Objectivist view of the Future

[Brian E]

Hello everyone, I'm actually new on this forum as you might be able to tell since this is my first post. I am currently a college student of History and Economics at Columbia University about to write a very long (hopefully not too dry) paper on Objectivism in terms of it's vision for the future. Unfortunately I haven't actually been able to find a lot of information of what Ayn Rand saw as the future which makes this a rather difficult task to accomplish.

What Ayn Rand believed and what she hoped the future would look like (an embrace of her philosophy) are rather clear but there doesn't really seem to be much information on what she thought the world would actually look like. Did she for example believe (and not just hope) that people would genuinely embrace her ideas in her lifetime or within the future? Did she predict that, like in Atlas Shrugged, the USA and governments around the world would become increasingly controlling until a collapse occurred which would culminate in an objectivist society?

Did she even have a prediction on what the future would look at all or was she completely rooted on the present? If anyone on this forum has any ideas and can cite specific literary evidence please do, it would be really helpful!

[Selene]

Welcome to OL Brian.

My perception is that she had no specific vision that she carefully constructed and wrote about with specificity.

I would suggest that you bifurcate your paper and project two visions of the future, one based on whether her philosophy becomes the dominant philosophy and one where it is eradicated from the mind of man.

Allan Drury wrote two (2) different novels which showed two (2) different futures based on which Presidential candidate survived the assassination - very clever literary device.

I was so upset by being left hanging at the end of the third book, that I wrote him a strong letter about my belief that plot lines should be resolved based on values, etc.

He was kind enough to write back to me and assure me that he was going to write two (2) sequels which would resolve the plot based on two diametrically opposed value systems.

That would be how I would approach it.

What year are you in?

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Hi, Brian

Objectivism's view of the future is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

--Brant

[syrakusos]

Ayn Rand did not invest much thought in supposing the future. She did enjoy "Star Trek" (the original series) for its sense of life. That is not the same thing as expecting the future to be this way or that.

You might explore "libertarian" science fiction such as J. Neil Schulman, L. Neil Smith, Robert Heinlein and Melinda Snodgrass to see what some thinkers posit for a likely future. That said, personally, I see some Ayn Rand influences in William Gibson, not so much in his specific futures (negative) but his writing style. With that as a framework, I look at cyberpunk generally and Gibson in particular as an extrapolation of Atlas Shrugged.

Rand never presumed to tell people what she thought the future could be like if her ideas were commonly accepted, even by a significant minority. Realize that she only found herself at the head of a movement after she achieved maturity. She was not focussed on that. Ayn Rand only came to Objectivism late in life, oddly enough... On the other hand, Lenin and Castro and Mao and Hitler and Mussolini all were. And they understood themselves as extensions of the ideologies of other people, again, something not at all consonant with Rand.

[Dennis Hardin]

What Ayn Rand believed and what she hoped the future would look like (an embrace of her philosophy) are rather clear but there doesn't really seem to be much information on what she thought the world would actually look like. Did she for example believe (and not just hope) that people would genuinely embrace her ideas in her lifetime or within the future?

From what I can tell, she did believe that Objectivism would eventually be embraced as the dominant philosophy in the United States, but probably not in her lifetime. I don't know that she expected that her ideas would ever be accepted by the world at large. Although she felt Objectivism would one day prevail, she also stated that this was not inevitable, since men have free will.

Did she predict that, like in Atlas Shrugged, the USA and governments around the world would become increasingly controlling until a collapse occurred which would culminate in an objectivist society?

No. She did not predict a scenario along the lines of the plot in Atlas Shrugged. She believed her ideas and influence would spread gradually throughout the culture. She never advocated that the "men of the mind" should go on strike.

Did she even have a prediction on what the future would look at all or was she completely rooted on the present?

She apparently believed that the United States would probably, at some future point, resemble the world of "Atlantis" as described in Atlas Shrugged, but she had no idea how long this might take. And her comments clearly suggest that sometimes she had her doubts about whether it would ever happen.

