A Question of Sanction, Redux


Recommended Posts

For those who can remember that controversy, check this out. You will note none other than Peter Schwartz, speaking at a conference:

"with support from the Ayn Rand Institute, and co-sponsored by the College Republicans and Bruin Republicans"

URL is http://www.clublogic.org/events/display.php?id=101

Enjoy,

Alfonso

Affirmative Action: A Diversity of Criticisms

Monday, November 5, 2007 (7:00pm - 9:00pm)

UCLA Campus: Ackerman Grand Ballroom

Eleven years ago, California voters, in a blow to advocates of Affirmative Action, passed Proposition 209, banning public entities from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin.

Opponents of the proposition responded with claims that, far from promoting discrimination, Affirmative Action provides just compensation for past harms done to minorities and is an important tool for creating racial equality and promoting diversity.

On November 5, the 11th anniversary of the passing of Proposition 209, you are invited to hear our distinguished panel of speakers deliver a variety of critical perspectives on Affirmative Action:

  • Ward Connerly, a former Regent of the University of California, spearhead of the Proposition 209 campaign, and Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute
  • Richard Sander, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and a long-time supporter of Affirmative Action who has recently published several empirical critiques of the effectiveness of certain types of Affirmative Action programs
  • Peter Schwartz, the former chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, who has written and spoken extensively on multiculturalism and racism from the Objectivist philosophic perspective

What are the actual effects of Affirmative Action programs? And what are the ideas and ideals that lead many to support it? What should be the government's role in fighting discrimination or promoting diversity?

The answers to these questions and many more will be addressed in a panel hosted by LOGIC, with support from the Ayn Rand Institute, and co-sponsored by the College Republicans and Bruin Republicans.

This event is FREE and open to the public. BruinCard holders receive priority seating.

Edited by Alfonso
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alfonso; Interesting! I would have to say I wonder if the panel is actual change of direction for ARI.

Some of you may have noticed that Ed Hudgins at the Atlas 50th said that he had met with Yaron Brook. I think the big break through will be when an ARI person does a book forum at Cato.They have been asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert; You are correct. As I said I don't think this is the breakthrough.

Perhaps not a breakthrough - but what appears to be some movement. I find it very ironic that Peter Schwartz is the one.

Alfonso

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can these be the same Republicans who were a clear and present danger of theocracy the last time I looked? Maybe Schwartz is next to get the axe. You saw it here first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt he will get the axe. He is leaving the ARI board.

We can hope for a breath of fresh air, a relaxing of the sort of attitudes which led to "Fact and Value," etc.

Alfonso

Link to post
Share on other sites
We can hope for a breath of fresh air, a relaxing of the sort of attitudes which led to "Fact and Value," etc.

Alfonso

Not a chance. Not while Peikoff retains veto power.

Barbara

Not a chance since 1986 when LP declared he had not read and would not read "The Passion of Ayn Rand."

Let them evaporate. They will anyway, eventually.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
We can hope for a breath of fresh air, a relaxing of the sort of attitudes which led to "Fact and Value," etc.

Alfonso

Not a chance. Not while Peikoff retains veto power.

Barbara

There is always a hope for the next generation.

Alfonso

Link to post
Share on other sites
We can hope for a breath of fresh air, a relaxing of the sort of attitudes which led to "Fact and Value," etc.

Alfonso

Not a chance. Not while Peikoff retains veto power.

Barbara

Not a chance since 1986 when LP declared he had not read and would not read "The Passion of Ayn Rand."

Let them evaporate. They will anyway, eventually.

--Brant

Unfortunately in the time between the present and the date of their evaporation they are stuffing history into an Orwellian memory hole - deleting historical documents, rewriting portions of Rand's essays to eliminate references, etc... This is intellectually immoral.

I quote Rand from the infamous essay in the May 1968 Objectivist, "To Whom It May Concern":

"I do not fake reality and never have. I do not seek or want any value that requires such faking. I hold that no value can be achieved that way. I hold that that way is neither practical nor moral."

She, unfortunately, faked it in that very essay. And those airbrushing Objectivist documents and history are doing it to this day.

Alfonso

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately in the time between the present and the date of their evaporation [the ARIans] are stuffing history into an Orwellian memory hole - deleting historical documents, rewriting portions of Rand's essays to eliminate references, etc... This is intellectually immoral.*

I quote Rand from the infamous essay in the May 1968 Objectivist, "To Whom It May Concern":

"I do not fake reality and never have. I do not seek or want any value that requires such faking. I hold that no value can be achieved that way. I hold that that way is neither practical nor moral."

She, unfortunately, faked it in that very essay.* And those airbrushing Objectivist documents and history are doing it to this day.

Alfonso

* emphasis added by KZ

Exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply don't understand the logic behind "its OK to work with Republicans but not Libertarians."

But then again, ARI have abandoned reason long ago, in favour of their Cult of Randroidism, led by Pope Lenny I.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I simply don't understand the logic behind "its OK to work with Republicans but not Libertarians."

But then again, ARI have abandoned reason long ago, in favor of their Cult of Randroidism, led by Pope Lenny I.

