When my next renewal comes, I will be ending my subscription to REASON magazine. I have subscribed since 1994. I don't seem to have much time to read the magazine itself anymore, but do check out the web site now and then. Even though I haven't read it that much, I still felt that I should support it with a subscription.

The "final straw" was this piece of garbage on the web site:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/128200.html

It's an article defending the drinking age of 21. The author even hints at increasing it.

Some people tell me it's been going downhill since Marty Zupan left the magazine.

I ended my subscription with Reason about 1999 and, as far as I am concerned, they do not live up to their title.

Reason has not only has gone out of its way to insult Libertarian Party candidates (like Harry Browne) but also they have an interventionist tinge to them that doesn't set well with me.

Your pointing out their support of maintaining the 21 year old drinking age is an example.

Justin Raimondo had some very interesting things to point out about Reason and how they ended up being taken over by Liberventionists.

They backed Gulf Wars I & II, for instance.

It was Raimondo's missives at Antiwar.com (which are heavily researched) that finally convinced me to stop subscribing to it.

I find Liberty magazine to be a better choice.

I didn't mind their article on Browne all that much. They seemed to have adopted a vendetta against Ron Paul--not sure what has motivated this one, unless they are looking for acceptance by the establishment. And Raimondo's comments have definitely swayed me against it as well. I'm actually hearing from some long-time subscribers that they have already given up on it as well.

I will give a little cash cash to antiwar.com instead.

After more than 35 years, I'm letting it go. Aside from quality of content, I was never able to adjust to the new layout with gratuitous over use of color and fragmentation of various small articles all over the damn place. The real kicker, though, was it never ran one article about "reason." I threw away the last 30 years of back issues keeping only a few.

--Brant

I guess the last three posts are from the anti-reason crowd at Objectivist Living.

All sarcasm aside I rarely look at Reason but I am not happy with anti-war.com. Justine Raimando is one of the most personally obnoxious persons I have ever meet.

Is that based on personal contact?

I've never met him.

I've known way too many activists who are "personally obnoxious." Quite a few called themselves "Objectivists."

This is from personal contact. I don''t lie!

Are you a Cretan?

Dragon; I know the story.

That's fine. It's just that I have heard other people make those kind of comments about people they have never met.

I meet the "gentleman". I prefer the people at Reason.

I'm more interested in judging Mister Raimondo by what he actually says. Facts are facts, whether he is obnoxious or not. That kind of personality is actually pretty good for what he does. He has done way too much good work.

If a shoemaker makes shoes that are comfortable, I'm not going to care about his personality. If the shoes hurt my feet, I'm not going to care about how nice he is.

Chris B,

I let my subscription to Reason lapse in 2004. I was annoyed by some things they did during the Virginia Postrel years, but found her own work interesting enough to keep reading. When she left and Nick Gillespie took over, I found lots of attitude but hardly any interest.

We're repainting our house, so I've had, well, an incentive to toss a lot of old papers. I feel no regret over the many old Reasons that are taking a one-way trip to the recycler.

Reason has always had a prickly relationship with Libertarian candidates. I haven't seen the recent stuff about Ron Paul, so I don't know what their main beef with him is about. (I did read the New Individualist piece and had a lot of problems with that one.)

There's been some discussion of Congressman Paul elsewhere on this site. After I got a slew of literature from South Carolina Ron Paul for President that, in my opinion, openly pandered to hatred of Mexicans, I didn't vote for him in the Republican primary. This doesn't mean that I'm going to demonize the guy, or dismiss the good work he's done on many issues, but I do think that he has considerable flaws.

As for Justin Raimondo, I've never met him. His biography of Murray Rothbard is readable, but a little short on critical distance from its subject. Some of his Antiwar.com stuff has been sensible, IMHO, and some has been way the hell out there. (Is Mr. Raimondo still acting as an apologist for Vladimir Putin? Some of his writing appears to exemplify the old Rothbardian doctrine that nothing is especially wrong with imperialism, except when the United States is practicing it.)

Robert C

Robert; Your post is very sensible and balanced.

You have summed up my objection to the Rothbard-Paul- Romando approach to foreign policy. It can be summed up as the only bad country is the US.

