Why does man need a code of values?

[Jonathan]

Quote attributed elsewhere to George Smith, Atheism: the Case Against God

[snip]

Since the above post is a typed copy from the book, it may contain inaccuracies, and the poster did not give a page reference (though he did reference the book and author).

Good job, Laure.

--Dan Edge

Oh. My. God. He snitched from George??!! That really takes the cake. (I'm cracking up already anticipating Ghs-style witticisms upon his hearing of this.)

Back in awhile with the page reference.

Ellen

___

Man, that's a total asshole move in light of the fact that Victor has been featuring Ghs's quote on his website and in other promotional media:

"Victor's caricatures, aside from being clever in their own right, also convey an intelligence and knowledge about his subjects that is sometimes absent in similar sketches."

J

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross, Post #149 of This Thread

“Politics is the science that defines the principles of a proper social system, including the proper functions of government. It defines man's relationship among each other by applying ethics to social questions.”

Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR

“Politics is the fourth major branch of philosophy. It is the science that defines the principles of a proper social system, including the proper functions of government. It defines man's relationship among each other by applying ethics to social questions.”

Victor Pross, Post #149 of This Thread

“Morality, it as been stated numerous times, is that code of values. A valid moral code must address human needs long-range, conceptualizing the requirements of human survival into an integrated, hierarchically structured, non-contradictory system of reliable principles. Such a code must hold human life as its standard of value…”

Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR

“Morality is that code of values. A valid moral code must address human needs long-range, conceptualizing the requirements of human survival into an integrated, hierarchically structured, noncontradictory system of reliable principles. Such a code must thus hold human life as its standard of value.”

------------------

Setzer is one of Pross's favorites!

--Dan Edge

Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. Here is a passage that was missed:

Victor Pross, Post #149 of This Thread

. . . plants and animals have no choice in their pursuit of values: they follow them automatically based on their ingrained survival mechanisms driven by sensations and percepts. Because human beings, on the other hand, are volitional and conceptual -- they follow no automatic course of action. Thus, unlike all other organisms, human beings require a code of fundamental values accepted by choice in order to survive.

Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR

Plants and animals have no choice in their pursuit of values; they pursue them automatically based on their inbuilt survival mechanisms driven by sensations and percepts. Because human beings are volitional and conceptual, they follow no automatic course of action. Thus, unlike all other organisms, human beings require a code of fundamental values accepted by choice in order to survive.

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross, Post #152 of This Thread

"Man’s ability to conceptualize—mentally to abstract, isolate and integrate observed particulars—enables him in terms of principles, to project the long-range consequences his actions. Volition means that man is the initiator of thought and action."

Attributed Elsewhere to George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

"Man's ability to conceptualize - mentally to abstract, isolate, and integrate observed particulars - enables him to think in terms of principles, to project the long-range consequences of his actions, and to be aware of his own cognitive processes and psychological states. It is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of his needs, capacities and the external world; and it is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of how to exercise his capacities in the external world in order to satisfy his needs.

Volition means that man is the initiator of thought and action..."

Victor Pross, Post #152 of This Thread

"Because man is free to choose his actions, because he is not biologically programmed to act in a give manner—he requires a code of values—a system of principles—to direct his choices. Man’s volitional nature necessitates that he chose to think and act in order to survive."

Attributed Elsewhere to George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

"Because man is free to choose his actions, because he is not biologically programmed to act in a given manner, he requires a code of values - a system of principles - to direct his choices. Man's volitional nature necessitates that he choose to think and act in order to survive."

----------------

This is another recycled plagiarism, copied from the same source, which Ellen is working on.

--Dan Edge

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. Some of this material also was used by Pross here.)

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross, Post #196 of This Thread

"Values are Objective. Values, like concepts, are neither intrinsic nor subjective, but objective. Values (such as objects and actions) are good to man and for the sake of reaching specific goals, the most fundamental of which is the sustenance of an individual's own life. Thus, it has been argued, the conscious choice to live precedes and underlies the need of morality."

Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR

"For Objectivism, values, like concepts, are neither intrinsic nor subjective, but objective. Values (such as objects and actions) are good to man and for the sake of reaching specific goals, the most fundamental of which is the sustenance of an individual's own life. Thus, the conscious choice to live precedes and underlies the need of morality."