If anyone on this forum has any ideas and can cite specific literary evidence please do, it would be really helpful!

Here is a collection of various statements Ayn Rand made about the future impact of her philosophy.

There is no fatalistic, predetermined historical necessity. Atlas Shrugged is not a prophecy of our unavoidable destruction, but a the manifesto of our power to avoid it, if we choose to change our course.

It is the philosophy of the mysticism – altruism – collectivism axis that has brought us to our present state and is carrying us toward a finale such as that of the society presented in Atlas Shrugged. It is only the philosophy of the reason – individualism – capitalism axis that can save us and carry us, instead, toward the Atlantis projected in the last two pages of my novel.

Since men have free will, no one can predict with certainty the outcome of an ideological conflict nor how long such a conflict will last. It is too early to tell which choice this country will make. I can say only that if part of the purpose of Atlas Shrugged was to prevent itself from becoming prophetic, there are many, many signs to indicate that it is succeeding.

The Objectivist Newsletter, “Is Atlas Shrugging?”, August, 1964

Can this country achieve a peaceful rebirth in the foreseeable future? By all precedents, it is not likely. But America is an unprecedented phenomenon. In the past, American perseverance became, on occasion, too long-bearing a patience. But when Americans turned, they turned. What may happen to the welfare state is what happened to the prohibition amendment.

Is there enough of the American sense of life left in people--under the constant pressure of the cultural-political efforts to obliterate it? It is impossible to tell. But those of us who hold it, must fight for it. We have no alternative: we cannot surrender this country to a zero – to men whose battle cry is mindlessness.

The Ayn Rand Letter, “Don't Let It Go - Part II,” December 6, 1971

NOTE: Miss Rand repeats her question from “Don't Let It Go” asking if there is enough of the American sense of life left in people for the country to survive.

I did not expect that we would be told a year later – and in such an unmistakable, resounding, magnificently affirmative manner. The election was a triumph of the American sense of life, a demonstration of its survival.

The Ayn Rand Letter, ‘The American Spirit,’ November 20, 1972

She ended the same article by saying:

Do not let anyone whine that things are hopeless. The election has demonstrated that it is not too late, that the people are ready to hear the voice of reason – and that so much is still possible.

‘The American Spirit’

Once, years ago, I said that the progress of my career reminded me of the progress of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. Today, the progress of my philosophy is following the same pattern: "It was as if an underground stream flowed through the world and broke out in sudden springs that shot to the surface at random, in unpredictable places." I do not know how many of these springs will remain and, eventually, grow into rivers, or how many will turn muddy and dry. But in the case of these last, others will rise to take their place. Such is the history of the progress of innovations.

The Ayn Rand Letter—‘A Last Survey,’ January-February 1976

From a television interview:

Johnny Carson: Do you think such a day is going to come? We don't seem to be getting too much smarter.

Rand: Nobody can predict the immediate future. I don't know. Men have free will, so it is possible. I don't see any large-scale sign of hope yet, but on the other hand, America is the one country that could not collapse into statism. Whereas Europe always was statist, such a development in America would be contrary to its whole past and all its basic premises. I don't believe that this country could go statist, although what kind of trouble we would get into on the way to liberation, I don't know.

The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, August, 1967 (from the book, Objectively Speaking)

NOTE: During one of her appearances on Johnny Carson, the audience booed Miss Rand when it was mentioned that she was an atheist. The following is my own paraphrase, from memory, of Miss Rand’s response to the obvious disapproval voiced by the studio audience:

Rand: My philosophy is the philosophy of the future, but not quite yet.

[Selene]

Dennis:

Good selection of quotes. One of my all time favorites that I have used forever in writings and speeches is the underground spring from the Fountainhead.

However, looking back, that she could be so inept politically to think that Nixon's re-election was some affirmation of "people being ready to hear the voice of reason" is truly indicative of her lack of understanding of the political process.