Robert,

LOL...

That's a very good quote.

Michael

That's too bad. I certainly would have take some of them if they were early ones.



I didn't object to their coverage of Browne back in 1996. It was truthful. And some of their stuff has been just plain inaccurate.



Until I ever run for office, I don't expect to find a candidate who agrees with me on everything. I don't think Ron Paul suffers from hatred of Mexicans. However, there are some major xenophobes out there who did just happen to support Doctor Paul.

A lot of the material that was passed out was made on people's home computers. I passed 200 or more flyers that I had made myself and printed with my color laser. My guess is that the material you got came from some of the more ignorant supporters of Doctor Paul.



I wouldn't call him an apologist for Putin. He has pointed out that Russia has a flat tax and a lower tax rate. I don't remember him saying good things about Putin specifically.

Scott Horton has interviewed lots of people for their radio show. He's had people who have been sympathetic to the incompetent Georgian bungler Saakashvili. One had even worked at a law firm where Saakashvili had interned. He knew him personally.

Raimondo has always been consistent in that he believes that the purpose of the federal government is to defend the country, that the purpose of national defense is to retaliate against the use of force.

And what exactly is wrong with this? Only Americans can correct the mistakes that Americans have made. Only Americans can improve themselves.

I am coming to understand why so many Rand readers have embraced this war. They have an attitude: "I am unimprovable and am here to judge everyone else. If these people disagree with me, they are 'evil'" Translated to foreign policy, this is: "America is perfect. Every other country is flawed. We must correct this flawed world. If they refuse us, then they are 'evil' and must be killed before they kill us."

With such paranoid delusions, I wonder how these people sleep at night. After all, if you go to sleep, you are already letting down your defenses. Personally, I don't want to have that kind of view of the world. I think Rand often said that the universe is benevolent. Paranoid delusions aren't consistent with this.

Baker; Take a read on some of the things Ayn Rand said about America.

Have you read any of her? Have you even heard of her?

Chris,

That is not accurate.

There is an huge mix of reasons involved in the general pro-war attitude of many Objectivists, some flattering and some not. Not one Objectivist I know or know of, not even the most rabid Randroid, even remotely resembles the description above (although I do admit that the bigoted nuke 'em all attitude of some ARI members comes close, but even that is due to fear, not conceit).

If you wish to convince anyone of your views, mischaracterizing what they think is not the way to do it. If you wish to insult and only insult, you did a pretty good job of it.

The issue is how much value this kind of rhetoric holds for you and those who choose to interact with you. I personally hold little value for it. Actually, I don't mind flare-ups due to impassioned reasoning, but I did not sense this in your comment. I sensed something else and I not only hold little value for it, I don't like it. I am only addressing this right now because I do not want to see this forum become a snarky petty little mess of insults thrown back and forth.

Neither Kat nor I wish to pay for crap like that.

May I suggest using reason for your discussion method? You have a good mind. I, for one, would be pleased to see it.

Michael

The alcoholic also denies that he is an alcoholic. Just as it is pointless to reason with alcoholics about their alcoholism, it is also a lost cause to reason with war mongers about their war mongery. Of course, the alcoholic only harms the people who are closest to him (unless he drives while drunk). The war monger, on the other hand, is much more destructive. He has a hand in the deaths of millions.

I've been around enough so-called Objectivists to have seen all this way too many times. Back in 1995, when I first attended an IOS seminar, I never imagined that the movement would sink as low as it has. I was actually very optimistic when I went there.

It's a pretty common story--a young person reads Rand and is enthralled. The reader decides to reach out to others who also like Rand. He meets them personally and today "meets" them in forums like this one. Within a few years, he leaves Objectivism in total disgust because of the people he encounters. If he's lucky, he keeps a few of the good ones in his life.

Even Chris Matthew Sciabarra doesn't come to boards like this. I finally met him in 2004 and have known him since 1996. He doesn't go to boards like this because he's totally fed up.

