My Cato Essays


Recommended Posts

It seems that "Wolf"/Alan has the impression that George's posting of the notice that the podcast of his essay 65 is available must be in response to "Wolf"/Alan's earlier questions. It apparently hasn't occurred to "Wolf"/Alan that this is George's thread, that it's purpose is to announce when George's essays have become available, and that therefore George's posting of the podcast may have nothing to do with his discussion with "Wolf"/Alan.

George's cornucopia. Before his brain turns to "mush." Frank Lloyd Wright was similarly employed in the 1950s. If he matches up that way to Wright age wise he's only got another 22 or 23 years to go.

Wright faster, George.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 696
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Jonathan.

Another mysterious apparition!

Man, that crusade is soooo last week. Now it's We Don't Read Wynand. Get on the ball.

This being George's "Corner", I understand he's able to delete posts within this thread. Here's hoping he exercises that capability on some of these recent ones. I say if you want to discuss something prompted by one of his essays, start a new thread for it. Otherwise this (quite convenient) thread will go to shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that "Wolf"/Alan has the impression that George's posting of the notice that the podcast of his essay 65 is available must be in response to "Wolf"/Alan's earlier questions. It apparently hasn't occurred to "Wolf"/Alan that this is George's thread, that it's purpose is to announce when George's essays have become available, and that therefore George's posting of the podcast may have nothing to do with his discussion with "Wolf"/Alan.

J

Correct. My podcasts (all of which are readings of earlier essays) are posted every Wednesday. I was simply doing my routine posting of the latest podcast link.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Locke: Some Problems in Locke’s Theory of Private Property

Smith discusses some of Robert Nozick’s criticisms of Locke’s theory of property, and the relationship between a natural-law justification of private property and social conventions.

My Libertarianism.org Essay #190 has been posted.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two new items....

John Locke: Some Qualifications in Locke’s Theory of Property

Smith explains how Locke dealt with some problems in the traditional Christian theory of private property.

My Libertarianism.org Essay #191 has been posted.

______________

My latest podcast interview with the folks at L.Org, “The Legacy of Roy A. Childs, Jr.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My latest podcast interview with the folks at L.Org, The Legacy of Roy A. Childs, Jr.

Loved the obbligato part for soprano parakeet. You should teach him/her lyrics like "A is A" and such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To hell with this "A is A" crap! I'm sick and tired of it!

--Brant

B is B

Is Z ... Z

geez this is getting so confusing that one would need Brantian Brain power to traverse the entire alphabet...

time to watch football, which according to the completely ignorant Objectivist anti sports mantra, takes no brains to play...

Strap on some pads and find out how smart you have to be to survive a real "game."

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

"The Fascist New Frontier" led to Rand's break with Random House, for Bennett Cerf would not publish it, either as a lead essay or the title of the book of her essays. Ironically, I don't think it made it into any of her books anyway. I wonder why.

--Brant

glad to own the booklet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made. page 90:

Rand also broke with Bennett Cerf. She had regarded his public defense of Atlas Shrugged as weak, at best, and for years had been displeased by reports that he didn’t always take her side in private conversations. As a result, she considered him “a chicken and unloyal,” recalled Perry Knowlton, an associate of her agent Alan Collins. When Cerf suggested publishing a second collection of her essays in October 1963, timed to stimulate discussion and book sales during the 1964 election season, she assembled a dozen articles from The Objectivist Newsletter along with some of her major speeches and handed in a manuscript. Cerf was thrilled. Apparently, he hadn’t read it yet. When his editors read it, they hit the roof over an essay that was intended to give the book its title, an inflammatory critique of the Kennedy administration called “The Fascist New Frontier.” Outrageous by the standards of the day, it likened the economic policies of Kennedy—for example, increasing the minimum wage and funding public housing—to Fascism in the 1930s, and Kennedy to Hitler. Her purpose was to remind Americans of the distinction between socialism (government ownership of industry, capital, and property), of which she thought the electorate might approve, and Fascism (government control of industry and private property for the benefit of favored groups), which she saw as a hallmark of the New Frontier. Cerf’s editors demanded that Random House refuse to print the essay. Three weeks after heralding the arrival of the manuscript, Cerf dejectedly told Rand and Perry Knowlton that the author would have to remove the essay and change the title of the book.

“He made his decision not to publish without even consulting me,” Rand complained to Barbara Branden. One day in mid-October, she marched into his office and reminded him of his promise not to be political, never to censor her, and to publish anything she wrote. He had been talking about fiction, he pleaded, and asked her, at a minimum, to remove the passages from Hitler’s speeches and change the title of the essay to something not implicating Kennedy, such as “America’s Drift Toward Fascism.” She was adamant in her refusal; her whole point was to show that the Kennedy Administration’s ideology wasn’t socialistic, as people might think, but fascistic.
As he recalled a few years later, she followed him down to the street from his office, arguing with him while he hailed a taxicab to take him home to change for dinner. As he climbed into the taxi, she cried, “You’re going to print every word I’ve written, or I won’t let you publish the book!” He called back, unhappily, “That’s that. Get yourself another publisher.”

She did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"She did." Except there was to be no book entitled that nor any such essay in any of her subsequent books and she lost the nation's most pre-eminent publisher.

Random House really had no balls at all, but did Rand crap out too? If she did, why? My guess is Kennedy was gunned down. (I had forgotten this time connection.)

There was a satirical 33rpm album about the Kennedy family that came out just before the assassination that was selling great. It was funny as hell. Afterwards, it just disappeared. It was "The First Family." I only heard brief parts of it when it first came out and not much since.

--Brant

https://youtu.be/Rs9gOrGU8wE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Immanuel Kant and Nazism

Was Kant somehow responsible for the rise of Nazism? Smith explores two points of view on this issue. This essay discusses the views of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff on Kant.

Ghs

First Rate, as usual....

L. P. Is a third rate second rate thinker. L.P. is shallow and not rigorous in his thinking. Ayn Rand was a first rate second rate thinker. Her blunders or original and creative. She had a very reductionist view of Kant. There was more to Kant than his unsuccessful deconstruction of Hume's philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Thanks, George, for bringing the McGovern book to attention. John Dewey also famously linked Kant to Nazism at that time.*

Related:

“Eichmann’s Kant”*

(Distorted Kantianism / The Unselfish Evil: Banal, Radical, or Demonic? / Kant with Sade / Duty)

C. B. Laustsen and R. Ugilt – JSP 2007

In addition to the apparently square paper of David Gordon on the Objectivist representations of Kant, the following papers have also contributed, back and forth, to the topic:

“Ayn Rand and the Metaphysics of Kant”

George Walsh – JARS Fall 2000

“Rethinking Rand and Kant”

R. Kevin Hill – JARS Fall 2001

“Between Metaphysics and Science – Kant and Rand”*

S. Boydstun – OL

“Mysticism – Kant and Rand”*

S. Boydstun – OO

“Perception and Truth – Kant and Rand”*

S. Boydstun – OL

“Kant’s Wrestle with Happiness and Life”*

S. Boydstun – OL

Fred Seddon devotes two chapters to Objectivist renderings of Kant in Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Friday, February 05, 2016 at 1:41 PM, George H. Smith said:

Immanuel Kant and Nazism

Was Kant somehow responsible for the rise of Nazism? Smith explores two points of view on this issue. This essay discusses the views of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff on Kant.

Ghs

Wrong date for The Ayn Rand Letter. Likely it should be 1972, not 1982.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now