John Hospers was the Libertarian candidate and garnered 3,674 votes out of about 77,000,000 cast.

"Nixon's accomplishments while in office included: largely ending segregated classes in the south, revenue sharing, ending the draft, new anticrime laws, started the process of ending the Cold War, recognized and fought against foreign oil price gouging, and implemented a broad environmental program (he is largely responsible for the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). He was the only President to achieve a balanced national budget between 1961 and 1998. He instituted Equal OpportunityEmployment and Title IX."

However, he did end the draft which was an objectivist and libertarian primary interest to expand freedom and the individual right to your own life.

[Backlighting]

What Ayn Rand believed and what she hoped the future would look like (an embrace of her philosophy) are rather clear but there doesn't really seem to be much information on what she thought the world would actually look like. Did she for example believe (and not just hope) that people would genuinely embrace her ideas in her lifetime or within the future?

From what I can tell, she did believe that Objectivism would eventually be embraced as the dominant philosophy in the United States, but probably not in her lifetime. I don't know that she expected that her ideas would ever be accepted by the world at large. Although she felt Objectivism would one day prevail, she also stated that this was not inevitable, since men have free will.

Did she predict that, like in Atlas Shrugged, the USA and governments around the world would become increasingly controlling until a collapse occurred which would culminate in an objectivist society?

No. She did not predict a scenario along the lines of the plot in Atlas Shrugged. She believed her ideas and influence would spread gradually throughout the culture. She never advocated that the "men of the mind" should go on strike.

Did she even have a prediction on what the future would look at all or was she completely rooted on the present?

She apparently believed that the United States would probably, at some future point, resemble the world of "Atlantis" as described in Atlas Shrugged, but she had no idea how long this might take. And her comments clearly suggest that sometimes she had her doubts about whether it would ever happen.

If anyone on this forum has any ideas and can cite specific literary evidence please do, it would be really helpful!

Here is a collection of various statements Ayn Rand made about the future impact of her philosophy.

There is no fatalistic, predetermined historical necessity. Atlas Shrugged is not a prophecy of our unavoidable destruction, but a the manifesto of our power to avoid it, if we choose to change our course.

It is the philosophy of the mysticism – altruism – collectivism axis that has brought us to our present state and is carrying us toward a finale such as that of the society presented in Atlas Shrugged. It is only the philosophy of the reason – individualism – capitalism axis that can save us and carry us, instead, toward the Atlantis projected in the last two pages of my novel.

Since men have free will, no one can predict with certainty the outcome of an ideological conflict nor how long such a conflict will last. It is too early to tell which choice this country will make. I can say only that if part of the purpose of Atlas Shrugged was to prevent itself from becoming prophetic, there are many, many signs to indicate that it is succeeding.

The Objectivist Newsletter, “Is Atlas Shrugging?”, August, 1964

Can this country achieve a peaceful rebirth in the foreseeable future? By all precedents, it is not likely. But America is an unprecedented phenomenon. In the past, American perseverance became, on occasion, too long-bearing a patience. But when Americans turned, they turned. What may happen to the welfare state is what happened to the prohibition amendment.

Is there enough of the American sense of life left in people--under the constant pressure of the cultural-political efforts to obliterate it? It is impossible to tell. But those of us who hold it, must fight for it. We have no alternative: we cannot surrender this country to a zero – to men whose battle cry is mindlessness.

The Ayn Rand Letter, “Don't Let It Go - Part II,” December 6, 1971

NOTE: Miss Rand repeats her question from “Don't Let It Go” asking if there is enough of the American sense of life left in people for the country to survive.

I did not expect that we would be told a year later – and in such an unmistakable, resounding, magnificently affirmative manner. The election was a triumph of the American sense of life, a demonstration of its survival.

The Ayn Rand Letter, ‘The American Spirit,’ November 20, 1972

She ended the same article by saying:

Do not let anyone whine that things are hopeless. The election has demonstrated that it is not too late, that the people are ready to hear the voice of reason – and that so much is still possible.