Victor Pross, Post #196 of This Thread

"Both intrinsicism and subjectivism reject the notion of objective values for the same reasons that they reject the notion of objective concepts. Intrinsicism divorces "the good" from reason, alleging that "the good" is an intrinsic property of external objects or actions. Subjectivism divorces "the good" from reality, claiming that "the good" is whatever a person (or group of persons) says it is. Thus, neither philosophy provides a real-world, practical code of morality."

Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR

"Both intrinsicism and subjectivism reject the notion of objective values for the same reasons that they reject the notion of objective concepts (see Chapter 4). Intrinsicism divorces "the good" from reason, claiming that "the good" is an intrinsic property of external objects or actions. Subjectivism divorces "the good" from reality, claiming that "the good" is whatever a person (or group of persons) says it is. Thus, neither philosophy provides a real-world, practical code of morality."

----------

More of Pross's favorite.

--Dan Edge

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dayaamm!

I am trying to organize all this in order to start to make the necessary changes, but it is like playing Whack-a-Mole. Every time one post gets whacked, another pops up somewhere else.

For all who are looking for plagiarisms, please accept my gratitude. I will address every single instance. This hit in the middle of another project, so I am having to rearrange my time.

Michael

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross, Post #199 of This Thread

"Objectivism, as you know, advocates egoism: this is the principle that each person's primary moral obligation is his own well-being. Egoism, it must be stressed, is simply the corollary of individual human life as the moral standard. This view opposes the ethical tradition of altruism, the notion that a person's primary moral obligation is to serve some entity other than himself, such as God or society, at the sacrifice of his own welfare."

Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR

"Objectivism advocates egoism, the principle that each person's primary moral obligation is his own well-being. Egoism is simply the corollary of individual human life as the moral standard. This view opposes the ethical tradition of altruism, the notion that a person's primary moral obligation is to serve some entity other than himself, such as God or society, at the sacrifice of his own welfare."

------------

There's more from this post, but you get the idea.

--Dan Edge

Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. Here is another phrase that got left out, but here is also a section from Peikoff that was plagiarized. Pross did not even bother to change Table of Contents type capitalization when he copy/pasted from Peikoff's OPAR page.

Victor Pross, Post #199 of This Thread

Objectivist egoism explicitly champions

long-term, rational self-interest

and should not be confused with subjectivist egoism, which through the centuries has advocated short-term, irrational self-interest through hedonism, irresponsibility, context-dropping, and plundering.

Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR

Objectivist egoism explicitly advocates long-term, rational self-interest and should not be confused with subjectivist egoism, which through the centuries has advocated short-term, irrational self-interest through hedonism, irresponsibility, context-dropping, and whim-worship.

Victor Pross, Post #199 of This Thread

1. Independence. Integrity as Loyalty to Rational Principles.

2. Honesty as the Rejection of Unreality.

3. Justice as Rationality in the Evaluation of Men.

4. Productiveness as the Adjustment of Nature to Man. Pride as Moral Ambitiousness

5. The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil.

Leonard Peikoff, Table of Contents for Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

Chapter 8: Virtue

* Independence as a Primary Orientation to Reality, Not to Other Men

* Integrity as Loyalty to Rational Principles

* Honesty as the Rejection of Unreality

* Justice as Rationality in the Evaluation of Men

* Productiveness as the Adjustment of Nature to Man

* Pride as Moral Ambitiousness

* The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil

[Ellen Stuttle]

Quote attributed elsewhere to George Smith, Atheism: the Case Against God

"Man's ability to conceptualize - mentally to abstract, isolate, and integrate observed particulars - enables him to think in terms of principles, to project the long-range consequences of his actions, and to be aware of his own cognitive processes and psychological states. It is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of his needs, capacities and the external world; and it is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of how to exercise his capacities in the external world in order to satisfy his needs.

Volition means that man is the initiator of thought and action, that he has the capacity to generate and sustain a thought process and a physical movement. It should be mentioned that volition, properly considered, does not violate the principle of causality. Volition does not mean that man's thoughts and actions are uncaused; it means, instead, that with regard to some thoughts and actions (excluding such things as reflex actions), man acts as a primary causal agent; man is the cause. Volition entails a man's freedom to choose among existing alternatives, his choice not being determined by factors beyond his control.

