Glenn Beck and Personal Integrity

[imurray]

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

Need I say more?

Ian

One of the more interesting books that Beck held up was American Progressivism edited by Ronald J. Pestritto and William J. Atto. In the introduction the editors tell us how those who brought the most pressure against the U.S. Constitution used Altruism (Rand's favorite bad to the bone idea) to denigrate the founding fathers and their motives. They made snide accusations about the selfish, power hungy founding fathers who just wanted to protect their own financial interests, rather than working selflessly for the good of the country as a whole. One of these, Charles Beard, writing in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, published in 1913 (does that year ring a bell?), asserted that (quoting the book's editors):

"The delegates at Philadelphia, Beard contended, were motivated by personal economic concerns and determined to produce a document that strengthened their control of government and thus assured their continued financial success. While Beard's assertion was similar to J. Allen Smith's, his methodology, which seemed to substantiate the charge of avarice in a way that Smith's had not, combined with the charge that the framers should be condemned for reprehensible self-seeking, was a direct assault on the previously sacrosanct Constitution and its authors. Jefferson may have believed that the delegates assembled in Philadelphia were "demi-gods", but Beard thought otherwise. In Beard's analysis, even Madison, perhaps especially Madison, was charged with subscribing to "the theory of economic determinism in politics.""

"The implications of Beard's thesis were clear and significant for advocates of progressive reform: there had been no popular control of government from the founding erneration to the present; a great people had been duped by the conniving of a relatively small interest group. It was, therefore, incumbent upon proponents of democracy to wrest control of government from the few and place it where, despite the rhetoric of earlier generations, it had neve been, in the hands of the poplulace. "

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how Ayn Rand would have used this analysis of how we lost our Republican form of government?

Anyone still think that Glenn Beck has done no good for this country - for the people who used to read the sports pages and the Dear Abbey columns and are now reading American history with a passion? Seriously?

To answer your question Panoptic - I think you have a whole lot more to say. Go to it.

Mary Lee

Thank you for making my point - again.

[Barbara Branden]

It is long past time that someone told the American public that they should be afraid of their government. What Obama and his cohorts have done in a year-and-a half is terrifying -- and if we don't understand that, and understand where we are being led, this country is lost. Glenn Beck is today's Paul Revere.

Barbara

[RightJungle]

It is long past time that someone told the American public that they should be afraid of their government. What Obama and his cohorts have done in a year-and-a half is terrifying -- and if we don't understand that, and understand where we are being led, this country is lost. Glenn Beck is today's Paul Revere.

Barbara

Well put. I wish I had said that.

[imurray]

It is long past time that someone told the American public that they should be afraid of their government. What Obama and his cohorts have done in a year-and-a half is terrifying -- and if we don't understand that, and understand where we are being led, this country is lost. Glenn Beck is today's Paul Revere.

Barbara

Well put. I wish I had said that.

I live about 40 miles from Paul Revere's final resting place and after reading Barbara's comment, I'm sure the shriek I heard last night came from him - right before he rolled himself over (again).

Ian

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ian,

Disagree with Barbara all you like, but I don't want any of your smartass crap with her.

I mean it.

Do it anywhere on the net the world over if you like.

Not on OL. Please see some of the posting guidelines here.

I will enforce that, as I have always done.

Michael

[RightJungle]

Ian,

Disagree with Barbara all you like, but I don't want any of your smartass crap with her.

I mean it.

Do it anywhere on the net the world over if you like.

Not on OL. Please see some of the posting guidelines here.

I will enforce that, as I have always done.

Michael

Michael,

I just love it when the "experienced" Objectivists enter the fray. Go get 'im.

Mary Lee

Edited May 26, 2010 by Mary Lee Harsha

[imurray]

Ian,

Disagree with Barbara all you like, but I don't want any of your smartass crap with her.

I mean it.

Do it anywhere on the net the world over if you like.