‘The American Spirit’

Once, years ago, I said that the progress of my career reminded me of the progress of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. Today, the progress of my philosophy is following the same pattern: "It was as if an underground stream flowed through the world and broke out in sudden springs that shot to the surface at random, in unpredictable places." I do not know how many of these springs will remain and, eventually, grow into rivers, or how many will turn muddy and dry. But in the case of these last, others will rise to take their place. Such is the history of the progress of innovations.

The Ayn Rand Letter—‘A Last Survey,’ January-February 1976

From a television interview:

Johnny Carson: Do you think such a day is going to come? We don't seem to be getting too much smarter.

Rand: Nobody can predict the immediate future. I don't know. Men have free will, so it is possible. I don't see any large-scale sign of hope yet, but on the other hand, America is the one country that could not collapse into statism. Whereas Europe always was statist, such a development in America would be contrary to its whole past and all its basic premises. I don't believe that this country could go statist, although what kind of trouble we would get into on the way to liberation, I don't know.

The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, August, 1967 (from the book, Objectively Speaking)

NOTE: During one of her appearances on Johnny Carson, the audience booed Miss Rand when it was mentioned that she was an atheist. The following is my own paraphrase, from memory, of Miss Rand’s response to the obvious disapproval voiced by the studio audience:

Rand: My philosophy is the philosophy of the future, but not quite yet.

Can anyone post the entire transcript from AR's appearance on the Carson Show? Thank you.

[Brian E]

Thank you for everyone's kind reply. I'm a junior at this time Adam so I'm getting ready for the workplace haha. That will mean depending on the economy, business or law (not criminal law though unless I'm the prosecutor).

So if I am correct Ayn Rand did not actually have any image of an Objectivist government? From what I'm getting it seems as if Objectivists due to the fact they neither wish to impose on others nor be imposed on by others simply have a very, in colloquial terms "leave me alone" attitude. A.k.a the Federalist system of government is appropriately objectivist due to the fact people have the right to run to whichever area they feel fits their philosophy (of course I recognize this is overly simplistic due to the fact you really only have two philosophies operating at this time and so can't run to Atlantis even if you really want to).

Now in terms of analyzing Atlantis according to Mr. Hardin this seems to be the world that Objectivists wish to live in but whether it could be actually achieved is uncertain. Out of curiosity were there and/or are there any current Objectivist political movements that are trying to take concrete steps to bring this into fruition. Objectivism by its very nature seems ill-suited for mass politics so were there any specific actions undertaken by Objectivists besides the usual writing and speaking technique.

Also in terms of thinking about whether an Objectivist society would be exactly like the one portrayed in Atlas Shrugged, Atlantis. If I understand Atlantis properly, it did not seem to have a government system but instead was more a society bound together by common beliefs and symbiotic need for one another. At the same time however when I analyze it I can't help but feel this system demands a sort of Platonian philosopher king due to the fact when it comes down to it John Galt seemed to be single-handedly providing electricity as well as the invisibility shield to the outside world without being paid by the others. Of course granted these were individuals who neither asked for his help nor felt entitled to it. It could be said that John Galt did it out of self interest because otherwise he would not be able to live in a society he believed in. Nonetheless does the image of an Objectivist future demand these sort of larger than life figures who willingly provide essential services out of self interest or is limited government acceptable in an Objectivist society?

[Brant Gaede]

Rand, in AS, thought the US Constitution needed a few tweaks.

--Brant

[Selene]

Brian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_Party

The

Objectivist Party

is a

political party

in the

United States

that seeks to promote

Ayn Rand

's philosophy of

Objectivism

in the political realm.

[1]

The party was formed on February 2, 2008 by Thomas Stevens;

[2]

the date was chosen to coincide with Rand's birthday.

