Paul Ryan's Objective Virtues

[caroljane]

Adam, I am equally willing to be mistaken if my impression is wrong. And I have no problem with inherited money, believe me.

This is one of the items that stuck in my mind from the Dinosaur Print Media but I cannot remember which one and I don't know how to look for it. i remember the article quoted exact figures, so I presumed it was from public records. It was not a lot of money, around a million or so as best I remember for the trust/investment fund.

As far as I am concerned it just shows that Ryan prudently banked or invested his capital and lived off his income.

[9thdoctor]

There's no doubt that he got his Wiener-mobile job through connections with the Bavarian Illuminati. Look it up. "Kraft" foods? It's all a front. Even Alex Jones knows better than to touch the Wiener conspiracy.

[Selene]

Dennis:

The really frightening part of your post is that the electorate has been so dumbed down that many would cite that and say:

"See, I told you there was a conspiracy!"

Ayn never really went that "conspiracy" route, even though it was clear with the meetings in dark subterranean restaurants, she, admirably, just wrote it off to a common evil mindset.

It was reminiscent for me of C.W. Mills' book, The Power Elite.

Adam

[Guyau]

The text of Paul Ryan’s convention speech is here. It is effective in its criticisms of President Obama, though not entirely consistent in its own vision. Much equivocation, of course.

Mr. Ryan walked in the garden extending one hand to doctrines of Jesus, the other hand to doctrines of Ayn Rand. Jesus would not take that hand, neither would Rand take the other. Ryan finds that he and Gov. Romney share the same faith-based, self-evident, and largely equivocal, moral creed. It includes the proposition that “the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak.” Indeed, “the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.” All of them? Or are some of the weak and helpless deserving of assistance (by government, to be sure) and others not? There is some difference here with Obama, evidently, on who should be aided.

“And I hope you [college graduate, who can’t find a job] understand this too, if you’re feeling left out or passed by: You have not failed, your leaders have failed you.” Well, er, no, neither. After graduating with a degree in physics in 1971, I could not find a job. Eventually, I found that if you looked far enough down, you would find people with a job for you. I worked first, after college, at the counter of a fast-food restaurant. Then as a busboy in a full restaurant. Then in grounds maintenance at a hotel-office complex. Then, for seven years, as an unskilled laborer at a printing-mailing firm. Then . . . and then I went back to college and got a second degree, one for which there was demand. I never blamed my unemployment on government policy.

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

PS

. . . Militarism is the chronic bulldozer of economic sense for Republicans. . .

Reagan/Romney

[caroljane]

The effectiveness was based so heavily on the equivocation though...

The first casualty of political war is truth.

[Selene]

“And I hope you [college graduate, who can’t find a job] understand this too, if you’re feeling left out or passed by: You have not failed, your leaders have failed you.” Well, er, no, neither. After graduating with a degree in physics in 1971, I could not find a job. Eventually, I found that if you looked far enough down, you would find people with a job for you. I worked first, after college, at the counter of a fast-food restaurant. Then as a busboy in a full restaurant. Then in grounds maintenance at a hotel-office complex. Then, for seven years, as an unskilled laborer at a printing-mailing firm. Then . . . and then I went back to college and got a second degree, one for which there was demand. I never blamed my unemployment on government policy.

Excellent point Stephen. I cringed at that part of the speech. However, I will still work with the man because he is correct on so much of his analysis and action proposals.

[syrakusos]

"We had help from Medicare, and it was there, just like it's there for my Mom today. Medicare is a promise, and we will honor it. A Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare, for my Mom's generation, for my generation, and for my kids and yours."

"Mitt and I also go to different churches. But in any church, the best kind of preaching is done by example. And I've been watching that example. The man who will accept your nomination tomorrow is prayerful and faithful and honorable. Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best. Not only a fine businessman, he's a fine man, worthy of leading this optimistic and good-hearted country.

"Our different faiths come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and likeness of the Lord of Life."

[Brant Gaede]

"We had help from Medicare, and it was there, just like it's there for my Mom today. Medicare is a promise, and we will honor it. A Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare, for my Mom's generation, for my generation, and for my kids and yours."

"Mitt and I also go to different churches. But in any church, the best kind of preaching is done by example. And I've been watching that example. The man who will accept your nomination tomorrow is prayerful and faithful and honorable. Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best. Not only a fine businessman, he's a fine man, worthy of leading this optimistic and good-hearted country.