Not on OL. Please see some of the posting guidelines here.

I will enforce that, as I have always done.

Michael

My apologies. I didn't intend for this to be 'Branden Bashing", but it's your site and I respect your interpretation. My apologies to Barbara also - I didn't intend to disrespect you. I am aware of your contributions and accomplishments.

I was born and raised just outside of Concord/Lexington/Boston and the feelings that are conjured in me when I walk on that historic ground are nothing like the the feelings that I get when I hear Glenn Beck. To me, and this is only my opinion of course, comparing Paul Revere to Glenn Beck dishonors the former to a degree that is incommensurate with what one gains from even making such a rhetorical gesture. I hope that puts some perspective on my last comment.

Ian

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ian,

That tone is perfectly fine by me.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

My apologies. I didn't intend for this to be 'Branden Bashing", but it's your site and I respect your interpretation. My apologies to Barbara also - I didn't intend to disrespect you. I am aware of your contributions and accomplishments.

I was born and raised just outside of Concord/Lexington/Boston and the feelings that are conjured in me when I walk on that historic ground are nothing like the the feelings that I get when I hear Glenn Beck. To me, and this is only my opinion of course, comparing Paul Revere to Glenn Beck dishonors the former to a degree that is incommensurate with what one gains from even making such a rhetorical gesture. I hope that puts some perspective on my last comment.

Ian

Back when Paul made his ride you may have thought him a pretentious silversmith depending on this or depending on that. Maybe not. I visited the Minuteman statue and "the rude bridge" in 1972 and I felt reverence. This type of feeling doesn't travel. Barbara was not making reference to a reverence but to today's practicality and yesterday's for comparison. Our comparative situations today as just as problematic and precarious as those long ago.

--Brant

[RightJungle]

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

Need I say more? Not a single original thought in that whole diatribe. Look at it: she uses a few sources - the same sources that every one of Beck's followers use - because he provided them for them. Can't you see that supporting Beck IS supporting the status quo? You let yourself be manipulated into following "great men." How can you be a libertarian or for small government when you want and think you need great leaders just as much as those on the left? You just want leaders you agree with - and will fight for them as hard as the left fights for their own great men. The only way around this is to educate people to see through the rhetoric which these men use to manipulate them - to teach them to become great men and women themselves. The best part is you don't need a great man to teach you these things - you need to use your own rational mind.

It's not that I disagree with the points Beck is trying to make - it's that he's using manipulation to get people to believe him. If he can do it, you'd be naive to think that he's the only one who can. Doesn't it worry you when everybody is reading the same books and will rabidly defend their profit? If we can see through the rhetoric and get to the message, we will revolt against people like Beck, Obama, Olbermann who wish to manipulate us with appeals to irrational fears and emotions. The fancy rhetoric accompanying the message will become superfluous and extraneous - as it is to anyone who knows how to think now. I don't need my emotions jolted to know what's right. Wake up!!!

So it's not on the basis of political ideology that I dislike Beck (although I don't always agree with him) - I find it disheartening that smart people want leaders who use manipulation. The truth doesn't need embellishment.

Ian

I got to thinking over what you said in this response to my response to Michael Stewart Kelley and I'm puzzled by a lot of it.

1) I can't see the "diatribe" in my response - it felt calm and reasonable to me. Why does it feel like a diatribe to you?

2) You point out that my response contains "not a single original thought." I agree with that. I'm not an innovator - not in my career in IT, not in my philosophical thinking, not in my understanding of human psychology. Everything that I know, I learned from the innovators who made their thinking available to the world. I do consider myself to be pretty darned good at using and applying what I've learned from others. That describes the great majority of people. Great men and women appear in history less often that average men and women.