The Governing Board of the Objectivist Party currently consists of the following individuals: Dr. Tom Stevens, Dallwyn Merck, and Jonathan Damgaard Jakobsen.

[3]

================================

Objectivist Party Places Presidential Ticket on Florida Ballot

August 23rd, 2008

The Objectivist Party has placed its national ticket on the ballot in two states so far, Colorado and Florida. The Objectivist Party ticket is Thomas Stevens for president and Alden Link for vice-president. Both live in New York state. They were both delegates to the Libertarian Party national convention in Denver, held May 23-26. Stevens was elected at that convention to the national Libertarian Party’s Judicial Committee. However, delegates to the Libertarian Party were mostly unaware that Stevens and Link had held the Objectivist Party national convention in a Denver steakhouse (the Buckhorn Exchange) on May 25 (the same day Bob Barr was nominated for president at the Libertarian convention). It is likely that Stevens would not have been elected to the national Libertarian Party Judicial Committee, if those delegates had been aware that he was promoting a separate political party.

[Dennis Hardin]

Can anyone post the entire transcript from AR's appearance on the Carson Show? Thank you.

There were at least two appearances by Ayn Rand on Carson. Transcripts of both can be found in Objectively Speaking. The material is copyrighted, so they can't be posted online legally except by ARI. You can purchase a used copy of Objectively Speaking at Amazon for around $13.

[Brant Gaede]

Three appearances, I believe. I saw one at the time. It would have had to have been late 1967. I only got back from Vietnam in early Sept. 1967. I'd guess November or December.

--Brant

[Selene]

Three appearances, I believe. I saw one at the time. It would have had to have been late 1967. I only got back from Vietnam in early Sept. 1967. I'd guess November or December.

--Brant

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=11786 <<<<this is the page from OOonline where it is discussed. There are some interesting links.

I found on WorldCat that the Library of Congress has LP recordings of the show, provided by the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. Check out all the ones from August 1967!!!

And here is an entry in the Library of Congress that actually mentions Rand.

[caroljane]

Three appearances, I believe. I saw one at the time. It would have had to have been late 1967. I only got back from Vietnam in early Sept. 1967. I'd guess November or December.

--Brant

http://forum.objecti...showtopic=11786 <<<<this is the page from OOonline where it is discussed. There are some interesting links.

I found on WorldCat that the Library of Congress has LP recordings of the show, provided by the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. Check out all the ones from August 1967!!!

And here is an entry in the Library of Congress that actually mentions Rand.

The Library of Congress would have a good, accessible collection on Rand if she had had the sense to leave her literary artefacts to them, and not to the bunker dwellers of Fort Demento.

[caroljane]

Three appearances, I believe. I saw one at the time. It would have had to have been late 1967. I only got back from Vietnam in early Sept. 1967. I'd guess November or December.

--Brant

http://forum.objecti...showtopic=11786 <<<<this is the page from OOonline where it is discussed. There are some interesting links.

I found on WorldCat that the Library of Congress has LP recordings of the show, provided by the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. Check out all the ones from August 1967!!!

And here is an entry in the Library of Congress that actually mentions Rand.

The Library of Congress would have a good, accessible collection on Rand if she had had the sense to leave her literary artefacts to them, and not to the bunker dwellers of Fort Demento.

I don't know the story on her will except she left everything to Peikoff, and it's hard not to think she did that to spite the Brandens. It seems to me it would have been so morally, and should have been emotionally, right, to leave her papers to the country she chose and loved so fiercely.

Still, her weird views on ideas as personal property were well known, she owned the name of Objectivism etc, and she "owned" the fictional characters she created, although she was paid to create them initially by her publishers and ensuing royalties from readers.

Maybe she just believed personal property should only be left to a person.

[Brant Gaede]

Three appearances, I believe. I saw one at the time. It would have had to have been late 1967. I only got back from Vietnam in early Sept. 1967. I'd guess November or December.

--Brant

http://forum.objecti...showtopic=11786 <<<<this is the page from OOonline where it is discussed. There are some interesting links.