Chris,

If you read the posts, you will find that I am more in tune with the anti-war people than the pro-war. (Actually, I fall somewhere outside that dichotomy as I usually do with dichotomies). I have seen the old-boy politics the USA's foreign policy up close, so I am not friend of that. I am not in favor of ignoring attacks and perceived danger, either.

And I HATE bigotry. I loathe it.

One thing is for sure. You will not convince any of the pro-war people by calling them names or expressing contempt for them. Reason does work, but it cuts both ways.

Pro-war: Person A (lots of passion and bombast)
Anti-war: Person B (lots of passion and bombast)
Reason: Reality (ruthless)

It cannot be otherwise.

I have followed some of your posts on RoR. Sometimes you make excellent points, but they most often get buried under the name-calling. I will make an unsolicited suggestion to you. If I were you, I would consider what my values were. Why post on forums if your ideas are not going to be heard, but you are going be insulted and you will insult others instead? Do you really wish to convince people or do you like the bickering? Or, as you say about the alcoholic, can you help yourself?

I am not trying to be presumptive. I am an alcoholic, myself. I just don't drink.

So what is it? Do you want to make a difference, or do you want to scratch an itch?

Sustained bitterness is spiritual poison and it leads people to betray the very values they cherish.

Try reason here on OL, Chris. Not everyone will agree with you, but your ideas will be presented among very intelligent people and those who are receptive to them will see them in a very good environment.

I do this with Objectivism. If Objectivism as a body of ideas cannot stand up to strong criticism, then it needs to be changed or abandoned. I need to do it on a very person level because I don't have time left to follow a wrong set of ideas. If Objectivism can stand up, that makes it stronger. That not only applies to the whole concept of Objectivsm, but to individual parts of it as well. I want critics to give it their best shot, not something I can easily "trounce."

I don't really need proof that this is the best way to be, either, since this is a personal value judgment. I selfishly want to know that I am on the right track. That's why I try to surround myself with people smarter than me, and I especially value smart people of goodwill who think differently than me. But if proof were needed, the success of this forum in attracting some of the best minds in the Objectivist subculture is more than sufficient proof that this approach is sound.


That's not accurate. Yes, Chris S is a bit fed up, but he has health issues and his marvelous work to do. Too much posting was cutting into his time and he made a value judgment. He does not post on ANY boards, not just ones "like this."

Chris does keep up his email correspondence, although he gets behind sometimes. I know this for a fact.

Then there was that lowlife attack on him from Perigo, Hsieh, Valliant and Maurone and some shameful others where they published his private correspondence, interpreted it in their own manner and blasted him in public for weeks on end, all with nudges from the more radical orthodox Objectivists. What a circus of snarly little boneheads showing their hind-ends in public and parading that mess under the name of Objectivism!

If I were Chris, given his context, I also would keep away from places where I would possibly run into those petty crummy little idiots, even across forums. They seek their reputations in his light, not he in theirs.

My own acts in defense of Chris are well known, as are the acts of others who post here (and elsewhere).

Michael

Chris:

"The alcoholic also denies that he is an alcoholic. Just as it is pointless to reason with alcoholics about their alcoholism, it is also a lost cause to reason with war mongers about their war mongery. Of course, the alcoholic only harms the people who are closest to him (unless he drives while drunk). The war monger, on the other hand, is much more destructive. He has a hand in the deaths of millions."


I'll drink to the fact that your ability to argue rationally does not exist.

Have you considered maturing before opening your mouth on a keyboard?

If I could find something rational to refute, I'm sure it would be easy to respond to you.

By the way, is there a particular time that you have to be back at the institute for your meds?

Adam

Adam,

LOL...

Thanks a lot.



I'm trying to reach out and you are baiting the dude. Dayaamm!

Michael

I haven't seen many of your posts. You seem to be in the middle. I also respect the fact that you have actually lived abroad. People who have been around the world generally have a more sensible attitude toward issues like American imperialism.



My point is that it is hopeless to try to convince them. I'm mainly trying to convince the anti-war people that such people are a lost cause. I have never seen people who are so dedicated to their own delusions. Even many veterans are coming out against the war. Have the war hawks ever asked themselves why?



It's everywhere in Objectivism.