3) You suggest that I use only sources that Beck has presented. I met Ayn Rand and her early Objectivists in 1965. Beck would have been in diapers if he had even been born by then. Also, I've never heard Beck recommend that we all listen to Barbara Branden's "Principles of Efficient Thinking" or Nathaniel Branden's "Basic Principles of Objectivism". He never held up David Kelley or Tara Smith or Ed Yourdin, or Ludwig von Mises. Not that I used those last four sources in this thread, but you could watch for them on the Beck show.

4) I am not trying to be a libertarian (small or capital L) - I'm trying to be an Objectivist. I am not for "small government" - I am for government that is of a size that allows it be a proper government for the free men of a given country. That might include a large complex body of laws and a large court system that help keep us free.

5) I don't "let myself be manipulated into following "great men"". I look to great men and women, and even not so great but innovative men and women, to enrich my understanding of my human existence in the universe. What's wrong with that?

6) I won't live long enough to become a great woman on my own, using nothing but my own rational mind. When I discovered Ayn Rand, for instance, I discovered issues that I had not even known were issues. I know that the earth orbits the sun because Galileo et al figured it out. I don't have the skills to build a telescope, let alone make the judgments that they made.

7) I don't rabidly defend my "profit". I don't even consider Beck to be prophet. He is someone who is getting the message out loud and clear with supporting details. When he wanders off into the world of faith, hope and charity, I turn the radio or TV off, or just do some dusting until he gets past it. The big thing is that his researchers have saved us a lot of time and effort that those of us who are working long hours would not have to devote to the study of the "here's what happened."

8) You've joined two ideas together that puzzle me - that "we want leaders who manipulate", and "the truth doesn't need embellishment". I gather that you think that Beck is embellishing the truth through manipulation. I can't seem to pull up a concrete example of that to help me grasp your juxtaposition of these concepts. Can you provide one?

9) Given the nature of this site, why do you avoid acknowledging my mention of Ayn Rand or Objectivism in your discussion of Beck?

Edited May 27, 2010 by Mary Lee Harsha

[imurray]

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

Need I say more? Not a single original thought in that whole diatribe. Look at it: she uses a few sources - the same sources that every one of Beck's followers use - because he provided them for them. Can't you see that supporting Beck IS supporting the status quo? You let yourself be manipulated into following "great men." How can you be a libertarian or for small government when you want and think you need great leaders just as much as those on the left? You just want leaders you agree with - and will fight for them as hard as the left fights for their own great men. The only way around this is to educate people to see through the rhetoric which these men use to manipulate them - to teach them to become great men and women themselves. The best part is you don't need a great man to teach you these things - you need to use your own rational mind.

It's not that I disagree with the points Beck is trying to make - it's that he's using manipulation to get people to believe him. If he can do it, you'd be naive to think that he's the only one who can. Doesn't it worry you when everybody is reading the same books and will rabidly defend their profit? If we can see through the rhetoric and get to the message, we will revolt against people like Beck, Obama, Olbermann who wish to manipulate us with appeals to irrational fears and emotions. The fancy rhetoric accompanying the message will become superfluous and extraneous - as it is to anyone who knows how to think now. I don't need my emotions jolted to know what's right. Wake up!!!

So it's not on the basis of political ideology that I dislike Beck (although I don't always agree with him) - I find it disheartening that smart people want leaders who use manipulation. The truth doesn't need embellishment.

Ian

I got to thinking over what you said in this response to my response to Michael Stewart Kelley and I'm puzzled by a lot of it.

1) I can't see the "diatribe" in my response - it felt calm and reasonable to me. Why does it feel like a diatribe to you?

2) You point out that my response contains "not a single original thought." I agree with that. I'm not an innovator - not in my career in IT, not in my philosophical thinking, not in my understanding of human psychology. Everything that I know, I learned from the innovators who made their thinking available to the world. I do consider myself to be pretty darned good at using and applying what I've learned from others. That describes the great majority of people. Great men and women appear in history less often that average men and women.