I found on WorldCat that the Library of Congress has LP recordings of the show, provided by the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. Check out all the ones from August 1967!!!

And here is an entry in the Library of Congress that actually mentions Rand.

The Library of Congress would have a good, accessible collection on Rand if she had had the sense to leave her literary artefacts to them, and not to the bunker dwellers of Fort Demento.

I don't know the story on her will except she left everything to Peikoff, and it's hard not to think she did that to spite the Brandens. It seems to me it would have been so morally, and should have been emotionally, right, to leave her papers to the country she chose and loved so fiercely.

Still, her weird views on ideas as personal property were well known, she owned the name of Objectivism etc, and she "owned" the fictional characters she created, although she was paid to create them initially by her publishers and ensuing royalties from readers.

Maybe she just believed personal property should only be left to a person.

I don't think there was any spite involved. Your views on property rights are queer. No publisher paid her anything to create her characters.

--Brant

[ThatGuy]

Brian E:

"Did she predict that, like in Atlas Shrugged, the USA and governments around the world would become increasingly controlling until a collapse occurred which would culminate in an objectivist society?"

Dennis Hardin:

"No. She did not predict a scenario along the lines of the plot in Atlas Shrugged. She believed her ideas and influence would spread gradually throughout the culture. She never advocated that the "men of the mind" should go on strike."

She didn't, but with a qualification... Don Watkins quotes Rand, at the ARC site: Is It Time to "Go Galt"?

Watkins: In 1961 Ayn Rand was asked a question that amounted to: “Is it time to ‘go Galt’?” The questioner suggested it was time to “leave society and start over” like the characters in Atlas Shrugged, to which Rand said in part:

In Atlas Shrugged, I do show how to deal with collectivism. But take things literally only when they apply literally. What do I mean? In Atlas Shrugged, I show the men of intelligence and ability go on strike against collectivist slavery, the world left without them perishes, and the men of the mind are free to start rebuilding the world. Now, the state of collectivism we have reached today is not yet as bad as what I present in Atlas Shrugged. . . . So long as there isn’t censorship, one doesn’t have to leave a society the way the characters did in Atlas Shrugged.

One does not yet have to break relationships with society. But what one must do is break relationships with the culture: Withdraw your sanction from those people, groups, schools, or theories that preach the ideas that are destroying you. In Atlas Shrugged I describe the sanction of the victim–when the good people help their own destroyers–and show in how many ways men are guilty of it, through generosity or ignorance. Anyone serious about saving the world today must first discard the dominant philosophy of the culture. Stand on your own as much as if you moved to a separate valley, like in Atlas Shrugged. Check your premises; define your convictions rationally. Do not take anything on faith; do not believe that your elders know what they’re doing, because they don’t. That’s the sense in which Atlas Shrugged is applicable to our period.

[syrakusos]

Myself, I like William Gibson for an "Objectivist" view of the future. Look, right now, here on RoR, I am being presented with "Live Psychic Readings" a link to click on 0 they accept Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and American Express... MSk finds it economically profitable to provide these links. More power to him! But realize what that means for the Utopia you expect... someday... sooner or later...

[Dennis Hardin]

Three appearances, I believe. I saw one at the time. It would have had to have been late 1967. I only got back from Vietnam in early Sept. 1967. I'd guess November or December.

--Brant

http://forum.objecti...showtopic=11786 <<<<this is the page from OOonline where it is discussed. There are some interesting links.

This post of mine from August of 2010 explains that there were, indeed, three appearances by Rand on Carson, and that portions of all three will be featured in volume 4 of Duncan Scott’s documentary series, ‘The Birth of Objectivism.’ Incidentally, the name of the man who owns these audio recordings is Kerry O’Quinn.

Around this same time, Nathaniel Branden made a couple of appearances on the old 'Joe Pyne' TV show. As I recall, NB was in rare form. I wish I had tapes of those shows as well.