By saying that the warhawks are hopeless, isn't this just following the typical Objectivist tactic? Rand declared Branden evil in 1968, and it had nothing to do with philosophy. Rand then alienated everyone else with the exception of a worthless Peter Keating parasite who is now running her entire ship into an iceberg. The standard Objectivist tactic is simply to shun people and declare that they aren't worth talking to. Well, I'm doing that with the warmongers.



And he does good work. I think CMS is the best Objectivist scholar out there. I know about his health issues and why he doesn't travel. I went out of my way to meet him back in 2004. We had some pizza for lunch, and then I went to an event at FEE. He's a great host.



I have only encountered Diana Hsieh. I have no experience with the others.

I was perhaps the only person who was not surprised by what Diana did. I knew her character was extremely questionable all the way back in 1996. This was back when she was programming the IOS web site. They even started inviting her to speak, and she did until she broke from them. Unfortunately, it kind of showed that IOS/TOC/TAS was already somewhat doomed. I was kind of happy when her actions finally proved me right.

Would I use reason with someone like her? It would be absolutely useless.

Chris:

"My point is that it is hopeless to try to convince them. I'm mainly trying to convince the anti-war people that such people are a lost cause. I have never seen people who are so dedicated to their own delusions. Even many veterans are coming out against the war. Have the war hawks ever asked themselves why?"

Since I am one of the anti-war folks, you devalue any positive position that can be advanced by ad hominem arguments.

Tell me the objective, non value laden connotative cliched phrased why the anti-war position can be advanced, please?

My apologies Michael, the attack path by Chris just pissed me off. I will be more respectful, even if it may take effort.

Adam

Have you ever convinced any of these pro-war Objectivists of the folly of this war, Adam? Can you show me that reasoning with these people has worked? Name me one person.

The evidence against American imperialism is overwhelming. American imperialism has failed for well over 100 years now. It has done very little good. It has indirectly lead to much harm. Even Rand herself was against American imperialism.

You can not make an ostrich raise its head from the sand. You can not make the blind see. People hear what they want to hear. They believe what they want to believe. You can not force people to think. They feel what they want to feel.

Even before the WTC, I knew some so-called Objectivists who were easily the most stubborn people I had ever met. They were not rational beings, although they had claimed that rationality is a virture. I have known many so-called Objectivists who are great rationalizing beings. The sad truth is that people who are alleged champions of reason and reality are in fact the people who are least receptive to reason and reality.

In the past few years, I've seen these genocidial maniacs actually praise the massacre of Filipinos over 100 years ago. More recently, I am seeing these same people praise police harassment of peaceful demonstrators.

There is even a thread on this board praising a loser who will go down as one of this country's worst Presidents. Right now, this same federal government has spent probably a trillion dollars to bail out incompetent and corrupt mortgage and finance companies. Even if the war and the WTC had never happened, Bush2's legacy would have been a bad done. And these so-called champions of reason and reality would be pointing this out if there was no war. However, they love Bush and worship him because Bush has committed mass murder and torture against thousands of people that are different from them.

How is the empire and genocide that these so-called Objectivists love going to be paid for? Blank out.

Just as American communists who worshipped Stalin and Mao deserve no respect, these people do not deserve it either. In some respects, they are even worse. While even John McCain's and Sarah Palin's sons are in the empire's military, these keyboard jockeys are just cowards who want to cheer on the war from the comfort of their living room as if they are watching the Super Bowl.

Even before this war, I believed that many Objectivists are cowards. It's even more true today. This explains why so many Objectivists are what I call different-phobes. They are people who simply fear anything that is different from them.

I remember back in Madison (IOS seminar) in 1995 when some nutcases were bitching at me because I didn't like a Frank Lloyd Wright house. That, of course, was rank heresy to these so-called champions of reason. To them, any Frank Lloyd Wright has to be good just because Rand declared that he was the greatest architect who had ever lived. Thus, no criticism of him in any form can be tolerated.

That's what you get for being a truly independent thinker.

Chris:

Can you present a cogent argument without all the "noise", please.

Adam

That's two.

You're in South Carolina. I just remembered you could have voted for Stephen Colbert:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/21/s...meet-the-press/