3) You suggest that I use only sources that Beck has presented. I met Ayn Rand and her early Objectivists in 1965. Beck would have been in diapers if he had even been born by then. Also, I've never heard Beck recommend that we all listen to Barbara Branden's "Principles of Efficient Thinking" or Nathaniel Branden's "Basic Principles of Objectivism". He never held up David Kelley or Tara Smith or Ed Yourdin, or Ludwig von Mises. Not that I used those last four sources in this thread, but you could watch for them on the Beck show.

4) I am not trying to be a libertarian (small or capital L) - I'm trying to be an Objectivist. I am not for "small government" - I am for government that is of a size that allows it be a proper government for the free men of a given country. That might include a large complex body of laws and a large court system that help keep us free.

5) I don't "let myself be manipulated into following "great men"". I look to great men and women, and even not so great but innovative men and women, to enrich my understanding of my human existence in the universe. What's wrong with that?

6) I won't live long enough to become a great woman on my own, using nothing but my own rational mind. When I discovered Ayn Rand, for instance, I discovered issues that I had not even known were issues. I know that the earth orbits the sun because Galileo et al figured it out. I don't have the skills to build a telescope, let alone make the judgments that they made.

7) I don't rabidly defend my "profit". I don't even consider Beck to be prophet. He is someone who is getting the message out loud and clear with supporting details. When he wanders off into the world of faith, hope and charity, I turn the radio or TV off, or just do some dusting until he gets past it. The big thing is that his researchers have saved us a lot of time and effort that those of us who are working long hours would not have to devote to the study of the "here's what happened."

8) You've joined two ideas together that puzzle me - that "we want leaders who manipulate", and "the truth doesn't need embellishment". I gather that you think that Beck is embellishing the truth through manipulation. I can't seem to pull up a concrete example of that to help me grasp your juxtaposition of these concepts. Can you provide one?

9) Given the nature of this site, why do you avoid acknowledging my mention of Ayn Rand or Objectivism in your discussion of Beck?

Mary,

First, I was only commenting on what you wrote and what I read here. It would be foolish of me to think that it constitutes any more or less than a small window into your way of thinking. I'm not surprised to find out that you have many positive qualities.

I will address two of your nine comments from above.

8. I don't think Glenn Beck uses "false" information. If he did, I'm sure he wouldn't last very long - I don't think that his audience is "stupid". I do, however, think he manipulates facts through his interpretations of them. The proofs he provides for his interpretations are usually deductive and tautological. In other words, he only presents certain facts in certain ways (by "certain ways" I primarily mean the ways in which he orders and re-contextualizes facts) which are always already proof of his initial premise. In addition to this he imbues his discussion with rhetorical appeals to emotion (usually fear or "quiet" anger) and authority (usually God or the Founding Fathers). This is why you will find that nobody can dispute his "facts", but what people often forget is that it doesn't necessarily follow that his interpretations are also facts: even the best deductive argument cannot prove the truth of its premise, unless, as in Beck's case, it is also tautological. Watch today's show for an example - it's his modus operandi.

9. I didn't think it was relevant to the discussion, I wasn't purposely avoiding it. I honestly don't think Beck's methods or even his ideas are analogous to the values of Objectivism (and not just because of his talk of hope, faith, and charity). I will write more on this when I have time. The thesis of my argument is that when analyzing Beck's show within the meta-discourse of contemporary politics and entertainment (and even epistemology) it becomes clear that rather than serving as a panacea for apathy and irrationality, the show is constitutive of and by the very same intellectual somnambulance that perpetuates it.

Ian

Edited May 27, 2010 by Panoptic

[Martin Radwin]

I am not trying to be a libertarian (small or capital L) - I'm trying to be an Objectivist.

Objectivists are libertarians. Objectivism is in fact a subset of libertarianism. Ayn Rand was herself a libertarian, no matter how much she hated the term or denounced libertarianism as a movement. Non initiation of force is a core principle of objectivism. This is made quite explicit in Atlas Shrugged, as well as many of Rand's non-fiction writings.