[Guyau]

Way to go, Dennis!

I mean post #5 and your completion of 64 orbits today.

Stephen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

Based on her writings, it has seemed to me that Rand would have been thoroughly unsurprised at the downfall of the Soviet Union. She would have been unsurprised at their technological and economic sluggishness at the end, as well as at the widespread desire for freedom by the people. Also, she would not have been surprised by the Orthodox mysticism that continued after the fall.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Look, right now, here on RoR...

Heh.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I am being presented with "Live Psychic Readings" a link to click on 0 they accept Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and American Express... MSk finds it economically profitable to provide these links. More power to him!

Michael,

I suggest you learn what Adsense is.

Besides, this is a philosophy discussion forum, not an evangelical mission. So look at the drama! Random keywords trigger certain kinds of ads once in a while and you don't like one. Big deal.

I thought you supported capitalism. I guess I was mistaken.

The real kicker is your term "economically profitable." Those ads pay for some stuff (thank goodness), but they do not cover the costs behind this forum. With the traffic this forum gets, the results are a pittance. On some days the "economically profitable" take is ten cents. How's them apples? Think I'm going to retire in the Bahamas on that?

Do you know why it's that way?

Because this kind of forum does not attract buyers. Meaning it attracts people like you instead. It attracts intellectuals (who are usually broke) and it attracts snarky people, who are only interested in showing their butts off in public.

Make a forum and you'll see what I mean.

Oh... You mean you prefer to let other people provide you resources for free so you can complain about what they do to keep things going?

You've got a good mind for free and you interact with other good minds at some good places (like OL) for free. Why not take more advantage of what you've got for free and leave the actual how to pay for it to others? They're not charging you anything.

I normally don't talk about this stuff, but I guess I'm Phil-shocked. When people get underfoot and try to mangle providing stuff they consume for free, it just seems so... tacky.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Check your premises; define your convictions rationally. Do not take anything on faith; do not believe that your elders know what they’re doing, because they don’t. That’s the sense in which Atlas Shrugged is applicable to our period.

Don't trust anyone over thirty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

Oh... You mean you prefer to let other people provide you resources for free so you can complain about what they do to keep things going?

end quote

MEM! Hit the contribute button once a month. You will be paying for services rendered. It makes you feel good too.

I wondered about those OL ads for sexy girls, candidates, psychic readings, and online colleges. As to whether you should accept an ad by Obama is debatable, but after the debate even that is OK. Just so we don’t have to watch a minute commercial for Subaru, power jack, food grinders, or Sham Wow.

Shifting from The Future to now, Newt’s "historical lessons" to people seeking his influence is a similar case of Lassaiz Faire Capitalism but subtly different because of the possible deceit involved. It was either not deceitful to those paying Newt money, or it was. Whether it is deceitful to the voters or not is based upon Newt’s intent to those paying him the money. Tricky. Still, anyone has a right to accept money from anyone but a candidate needs to look at the propriety, appearances and consequences. Without personal wealth a candidate must have contributions from donors.

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

Adsense works much like classified ads in a newspaper. Just a little more jazzed up--and the ads constantly change depending on keywords.

btw - Let me say publicly that your donations have been a blessing. Thank you very much--from both Kat and me. (This goes for a few other folks who sporadically donate--they know who they are.)

Kat and I did not set up OL with aims at turning a profit, or even to be a non-profit organization, but instead to provide an online public community meeting-place for people who like Rand and Rand-related stuff, but are committed to thinking independently. We had met several wonderful people at SoloHQ and when that forum fell apart, there was nowhere to go. At that time, our perception was that we were in a desert where the only viable alternatives seemed to be run by petty guru-wannabees. That's still mostly true.

That mission keeps us going. We do not require donations or advertising to keep OL running. It is going to stay online regardless. But we deeply appreciate the help we do get. It's not just the money, either. It's knowing people care about this place. That had been a secret unexpected emotional prize.

Michael