And hopefully, Pope Leonard, the Last.

Very often people whose religions are similar but belong to different churches are at each other's throats. Consider how Protestants and Catholics, both of which confessed Christ and who butchered and maimed each other. Such conflict is based on the assumption that anyone who disagrees with me must have Evil Intentions. The conflict can range from bloody war at one extreme to annoyance and ill-will at the other extreme.

It reminds me of the story of two rich Jews who built three synagogues. One that each attended and a third neither would set foot in.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
It reminds me of the story of two rich Jews who built three synagogues. One that each attended and a third neither would set foot in.

That's a grander-scale version of a line I've heard a number of times: Where there are two Jews, there are three opinions.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites

--earth to anti-sanctioners--

"Ward Connerly sees himself as a Republican with a libertarian philosophy...He says his views on gay rights stem from his libertarian viewpoint that governments, including government-run universities, should not discriminate, whether it's favoring some students because of their race, or limiting spousal benefits to others based on their sexual orientation." (Wikipedia)

So if Connerly were to declare himself disgusted with Republicans and no longer sanctioning them, and describe himself as -only- a libertarian in the sense described above, would Peter Schwartz, the person who believes libertarians are evil and should not be sanctioned, no longer be willing to appear on a panel with him?

And why is an L worse than the third guy on the panel who presumably disagrees with -everything- about libertarian and pro-freedom ideas?

Why was it okay for Peikoff and Ridpath to go around the country debating OUTRIGHT SOCIALISTS on that very topic, if you don't want to sanction evil?

(When this issue first came up, nearly twenty years ago now, I asked questions like these ... who -else- should not be sanctioned by these bizarre "Fact and Value" standards? To this date I still haven't gotten a straight answer.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

You want an answer?

How about: "Kelley and Libertarians and the like are worse than Republicans and Socialists because they pervert the purity of the faith"?

Or "....because my quarrel with Kelley and Libertarians has nothing at all to do with the principles of Objectivism but is really an irrational, personal vendetta that I claim has to do with "defending Ayn Rand's legacy" but really is all about my own insecurities and fragilities." ???

The above seem pretty correct about the Orthodoxy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It reminds me of the story of two rich Jews who built three synagogues. One that each attended and a third neither would set foot in.

That's a grander-scale version of a line I've heard a number of times: Where there are two Jews, there are three opinions.___

Those Jews, all they want to do is talk! Preferably while having an argument.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
--earth to anti-sanctioners--

"Ward Connerly sees himself as a Republican with a libertarian philosophy...He says his views on gay rights stem from his libertarian viewpoint that governments, including government-run universities, should not discriminate, whether it's favoring some students because of their race, or limiting spousal benefits to others based on their sexual orientation." (Wikipedia)

So if Connerly were to declare himself disgusted with Republicans and no longer sanctioning them, and describe himself as -only- a libertarian in the sense described above, would Peter Schwartz, the person who believes libertarians are evil and should not be sanctioned, no longer be willing to appear on a panel with him?

And why is an L worse than the third guy on the panel who presumably disagrees with -everything- about libertarian and pro-freedom ideas?

Why was it okay for Peikoff and Ridpath to go around the country debating OUTRIGHT SOCIALISTS on that very topic, if you don't want to sanction evil?

(When this issue first came up, nearly twenty years ago now, I asked questions like these ... who -else- should not be sanctioned by these bizarre "Fact and Value" standards? To this date I still haven't gotten a straight answer.)

It's all about territory. Socialists do not threaten Orthodox Objectivist territory. Libertarians do. So do us heretics. Territory is bordered by what you LP and your lackeys control. I now think The Ayn Rand Institute would have Ayn Rand's blessing if she were to come back and comment on it. Afterall, it's all about protecting her territory. If she hadn't died she wouldn't have sanctioned it, of course, for she was doing what it is now doing, essentially. (And LP would currently be retired from teaching English at Brooklyn Poly.) There is a word for this kind of philosophy: voodoo.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a case of actions speaking more loudly than words. If Connerly were to make a career of sucking up to the left and trying to pass himself off as one of them, betraying the real values of freedom whenever he thought this might help, in the tradition of Karl Hess and Ron Paul, the ARI crowd would shun him. Of course if he did that he never would have achieved the prominence he has.

That said, they're still hypocritical to share a platform with a Republican organization after what Peikoff said in 2004.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] betraying the real values of freedom whenever he thought this might help, in the tradition of Karl Hess and Ron Paul, the ARI crowd would shun him.

This needs more punctuation, because it has two possibilities as to meaning. Which is yours? Does the middle phrase, here, link to the first phrase (as I fear) or the last phrase (as I hope)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's syntactically ambiguous in a way I didn't think of when I wrote it (thereby giving philogists something to do centuries hence when they figure out my OL password), but not semantically. Paul and Hess have a shared tradition of sucking up to the left and not of shunning Connerly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, those flyers I've been getting in the mail, with the Mexican flag and the American flag on the same pole--the Mexican flag on top, and the American flag upside down--give me the distinct impression that Ron Paul and his organization have been sucking up.

But not to the Left...

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now