Because man is free to choose his actions, because he is not biologically programmed to act in a given manner, he requires a code of values - a system of principles - to direct his choices. Man's volitional nature necessitates that he choose to think and act in order to survive."

---------------------

Since the above post is a typed copy from the book, it may contain inaccuracies, and the poster did not give a page reference (though he did reference the book and author).

The quote is almost entirely accurate; there are 2 punctuation miscopies, and a word was inserted:

There was no comma in the original after "isolate" (1st sentence);

The "not" in the sentence beginning "Volition does not mean..." is italicized in the original;

The word "a" was added before "man's" in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

Here's the corrected quote:

George Smith, Atheism: the Case Against God,

© 1979 by George H. Smith,

1989 Prometheus Books paperback,

pp. 292 - 293

"Man's ability to conceptualize - mentally to abstract, isolate and integrate observed particulars - enables him to think in terms of principles, to project the long-range consequences of his actions, and to be aware of his own cognitive processes and psychological states. It is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of his needs, capacities and the external world; and it is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of how to exercise his capacities in the external world in order to satisfy his needs.

Volition means that man is the initiator of thought and action, that he has the capacity to generate and sustain a thought process and a physical movement. It should be mentioned that volition, properly considered, does not violate the principle of causality. Volition does not mean that man's thoughts and actions are uncaused; it means, instead, that with regard to some thoughts and actions (excluding such things as reflex actions), man acts as a primary causal agent; man is the cause. Volition entails man's freedom to choose among existing alternatives, his choice not being determined by factors beyond his control.

Because man is free to choose his actions, because he is not biologically programmed to act in a given manner, he requires a code of values - a system of principles - to direct his choices. Man's volitional nature necessitates that he choose to think and act in order to survive."

---------------------

Ellen

___

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Ellen. Duly edited. Some of this material also was used by Pross here.)

[Laure]

JEEZ!!! Well, just for the record, wherever I may have posted "good post, Victor", it should read, "well-stated, George H. Smith or Luke Setzer"!

[Ellen Stuttle]

In process of sending a little note to George Smith telling him that he'd been among those honored by being cribbed from by Victor, I thought of the sobriquet "Victor's Vandalisms." Sounds like a good title for "the collected works."

Ellen

___

Edited June 27, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Laure]

"Victor's Vandalisms: The Borrowed Thoughts of a Klepto-Plagiarist"

[Brant Gaede]

Victor Pross was only a caricature of Victor Pross. Now that's gone too.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I finally caught up with the edits of Pross's plagiarisms identified so far in this thread. Here is the list per author plagiarized:

George H. Smith

Post 39

Post 152

Busted by Laure (Post 39). Online text provided by Dan Edge and correct text and further details provided by Ellen Stuttle

Max More

Post 110

Busted by Dan Edge

Luke Setzer

Post 130

Post 149

Post 196

Post 199 (along with passage by Leonard Peikoff)

Busted by Dan Edge.

BattleGear (pseudonym)

Post 145

Busted by Dan Edge

Ayn Marx

Post 147

Busted by Dan Edge

Leonard Peikoff

Post 199 (along with passage by Luke Setzer)

Busted by MSK

Many thanks to those who contributed. As stated in the respective posts OL extends it deepest apologies to these authors.

Michael

[dan_edge]

But there's more! More cribbing from Mr. George Smith, that is.:

Victor Pross, Post #229 of This Thread

“Man has the capacity for choice, and whether a theoretical principle is applied to the sphere of human action, it becomes necessary to prescribe a course of action, an ought-judgment, if a given goal is to be achieved.”

Elsewhere Attributed to George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

“Man has the capacity for choice, and whenever a theoretical principle is applied to the sphere of human action, it becomes necessary to prescribe a course of action, an ought judgment, if a given goal is to be achieved”

---------------

--Dan Edge

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross, Post #233 of This Thread

"Medicine, as the example went, prescribes a set of actions that must be taken in order to preserve or to reinstate health. A doctor prescribes what ought to be done and this must be based on objective knowledge."

Elsewhere Attributed to George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

"Medicine, for instance, prescribes those actions that must be taken in order to preserve health. A doctor prescribes what ‘ought’ to be done, but this prescription, to be valid, must be based on objective knowledge..."

--------

I guess Pross just steals from whatever he happens to be reading at the time.

--Dan Edge

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

[dan_edge]

The plagiarism of "Ayn Marx" is recycled again (and at length) by Pross is Post #269.