"Our different faiths come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and likeness of the Lord of Life."

We promise to keep robbing one group to pay off another group.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

I ran across a recent interview with Jennifer Burns on the Paul Ryan-Ayn Rand connection.

Dr. Burns is now relying less on her website in favor of a Twitter feed...

But the tweets do often link to radio and press interviews.

Que pensez-vous des efforts de Paul Ryan, maintenant qu’il est sur le devant de la scène, pour se dissocier d'Ayn Rand qu’il a pourtant couverte de louanges pendant des années ?

Cela risque d’être difficile pour lui car il existe de nombreuses interviews de lui où il la qualifie d'inspiration majeure. C’est néanmoins assez prévisible car maintenant qu’il est devenu une figure politique nationale, il doit séduire un électorat beaucoup plus large et les Etats-Unis sont un pays très religieux.

Stratégiquement, il est plus payant pour lui de parler de ses croyances religieuses, qui sont probablement mieux partagées par les Américains, que d’Ayn Rand. Elle est populaire, mais pas autant que Jésus !

See http://www.mediapart...87999dbe32b0954 for the full interview.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Translation:

What do you think of Paul Ryan's efforts, now that he is at the forefront, to dissociate himself from Ayn Rand—whom he showered with praise for many years?

This could prove difficult for him, because there are numerous interviews in which he credits her as a major inspiration. All the same, it's quite predictable because now that he has become a national political figure, he has to appeal to a much broader electorate and the United States is a very religious country.

Strategically, he gets a bigger payoff from talking about his religious beliefs, which are probably more widely shared among Americans, than about Ayn Rand. She is popular, but not as popular as Jesus!

[Robert Campbell]

A couple more recent items from Jennifer Burns on Rand and Ryan.

The transcript of this radio show has a few glitches, but you've seen worse. And David Weigel, who alternates between stumbling and blurting, is hard to listen to.

http://thedianerehms...aign/transcript

And an article in The New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/b...ing-philosopher

Finally, one from US News:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-is-far-from-an-ayn-rand-prodigy

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

A couple more recent items from Jennifer Burns on Rand and Ryan.

The transcript of this radio show has a few glitches, but you've seen worse. And David Weigel, who alternates between stumbling and blurting, is hard to listen to.

http://thedianerehms...aign/transcript

And an article in The New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/b...ing-philosopher

Finally, one from US News:

http://www.usnews.co...yn-rand-prodigy

Robert Campbell

Jennifer Burns is very smart and her article worth reading even if she smoothed over way too much for my taste. As for the characterization of Rand's novels as "chessy"--take it out with a stick. Oh, and as for her personal life being "purient," that's what you call unsophisicated sexual indulgence, never mind that the sophisicates de-sophisicate behind the bedroom door just like everybody else.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

In Goddess of the Market, Burns sees few literary virtues in Rand's fiction. Since she is not approaching Rand from a literary point of view, I've never taken that aspect of her work seriously. Anne Heller's literary judgments carry a lot more weight, whether you agree with them or not.

My daughter (a college sophomore) recently referred to a movie she liked as "good-cheesy." I'm not sure that Jennifer Burns' usage admits of such nuances

Burns' recent articles are sometimes on the slick side, and "prurient" is the wrong word.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Anne Heller, whose blog hadn't been very active of late, has also been getting some media gigs to comment about Rand and Ryan.

Again, Heller mainly now relies on Twitter...

Here are a couple of her recent articles:

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/08/13/why-ayn-rand-is-so-hard-for-politicians-to-fully-embrace/?mod=google_news_blog

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/16/what-paul-ryan-learned-from-ayn-rand.html

Since it's the Rand biographers who are primarily getting these calls, has Barbara Branden been asked to comment on Rand and Ryan?

Robert Campbell

[caroljane]

Anne Heller, whose blog hadn't been very active of late, has also been getting some media gigs to comment about Rand and Ryan.

Again, Heller mainly now relies on Twitter...

Here are a couple of her recent articles:

http://blogs.wsj.com...oogle_news_blog

http://www.thedailyb...m-ayn-rand.html

Since it's the Rand biographers who are primarily getting these calls, has Barbara Branden been asked to comment on Rand and Ryan?

Robert Campbell

Anne Heller, whose blog hadn't been very active of late, has also been getting some media gigs to comment about Rand and Ryan.