I am not for "small government" - I am for government that is of a size that allows it be a proper government for the free men of a given country. That might include a large complex body of laws and a large court system that help keep us free.

Rand was opposed to all taxation and in favor of strictly voluntary financing of government, as a corollary of her belief in the non initiation of force principle. How big do you think a government could be, if it were financed entirely voluntarily, without recourse to taxation?

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

I am not trying to be a libertarian (small or capital L) - I'm trying to be an Objectivist.

Objectivists are libertarians. Objectivism is in fact a subset of libertarianism. Ayn Rand was herself a libertarian, no matter how much she hated the term or denounced libertarianism as a movement. Non initiation of force is a core principle of objectivism. This is made quite explicit in Atlas Shrugged, as well as many of Rand's non-fiction writings.

I am not for "small government" - I am for government that is of a size that allows it be a proper government for the free men of a given country. That might include a large complex body of laws and a large court system that help keep us free.

Rand was opposed to all taxation and in favor of strictly voluntary financing of government, as a corollary of her belief in the non initiation of force principle. How big do you think a government could be, if it were financed entirely voluntarily, without recourse to taxation?

Martin

Objectivism is a philosophy, libertarianism is a political philosophy. Therefore it can be no more than a subset of Objectivism. If not, then a subset of something else.

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

I am not trying to be a libertarian (small or capital L) - I'm trying to be an Objectivist.

Objectivists are libertarians. Objectivism is in fact a subset of libertarianism. Ayn Rand was herself a libertarian, no matter how much she hated the term or denounced libertarianism as a movement. Non initiation of force is a core principle of objectivism. This is made quite explicit in Atlas Shrugged, as well as many of Rand's non-fiction writings.

I am not for "small government" - I am for government that is of a size that allows it be a proper government for the free men of a given country. That might include a large complex body of laws and a large court system that help keep us free.

Rand was opposed to all taxation and in favor of strictly voluntary financing of government, as a corollary of her belief in the non initiation of force principle. How big do you think a government could be, if it were financed entirely voluntarily, without recourse to taxation?

Martin

Objectivism is a philosophy, libertarianism is a political philosophy. Therefore it can be no more than a subset of Objectivism. If not, then a subset of something else.

--Brant

All objectivists are libertarians (whether they acknowledge it or not, because of their acceptance of the NIOF principle). However, not all libertarians are objectivists (for example, Christian libertarians). Therefore, objectivism is a subset of libertarianism, but libertarianism is not a subset of objectivism. It is because libertarianism is a political philosophy and not an all encompassing philosophy which includes ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc, that makes objectivism a subset of libertarianism.

Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will write more on this when I have time.

Ian,

This is a very good thing.

I've heard Beck say the following several times, but I heard it once again on his TV show yesterday (May 26, 2010). He said to question everything everyone in the public spotlight says. Even and especially what he says. He said don't believe anything blindly. Check it yourself and only live within the truth.

In the same spirit (which was mine way before I even knew who Beck was), I am glad to see you interested in writing something more elaborate. If we should disagree, so be it. However, it will be informed disagreement--and that's a good thing. A very good thing.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I am not trying to be a libertarian (small or capital L) - I'm trying to be an Objectivist.

Objectivists are libertarians. Objectivism is in fact a subset of libertarianism. Ayn Rand was herself a libertarian, no matter how much she hated the term or denounced libertarianism as a movement. Non initiation of force is a core principle of objectivism. This is made quite explicit in Atlas Shrugged, as well as many of Rand's non-fiction writings.

I am not for "small government" - I am for government that is of a size that allows it be a proper government for the free men of a given country. That might include a large complex body of laws and a large court system that help keep us free.

Rand was opposed to all taxation and in favor of strictly voluntary financing of government, as a corollary of her belief in the non initiation of force principle. How big do you think a government could be, if it were financed entirely voluntarily, without recourse to taxation?

