:46 AM
Ed Cline recently posted a positive review of Jim Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics on Rule of Reason. It's worth a look.
Let me digress for a moment...
A few days ago, I watched an HBO documentary by Alexandra Pelosi entitled "Friends of God." (The video showing an evangelical anti-evolution seminar that I blogged a few weeks ago was from this documentary.) Ted Haggard is featured prominently in the documentary. His downfall from high influence due to his meth-and-gay-sex scandal broke just as the documentary was wrapping up filming, if I recall correctly. In one interview, he speaks passionately of the need for religious leaders to be moral exemplars, not just for the sake of their own flock, but for everyone. Notably, he said that -- with earnest sincerity and perfect ease -- while actually indulging in his own dark vices.
Ted Haggard could not have said what he said in the way he said it -- not if he valued moral honesty. I don't think that mere repression would allow a person to become so very comfortable with that gross contradiction between his own preached ideals and his own behavior. More would be required to seem so sincere, particularly a positive pleasure in the capacity to deceive anyone and everyone. Any guilt he felt was thoroughly suppressed in public; he assumed a persona of his own creation, based on the expectations of others. And that's why he was so very charismatic.
When exposed as a moral fraud, the enormous evil of Haggard's actions probably crashed down on him -- at least for a time. I don't think he just regretting getting caught, as so many criminals do: Haggard wasn't that kind of deliberate con artist. He was a sincere believer in Christian ideals, at least at one time. However, I'm sure that three weeks of therapy can't even begin to scratch the surface of his twisted character, meaning that Haggard's self-excusing and/or self-righteous facade will soon return. A person cannot live in the face of utter moral failure; unless he conceals himself with self-deception, he would be driven to suicide.
I mention the case of Ted Haggard in this post for one simple reason: I suspect that his psychology is fundamentally like that of Nathaniel Branden. Despite the radical differences in the ideals in question, the basic pattern is strikingly similar. If that doesn't seem plausible to you, then you might wish to read Jim Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. It's very revealing, to say the least.Labels: False Friends of Objectivism, Religion
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
| | |
|