Again, Heller mainly now relies on Twitter...

Here are a couple of her recent articles:

http://blogs.wsj.com...oogle_news_blog

http://www.thedailyb...m-ayn-rand.html

Since it's the Rand biographers who are primarily getting these calls, has Barbara Branden been asked to comment on Rand and Ryan?

Robert Campbell

Has Peikoff?

[Brant Gaede]

Anne Heller, whose blog hadn't been very active of late, has also been getting some media gigs to comment about Rand and Ryan.

Again, Heller mainly now relies on Twitter...

Here are a couple of her recent articles:

http://blogs.wsj.com...oogle_news_blog

http://www.thedailyb...m-ayn-rand.html

That photo of Rand with the GCT in the background seems to be 1957, not 1962. She looks like she did for the dust-jacket photo of AS and that taxi in the background is too mid-1950s.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

daunce,

I haven't run across anything by Leonard Peikoff on Paul Ryan. If asked for comment, he's provided none to the media.

Here's an example what ARI is putting out these days. The leadership seems to consider it a job for junior functionaries.

http://capitalism.aynrand.org/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand/

Robert Campbell

[PDS]

daunce,

I haven't run across anything by Leonard Peikoff on Paul Ryan. If asked for comment, he's provided none to the media.

Here's an example what ARI is putting out these days. The leadership seems to consider it a job for junior functionaries.

http://capitalism.ay...n-and-ayn-rand/

Robert Campbell

The article looks like it was written by Casper Milk Toast himself, but in fairness to ARI on this one, here is what Don Watkins says in the comments: "Just so we’re all on the same page: the Ayn Rand Institute is a 501©(3) nonprofit, so Yaron and I have to tread lightly when talking about politicians. We can’t endorse or oppose or even appear to endorse or oppose specific candidates. So if you think this post sounds a little dispassionate, that’s by intention. Given all the distortions in the media, I wanted to lay out the facts concerning where Ryan and Rand differ and where they agree. You’ll have to draw your own conclusions from there."

But something else just occurred to me--what the hell is ARI doing masquerading as a "not for profit", and thus--per Watkins--being required to pussy-foot around on major issues of the day?

It is rather ironic that an organization devoted to the philosophy of Ayn Rand--and presumably backed by the wealth of her royalties?--is not being run with an eye toward making a profit.

[Selene]

daunce,

I haven't run across anything by Leonard Peikoff on Paul Ryan. If asked for comment, he's provided none to the media.

Here's an example what ARI is putting out these days. The leadership seems to consider it a job for junior functionaries.

http://capitalism.ay...n-and-ayn-rand/

Robert Campbell

The article looks like it was written by Casper Milk Toast himself, but in fairness to ARI on this one, here is what Don Watkins says in the comments: "Just so we’re all on the same page: the Ayn Rand Institute is a 501©(3) nonprofit, so Yaron and I have to tread lightly when talking about politicians. We can’t endorse or oppose or even appear to endorse or oppose specific candidates. So if you think this post sounds a little dispassionate, that’s by intention. Given all the distortions in the media, I wanted to lay out the facts concerning where Ryan and Rand differ and where they agree. You’ll have to draw your own conclusions from there."

But something else just occurred to me--what the hell is ARI doing masquerading as a "not for profit", and thus--per Watkins--being required to pussy-foot around on major issues of the day?

It is rather ironic that an organization devoted to the philosophy of Ayn Rand--and presumably backed by the wealth of her royalties?--is not being run with an eye toward making a profit.

Finally!!

My partner and I refused to make our organization a "tax deductible" organization for the following reasons:

1) it is fundamentally immoral;

2) the state is involved in your financial pockets; and

3) it denies profit as the reason for business.

Excellent PDS!!!

I, from a moral perspective, refuse to ever donate to a non-profit. Why should my fellow tax paying citizens be forced to pay for my concepts?

Adam

[caroljane]

Is Cato a nonprofit?

Aren't all lobby groups/thinktanks nonprofit?

[syrakusos]

The article looks like it was written by Casper Milk Toast himself, but in fairness to ARI on this one, here is what Don Watkins says in the comments: "Just so we’re all on the same page: the Ayn Rand Institute is a 501c(3) nonprofit, ...

It is rather ironic that an organization devoted to the philosophy of Ayn Rand--and presumably backed by the wealth of her royalties?--is not being run with an eye toward making a profit.