Martin

Objectivism is a philosophy, libertarianism is a political philosophy. Therefore it can be no more than a subset of Objectivism. If not, then a subset of something else.

--Brant

All objectivists are libertarians (whether they acknowledge it or not, because of their acceptance of the NIOF principle). However, not all libertarians are objectivists (for example, Christian libertarians). Therefore, objectivism is a subset of libertarianism, but libertarianism is not a subset of objectivism. It is because libertarianism is a political philosophy and not an all encompassing philosophy which includes ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc, that makes objectivism a subset of libertarianism.

Martin

All we have here is two different perspectives. The basic problem is the basic problem of libertarianism which is it isn't a philosophy at all. NIOF is a principle. Period.

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

Ian: "My apologies. I didn't intend for this to be 'Branden Bashing", but it's your site and I respect your interpretation. My apologies to Barbara also - I didn't intend to disrespect you. I am aware of your contributions and accomplishments.

"I was born and raised just outside of Concord/Lexington/Boston and the feelings that are conjured in me when I walk on that historic ground are nothing like the the feelings that I get when I hear Glenn Beck. To me, and this is only my opinion of course, comparing Paul Revere to Glenn Beck dishonors the former to a degree that is incommensurate with what one gains from even making such a rhetorical gesture. I hope that puts some perspective on my last comment."

Ian, I accept your apology, with thanks, and I believe I do understand your context. My intention was not to compare Glenn Beck and Paul Revere in all respects, but to make the point that Beck , like Revere, is desperately trying to warn us of imminent danger. And, like Revere, he is doing so at considerable personal risk to himelf; the Administration is out for blood where Beck is concerned -- and I only hope that is simply a metaphor.

Barbara

[Christopher]

Look, it's really not that Glenn Beck is helping people think. All those who vouch for him here are already self-thinkers, so the discussion is about those who don't essentially think for themselves. And I've met this latter type who follow Beck. They agree with Beck, but their opinions are the opinions of Beck, not self-generated. Is he helping America? Not from my perspective. If anything, he's rallying people into a group that he controls. Hitler had some healthy stuff to say at the beginning of his campaigning as well. It didn't help anyone.

There's a big difference between an MSK who follows Beck and the average person who follows Beck, and I'll tell you: MSK doesn't need Beck, but the other persons do. That's why Beck is at best unnecessary and at worst a manipulative leader.

IMHO

[Barbara Branden]

Christopher wrote:

"Look, it's really not that Glenn Beck is helping people think. All those who vouch for him here are already self-thinkers, so the discussion is about those who don't essentially think for themselves. And I've met this latter type who follow Beck. They agree with Beck, but their opinions are the opinions of Beck, not self-generated. Is he helping America? Not from my perspective. If anything, he's rallying people into a group that he controls. Hitler had some healthy stuff to say at the beginning of his campaigning as well. It didn't help anyone.

"There's a big difference between an MSK who follows Beck and the average person who follows Beck, and I'll tell you: MSK doesn't need Beck, but the other persons do. That's why Beck is at best unnecessary and at worst a manipulative leader.

"IMHO:"

Christopher, there will always be people who don't think and who attach themselves to those they believe will think for them. Every important figure has had his true believers-- from Karl Marx to John Lennon to George Washington to Ayn Rand to Barack Obama. That tells you a lot about the true believers; in itself, it tells you nothing about those they choose to follow. You say you've talked to people who are blind followers of Beck . How many? Two? Five? Two dozen? That does not give you the knowledge or the right to say that "he's rallying people into a group that he controls." implying that control of unthinking people is his purpose and his goal. That is the method of the most vitriolic of Rand's critics, who say that because there are true believers among her admirers, that means that the purpose of her life and work was to manipulate and control a lot of boobs.

Beck is doing something very valuable., He is working to give people the information and the perspective -- and the spines -- that they badly need in order to understand and to effectively oppose the dangerous mess that is our government. You say MSK doesn't need Beck. I think he does. I know I do. I've learned important things from him.