--Dan Edge

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. The post you mentioned is a plagiarism of Ronald E. Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand. As noted elsewhere, "Ayn Marx" is also a plagiarist of Ron Merrill.)

[dan_edge]

Even teeny tiny posts are injected with plagiarism.

Victor Pross, Post #354 of This Thread

"The common fallacy is to equate tautology with circular reasoning. It’s not the same thing: circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology likens a thing to itself."

Gary McGath, Review of Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things

"Also, he equates tautology with circular reasoning. But these are different; circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology equates a thing to itself."

-------------

--Dan Edge

Edited June 28, 2007 by dan_edge

[dan_edge]

And that was Pross's last post on this thread. What a finisher!

--Dan Edge

[dan_edge]

I understand why Laure is hurt and angry by this, after seeing Pross writing things to her like this (from post #2):

"Laure, I suppose you got the strong leads I was giving on the ethics thread to direct the conversation to this very same question."

The "strong leads [he] was giving" were from articles which contained wholesale plagiarism.

Laure was engaged in conversation with a variety of different people: George Smith, "Ayn Marx", Max Moore, Luke Setzer -- everyone but Victor Pross, with whom she thought she was dealing. Many others at OL had the same experience. After over 2,000 posts from Pross, I can see how that would piss people off.

--Dan Edge

Edited June 28, 2007 by dan_edge

[Laure]

Yes, Dan, that's exactly it. I had suspicions about some of his better posts, and actually Googled some phrases, but didn't find anything at the time. I was starting to like the guy on this thread... but it was really George Smith & others that I was liking!

Edited June 28, 2007 by Laure

[Ellen Stuttle]

I guess Pross just steals from whatever he happens to be reading at the time.

No, that credits him with more intelligence than he has, the idea that he was "happen[ing] to be reading" anything. He was spending hours a day on this elist and/or sending messages to or talking on the phone with Angie. All the material he quoted from -- have there been any exceptions? -- was material which was available ON THE WEB. Pross's research method consisted in carousing the web for sources.

One of the things I noticed early in his postings was that he'd write sentences -- or passages -- where part of what he stated made sense but some wording(s) or other would be inserted which indicated that he didn't understand the issue he was talking about. There's a good brief example in a subsequent post. I'll illustrate with that (in a separate post).

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Even teeny tiny posts are injected with plagiarism.

Victor Pross, Post #354 of This Thread

"The common fallacy is to equate tautology with circular reasoning. It’s not the same thing: circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology likens a thing to itself."

Gary McGath, Review of Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things

"Also, he equates tautology with circular reasoning. But these are different; circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology equates a thing to itself."

-------------

--Dan Edge

This is a good brief example of why Pross's posts added up to gibberish even when he was quoting from knowledgeable sources.

Notice in the first sentence he changes McGath's "Also, he [Michael Shermer] equates tautology with circular reasoning" to "The common fallacy is to equate tautology with circular reasoning." Huh? What does he mean, "the common fallacy"? There are a great many common fallacies. Had he written "a common fallacy," the sentence would be respectable; as written, it isn't.

He goes on with a bigger gaffe (the first could, possibly, and especially if someone else besides Victor had written it, be dismissed as just a typo).

McGath wrote: "circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology equates a thing to itself."

Pross changes this to: "circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology likens a thing to itself."

No, tautology doesn't liken a thing to itself; it does as McGath described, equates a thing to itself. These are not the same.

Someone who knows what a tautology is, and is paying attention, would need to correct Victor in responding to him just on that small bit. I found out early in my own exchanges with him that providing such a correction was useless, since in the next post he'd just come back with still further wrong details.

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

I guess Pross just steals from whatever he happens to be reading at the time.

No, that credits him with more intelligence than he has, the idea that he was "happen[ing] to be reading" anything. He was spending hours a day on this elist and/or sending messages to or talking on the phone with Angie. All the material he quoted from -- have there been any exceptions? -- was material which was available ON THE WEB. Pross's research method consisted in carousing the web for sources.

One of the things I noticed early in his postings was that he'd write sentences -- or passages -- where part of what he stated made sense but some wording(s) or other would be inserted which indicated that he didn't understand the issue he was talking about. There's a good brief example in a subsequent post. I'll illustrate with that (in a separate post).