It is Caspar Milquetoast (Wikipedia here).

Do not make he common error of ascribing moral status to a 501 c 3. It is only a bookkeeping choice. Among the "non-profit" organizations are the National Football League and Mastercard. It is only that there is no owner's equity in the books: the four entries are assets, liabilities, incomes, and expenses.

I am not familiar with the nuances of NFP law, but an educational institution can publish any information it wishes, but it cannot actively support a candidate or a ballot proposal.

As for whether "most" lobbyists are NFPs, I would guess that "most" being lawyers are LLC (limited liability corporation), LLP (limited liability partnerships), LLPC, etc., depending on whether they are incorporated in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, etc., etc. Lobbyists represent people. A "thinktank" so-called has no legal status per se, but is only an organization with some purpose as stated in their charter. They may be any kind of corporation or partnership or firm, but, while "lobbyist" is term known in law - states regulate them - "think tank" is not.

I sat on the Board of the East Lansing Food Co-operative twice. The newsletter actively argued against various legislative proposals, and our "profits" were accumulated under "withheld members' equity." In other words, they could ask for it back, but we were just holding on to it for them (ahem). I also served on the Board of the Michigan State Numismatic Society, a 501 c 3, educational organization.

I, from a moral perspective, refuse to ever donate to a non-profit. Why should my fellow tax paying citizens be forced to pay for my concepts?

That is a problem with the statist intrusions of a mixed economy. Do you feel that your fellows pay for your mortgage, if you have one? (Interest on mortgages is tax-deductible to make it attractive to own a home, the American Dream.) Do you pay for WalMart's "concepts" when they write off the cost of goods sold or depreciation on capital equipment such their huge fleet of trucks? An NFP is lawful. If it suits your purposes, fine; if not, okay, too. As long as you advocate against the tax system, you are morally entitled to use it to reduce your own taxes. Ayn Rand said so.

[9thdoctor]

Do not make he common error of ascribing moral status to a 501 c 3. It is only a bookkeeping choice.

I agree. You left out the fact that donations are tax deductible. When you give money to ARI or TAS you get up to 40% back. As opposed to the alternative: make a movie of Atlas Shrugged for $20M, it makes $5M back, you get to write off $15M. Assuming you have $15M of income to write it off against, with carry backs and carry forwards, time value of money and so on. You still only get, at most, 40% of $15M in tax benefit. Probably less. So, um, what's my point? I forget.

BTW, Laissez Faire Books was a non-profit, and I read that it was so for a simple reason: better postage rates.

[Reidy]

As far as I know ARI does not run on Rand's royalties. The startup money came from a few philanthropists (perhaps as few as one - Ed Snider), and it has run ever since on donations, sales and maybe investment income. The royalties go to Peikoff via the estate. Maybe he donates to ARI, but he isn't its sole or even primary support.

Commercial enterprises have a difficult time accepting donations or legacies, if they can at all. If people want to give their money to you, you need a non-profit. Rand herself had no problem with this type of organization, having sanctioned the Foundation for the New Intellectual in the 60s. When Holzer announced it in The Objectivist, he expressly mentioned that people wanted to give or will money to Objectivism but that NBI and the magazine, being for-profits, weren't in a position to accept.

[caroljane]

So Adam, you never donated to Cato back in the 80s? You could have contributed to George's salary!

[9thdoctor]

So, um, what's my point? I forget.

Alrightee, I've recovered from the brain freeze, brought about by a Magnum ice cream thingee. Real good, mint with chocolate, first time I've had it. Better than the Haagen Daz equivalent, y'know, ice cream on a stick, whatever you call that.

So, let's say there are college students who want to have a weekly booth at the student union, and hand out Ayn Rand pamphlets. Been there, done that (good way to meet lots of weird people and have weirder conversations). How would they ever make a profit doing that? You, moneybags, want to finance that activity. Are you going to maybe set up a partnership with your like minded fellows, everyone chip in a hundred bucks, and then pass back a tax loss to each "investor" every year? Or give the money to a "non-profit" that does it. You might think the result is the same, but I got news for you: the IRS could deny the deduction if you do it the partnership way. You didn't do it for a business purpose. It may as well have been a political contribution, which is never tax deductible.

You want to make your money go farther? There's a thing called the Tax Code, and those are the rules you're choosing to play by.