Because your comments are an echo of the left's party line on Beck, should I announce that you are a non-thinking person who is being manipulated and controlled by a group of power-hungry statists?

Barbara[

[George H. Smith]

Beck is doing something very valuable., He is working to give people the information and the perspective -- and the spines -- that they badly need in order to understand and to effectively oppose the dangerous mess that is our government. You say MSK doesn't need Beck. I think he does. I know I do. I've learned important things from him.

Although I don't catch Beck's television program very often, I listen to his radio show, or at least the first hour of it, frequently. It starts at 8 a.m. where I live, and by then my dog has rousted me out of bed (even if I got to bed only a few hours earlier) to take him for a walk and feed him. Since it takes me a while to get back to sleep, I turn on the radio while I wash dishes and pick up books and papers from a space that I arbitrarily call my "living room."

I defended Beck a while ago on Atlantis 2, so I agree with the tenor of Barbara's remarks. I can't say that I've learned anything from Beck, but I do think that his influence on balance is easily for the good. Beck can be annoying for the number of historical "facts" he gets wrong, but at least he acknowledges that he is pretty new to reading history, and I admire how he encourages his listeners to read as well, even if the history books he recommends are sometimes a bit goofy.

Beck also treats libertarian ideas with respect, even when he disagrees with them, and that is certainly a breath of fresh air. Lastly, he has a wonderful sense of humor, as anyone who has seen him on "The O'Reilly Factor" can attest.

Ghs

[imurray]

Christopher wrote:

"Look, it's really not that Glenn Beck is helping people think. All those who vouch for him here are already self-thinkers, so the discussion is about those who don't essentially think for themselves. And I've met this latter type who follow Beck. They agree with Beck, but their opinions are the opinions of Beck, not self-generated. Is he helping America? Not from my perspective. If anything, he's rallying people into a group that he controls. Hitler had some healthy stuff to say at the beginning of his campaigning as well. It didn't help anyone.

"There's a big difference between an MSK who follows Beck and the average person who follows Beck, and I'll tell you: MSK doesn't need Beck, but the other persons do. That's why Beck is at best unnecessary and at worst a manipulative leader.

"IMHO:"

Christopher, there will always be people who don't think and who attach themselves to those they believe will think for them. Every important figure has had his true believers-- from Karl Marx to John Lennon to George Washington to Ayn Rand to Barack Obama. That tells you a lot about the true believers; in itself, it tells you nothing about those they choose to follow. You say you've talked to people who are blind followers of Beck . How many? Two? Five? Two dozen? That does not give you the knowledge or the right to say that "he's rallying people into a group that he controls." implying that control of unthinking people is his purpose and his goal. That is the method of the most vitriolic of Rand's critics, who say that because there are true believers among her admirers, that means that the purpose of her life and work was to manipulate and control a lot of boobs.

Beck is doing something very valuable., He is working to give people the information and the perspective -- and the spines -- that they badly need in order to understand and to effectively oppose the dangerous mess that is our government. You say MSK doesn't need Beck. I think he does. I know I do. I've learned important things from him.

Because your comments are an echo of the left's party line on Beck, should I announce that you are a non-thinking person who is being manipulated and controlled by a group of power-hungry statists?

Barbara[

Unfortunately this line of argumentation will go full circle: Barbara may accuse Chris of echoing the left's party line against Beck and she'd be mostly correct and, in turn, Christopher may accuse Barbara of echoing the right's party line in favor of Beck and he would be mostly correct. This won't resolve the problem and, in my opinion, speaks to our collective myopia when in comes to the media.