Ellen

___

Yeah, Victor's Vandalisms were kind of like a fucked up sort of Turing test experience. It was hard to tell for sure if you were talking to a human or some kind of "plagerism" machine.

In fact, I was thinking that if anyone ever missed Victor's presence, all they'd have to do is have a conversation with Google, and it would pretty much be the same thing.

Person: "I heard that Rand disliked men with facial hair. What's up with that?"

Google: "...she did not like men who wore facial hair or listened to Mozart, and if you didn't give them up you were unfit for Rand's inner circle. This is particularly sinister if one considers that Karl Marx, believed by millions to be the very symbol of liberation, was also an autocrat who, though professed to be the ultimate champion of democracy, resorted to extraordinary means to maintain control of the International Workingmen's Association. He even moved its headquarters to New York to exclude the libertarian influence."

Person: "Huh? Did you bring up Marx because he had a beard? Did Rand hate beards because, as a Russian, she associated them with Marx? Is that what you're saying?"

Google: "Marx's beard is actually his brain slowly dripping out his chin."

Person: "Ha! Good one, Google. But you didn't answer my question. I was interested in whether or not Rand disliked beards because Marx had one. Can we stick to the subject, please?"

Google: "Karl Marx’s Beard is an exciting combination of spoken narrative and physical theatre. By exploring the extraordinary political behemoth which was Communist Russia in the first half of the 20th century we are faced with the terrifying reality that, as a race, we are totally suggestible. That we will never fully know political or historical truth. A lightness of approach to a heavy subject, and playful handling by the director, enabled the piece to avoid being uncomfortably didactic."

Person: "WTF? Now you're talking about a play? Does the play make reference to Rand's hatred of Marx and his beard or something?"

Google: "She also hated facial hair. She was a brilliant genius who was wacky. As the Libertarian movement began growing up independently of her, she denounced it - myself included - as 'right wing hippies'! My first book on her came out while I was protesting the Vietnam War alongside the New Left."

Person: "So she hated beards because hippies wore them? Interesting. Btw, I didn't know that you were an author. Where can I find a copies of your books? Are they still in print and in bookstores?"

Google: "When dealing with bookstore owners and book buyers, stay positive. Be persistent, but never pushy. If you can take “no” gracefully, the door is still open to go back in later."

Person: "Okay. Whatever. Btw, are you still drawing caricatures?"

Google: "I'm an animator from LA who has started a business bringing caricature booths into the modern day suing Wacom Cintiq Tablets and Flash. We're drawing peoples faces onto pre-animated bodies directly into the computer digitally so they get to be an animated cartoon. I just finished my first summer at a Six Flags Amusement Park in Maryland, and I have other locations opening up that are also interested. I'm determined to make a revolution in caricature booths in tourist destinations."

Person: "Well, the best of luck to you with that!"

J

[George H. Smith]

Ellen Stuttle wrote:

"Oh. My. God. He snitched from George??!! That really takes the cake. (I'm cracking up already anticipating Ghs-style witticisms upon his hearing of this.)"

"Back in awhile with the page reference."

I've been too busy to keep abreast of threads, but Ellen alerted me to the issue of Victor's plagiarism.

Victor's plagiarism is even more extensive than was originally indicated in the highlighted portions in his post from March 18, 2007; virtually his entire post is taken, nearly verbaim, from my book, *Atheism: The Case Against God.*

The highlighted portion (subsequently quoted by other posters) is from pages 292-3 of ATCAG. Rather than bore readers with more of the same, I will merely cite two additional examples, which immediately follow the highlighted passages:

Victor:

"Man’s purposive nature means that man is goal-directed, that he is not bound to perceptual, range-of-the-moment responses. Man faces alternative and he is free to choose among them---if he conceptualizes his choice to think in terms of a purpose. A value preference necessarily implies a goal or end—that being: the object, process or state that is valued."

ATCAG, p. 293:

"Man's purposive nature means that man is goal-directed, that he is not (and cannot be) bound to perceptual, range-of-the-moment responses. Since man is faced with alternatives, and since he is free to choose among them, if he conceptualizes his choice he must think in terms of a purpose. A value preference (as it applies to and motivates human action) necessarily implies a goal or end -- namely, the object, process, or state that is valued."

Victor:

A summary:

"A, man’s conceptual capacity is his ability to think in terms of principles.

B, man’s volition necessitates that he think in terms of principles

C, man’s purposiveness determines the content of those principles."

ATCAG, p. 293:

"To summarize these elements: man's conceptual capacity is his ability to think in terms of principles; man's volition necessitates that he think in terms of principles; and man's purposiveness determines the content of those principles."

I'm afraid I don't have a witty response to this and similar incidents. I find the whole thing truly sad. I met Victor at a conference in Canada around five years ago, and I liked him a good deal. Moreover, I was very impressed with his caricatures of famous persons -- so much so that I recommended to Andrea Rich that she commission Victor to do a calendar for Laissez-Faire Books that featured similar caricatures of famous libertarian personalities. I thought this would be a popular item (especially since I didn't see any cruelty or vindictiveness in Victor's drawings), but nothing apparently came of this plan.

I just don't understand why Victor would resort to such flagrant plagiarism. He could easily credit quotations from sources he agrees with, or he could have paraphrased the same ideas in his own words. He is an intelligent fellow, so I don't see any point to this pathetic business -- especially since ATCAG is pretty well known among Objectivist-types, and someone was bound, sooner or later, to notice the plagiarism.

I am thus more dumbfounded and saddened than I am angry or offended. I have to think that there is more going on here that meets the eye. I know that Victor has been banned from posting here, but if he is still reading posts and happens to read this one, and if he would care to discuss this issue with me offlist, he can reach me at smikro@earthlink.net.

Ghs

[Laure]

George, I don't get why Victor didn't just quote from your wonderful book! Then we all could have genuinely enjoyed our common admiration for your work, rather than I and possibly others being tricked into thinking that Victor wrote those things himself. Heck, I remember in the early '80s reading aloud from ACTAG to my college roommate those passages that I felt I couldn't possibly express better myself. Well, at least Victor had good taste sometimes!

Just wanted to say to you directly, thank you for "Atheism: The Case Against God", a book that's been a big influence on my life!

[George H. Smith]

Laure,

Thanks for the kind remarks about Atheism: the Case Against God.

It sometimes amazes me that the book has remained in print for 33 years, especially considering that I wrote most of it when I was 23. The writing of it, which took 14 months, spanned a period that was the most exhilarating of my life. In 1971, I left the University of Arizona and moved to Hollywood; this was a time when Southern California was an intellectual center for Objectivists and libertarians; the area was buzzing with activity, and I needed only to hop on my Yamaha 250 cc "two banger" and drive to various universities and meetings to rub shoulders with philosophers and other academics and activists who generally shared my enthusiasm and optimism for the future of reason and freedom.

For libertarians and Objectivists, L.A. in the early seventies was akin to the Paris described by Hemmingway in A Moveable Feast. Some of the younger generation's best and brighest were there, such as Roy Childs and Jeff Riggenbach, as well as more established icons of the movement, such as the Brandens and John Hospers. You could easily attend two or more meetings or lectures per week, if you were so inclined, or you could print up some flyers, pass them around, and give your own lectures -- as I frequently did on such topics as "A History of Greek philosophy," "A Critique of Skepticism," "The Philosophy of History," "Objectivism as a Religion," and more. And believe it or not, you could usually get ten people or more to show up and thereby earn a few bucks.

Then there was the office of Academic Associates on Melrose, run by Bob Berole and Barbara Branden, where you could stop by and often meet interesting people -- I believe I first met Jeff Riggenbach there -- and perhaps play a game of chess with the amiable stock room guy who should have been shipping books instead. And you could always submit some reviews for AA "Book News" and, if they were accepted, earn $25 a pop and learn a lot about writing from the expert editing of Barbara Branden.

While writing ATCAG, I lived in the same Hollywood apartment building (near Selma and Highland) as the late, great Roy Childs, so we saw each other every day. Roy was busy writing his magnum opus against the state (published as a multi-part article in "The Individualist"), while I was busy writing my magnum opus against god -- so between the two of us we figured we pretty much had the enemies of freedom and reason covered. Those many hours I spent with Roy, Jeff (often at an IHOP on Sunset around 3 a.m., where we discussed literature and philosophy and pondered other deep thoughts), and other serious intellectuals were among the most intellectually productive of my life.

It was a great time to be alive. Of course, we were almost always broke, but that didn't seem to matter.

Ghs