I'm currently thinking through what I think is a stronger argument against Beck and his cohorts on both the right and the left. To fully understand the problem we must take a full step back and look at the metadiscourse in which they are all enmeshed. It is from this wider perspective that we can see what this form of "infotainment" is doing to the public. Here are a couple of hints: it goes beyond the politics and "we get the government we deserve" (and it's only going to get worse no matter which party is in office so long as we support infotainers who work for a handful of corporations who are all a part of the very same system, despite claims to the contrary: when and for how long they get the public's attention is based on their looks and their market value which is part and parcel of their ability to entertain an audience with a shortened attention span).

Interestingly enough - I just heard Keith Olbermann say that his job is to give us a fresh perspective on the facts that we already know.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On today's show, Beck announced that the summer of 1969 was a turning point in America. And what happened that summer is an excellent opportunity for us to measure who we are as Americans.

In other words, are we people who can put a man on the moon like happened with the Apollo moonshot, or are we people who wallow in the mud like they did in Woodstock?

Sound familiar, anyone?

He didn't credit Ayn Rand for her essay, "Apollo and Dionysus," but the parallels were too striking to have been a coincidence. He had to have gotten this comparison from her. Probably he didn't mention her because he didn't want to lead with an atheist on an idea like that with his religious audience base, but I have no doubt he will credit her after a while. (I can almost hear some of his more libertarian fans bringing this up in a loud voice.)

People can see the show on WatchingGlennBeck, June 1, 2010 show.

Michael

btw - I agree with Barbara. I need Glenn Beck at this moment in history. And I have learned oodles from following the leads he presents on his show. (He only has time to scratch the surface, but he does a great job of making deep scratches.)

Or I need someone like him. He gives me hope that the encroaching socialism in America will be overturned and blocked. Since no one else out there is doing what he does, especially history-wise, I say, from the bottom of my heart, "Thank you Mr. Glenn Beck. I am in your debt."

Michael

EDIT: Here's a video of the "Apollo and Dionysus" segment on Glenn's own site (sorry, it doesn't embed):

Glenn Beck: Woodstock or Moonwalk?

[Christopher]

Ultimately we can only make judgments on two facets: a person's values, and a person's integrity to those values.

My awareness to Beck is that he has good values and terrible integrity. Values without integrity is value-less. I'm not the one who originated the assertion that Beck is good for America because he helps others see good values. My assertion is that we ABSOLUTELY should not trust someone if they lack integrity to those values, regardless of what those values are. Therefore, we should not trust nor support Beck.

Edit - I was adding this to the new Fox News section, but it belongs in addition to this post:

Why not add Rush Limbaugh in equal support with Beck? He holds similar values to Beck. And if you read Rush, you see how contorted his logic is in applying those values selectively to situations that suits some deeper agenda/values we do not explicitly observe. That, my friend, is why integrity is so important.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Christopher

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

Unless you present some proof that Beck's integrity is flawed, I can only treat your opinion as irrational bias against him.

You are entitled to your opinion. But I cannot take it seriously if it is wrong and based on nothing factual.

EDIT: I don't sympathize with Rush so much because he is tribalist--i.e., when Republicans are wrong, he glosses it over. (That's Hannity's problem, too.)

Beck stands on his principles and does not really support either side, Republican or Democrat. For example, he hated (and hates) Bush, that is, Bush's policies, not the man. Rush defends Bush at all costs. Beck wants small government and freedom. Period.

That is my stance.

Michael

[Christopher]

Unless you present some proof that Beck's integrity is flawed, I can only treat your opinion as

You are entitled to your opinion. But I cannot take it seriously if it is wrong and based on nothing factual.

Irrational bias, eh? Ignoring the article that started this thread and some of the discussion surrounding Beck's claim as an entertainer, eh?

Them be fighten' words! I've wasted my time and found some discrepancies when I listened to him awhile back. I didn't bother to remember them (but I will say I actually liked him before I found breaches to his integrity). If I feel like wasting more time, I can do it again and pick apart his arguments for you. At the moment, I'm not so inclined. He had his fair chance, and I've already evaluated him.