Mike Renzulli

Ba'al you make a good point. In the society envisioned by anarcho-capitalists government wouldn't exist but people would develop and have their own manner in which to protect and defend themselves. That means yielding to another form of authority which is a private organization. If the person in question does not agree with a decision of a private arbitration organization, there is nothing in place to make the person in question who lost in a tort, civil or criminal case comply with the arbitration group's decision. Upon closer examination of it and no offense intended to those who subscribe to it (such as George H. Smith) but An Cap seems to be more of a form of skepticism than a strain of libertarianism. At least skepticism is the end result of an cap if one takes anarcho-capitalism to it's logical conclusions. For example, at a libertarian conference here in December, I asked an anarcho-capitalist what was to prevent a terrorist from entering an anarcho-capitalist society from entering and releasing a deadly disease or conducting bombings. Without some way to screen people prior to entry if they are hell bent on conducting terrorist activities there would be no way to stop them. The response I got was "We don't know. In anarcho-capitalism everyone makes up their own mind." Well if that's the case what this sounds more like something that would come from the mouth of Immanuel Kant or David Hume that nobody can really know anything about anything. There are is no absolute knowledge or standards of right and wrong only various opinions or ways to do things. I am probably opening a Pandora's Box by saying this and let me stress that I do not mean to insult those who subscribe to An Cap but this is the conclusion I have some to.

I do not mean to come across as being facetious to your statement but would point out that there are numerous examples of government protecting a person's individual rights. In Arizona there are no state restrictions on to sale, purchase or possession of firearms. This has been strengthened here recently. A law was just enacted where an Arizona resident no longer has to have a permit in order to carry a gun in a concealed manner. On the federal level you see examples of courts striking down actions by legislative or executive branches such as the SCOTUS's overruling the Bush Administration on his ability to declare who is and is not a terrorist and if they can be prosecuted by military tribunals or in federal courts. Also, don't forget the firearms case where the SCOTUS struck down DC's gun ban. The courts, executive branches and legislative bodies don't do this consistently but I don't think it's that bad to where it has lead to a full consolidation of all three.

As many of you may know I am an officer in the Arizona Libertarian Party and head an Objectivist club. The L.P. stance on foreign policy is one of non-intervention. Meaning that the United States should maintain a policy of strict neutrality and not interfere in the affairs of foreign countries. When 09/11 occured, the Libertarian Party and movement split into 2 camps. One side (which I subscribed to) stated 09/11 was in retaliation for U.S. government meddling in the middle east and that the U.S. should bring it's forces across the globe home. Another side stated that 09/11 was an unprovoked attack done on U.S. soil and that the U.S. government should retaliate by attacking terrorist organizations and and countries that harbor them with a special emphasis on capturing Osama bin-Laden. Like I said I SUBSCRIBED to the former camp but am now leaning in the other direction. A non-interventionist foreign policy is a great posture but then you also have terrorist groups that are still hell bent on attacking the United States despite our shows of force. In Objectivism dictatorships are seen as illegitimate governments and that free countries have the right (if not obligation) to invade and topple their regimes since they can pose a threat to free countries of the West by funding causes or groups that match or further their ideology and routinely violate the individual rights of the people who live in them. The more I read up on the Objectivist approach to foreign policy at the Atlas Society's website, as outlined by William Thomas, the more it makes sense to me and I am coming to the conclusion that it is the best way to protect and defend the U.S. If the U.S. government exists to protect individual rights it can use it's military power to take out depotisms (like Iran or Venezuela) that support terrorist activities that are a threat to us. Any takers? Do any of you subscribe to this view? Any of you oppose it? If so I would be willing to hear why.

Happy Birthday, Kori!!!!

Quite right.

Sometime ago I promised someone on these boards I would report on ISIL's winter retreat/conference held in Phoenix on January 8 to the 10th. I showed up for the Saturday and Sunday events. Overall the conference was EXCELLENT! The quality of the speakers and their lectures were fantastic. I also got to meet some great people and stock up on my Objectivist philosophy books too thanks to ISIL/LFB having 3 tables full of books and DVDs for purchase available. When I got there on Saturday, Dr. Mary Ruwart was finishing her speech on The Benevolence of Freedom. Then Dr. David Beito gave a talk on a new book he just published talking about a little-known but influential civil rights leader who was also a passionate defender of liberty. The whole conference itself was worth every penny. I got to meet and talk to not only many luminaries of liberty but also make acquaintances with new people as well. Dr. Steven Horowitz gave a speech on the Origins of the Present Economic Crisiswhich looked at the economic slump from an Austrian perspective. Dr. Mimi Gladstein gave a talk on Feminism, Atlas and Ayn Rand and then former San Francisco Supervisor Carol Ruth Silver gave a talk on Why Liberals Should Support the Second Amendment. After Saturday's events, we went to eat at a local Chinese restaurant up the street from the hotel where the conference was and I got to sit at the same table and chat with Michael Strong who is author of the book Be the Solution. On Sunday, Jim Peron gave a lecture. Afterwards, Mimi, Steve and Roderick Long gave lectures. Then Atlas Society Advocacy Director Ed Hudgins gave a talk on Applying Objectivism to the Current State of the Nation. After Sunday's festivities, we all had a dinner to for ISIL to give a lifetime achievement award to Dr. Nathaniel Branden. It was a very moving event. Then Ken Schooland (who is now ISIL's new President) and Jim Peron gave a short speeches thanking Nathaniel for his life and work before giving the award to Nathaniel. Then Nathaniel's wife gave a brief speech expressing not only her love but admiration for Nathaniel's life and work. Barbara was also invited but could not make it due to her being ill.

Unfortunately, she is not around to tell us. However, I did find this one article at their website: http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/archives.php?articleid=990 Letter to ARC by Rodney Rawlings The founders of ARC may not realize this, but there's a strong probability that they have philosopher Ayn Rand to thank -- at least in part -- for the resurgence of respect for representational art. In 1969, she wrote: Just as modern philosophy is dominated by the attempt to destroy the conceptual level of man's consciousness and even the perceptual level, reducing man's awareness to mere sensations -- so modern art and literature are dominated by the attempt to disintegrate man's consciousness and reduce it to mere sensations, to the 'enjoyment' of meaningless colors, noises and moods. ... The art of any given period or culture is a faithful mirror of that culture's philosophy. If you see obscene, dismembered monstrosities leering at you from today's esthetic mirrors -- the aborted creations of mediocrity, irrationality and panic -- you are seeing the embodied CONCRETIZED reality of the philosophical premises that dominate today's culture. Only in this sense can those manifestations be called 'art' -- not by the intention or accomplishment of their perpetrators (The Romantic Manifesto). According to Rand, the disintegration of art, and indeed of the modern world, are to be traced to the philosophical rejection of reason.

Hey Everyone, I have a website you all might be interested in. It's for a group called The Art Renewal Center. They specialize in Classical Realism which, essentially, is similar (if not exactly) in the vain of the kind of art Ayn Rand wrote about in The Romantic Manifesto. They not only specialize in selling duplicates by many famous Renaissance-era painters and (I believe) sculptors but also have paintings and sculptures by present day artists too. ARC also has books and DVD's dedicated to demonstrating their approach to art and even have schools affilated with them listed too. The artist schools affilated with them seem to show students how to paint via the Atelier method used by many classical/romantic realist painters in the 19th century. They have really got their act together! Their website is: http://www.artrenewal.org/

Oh okay. I will, Michael. Thanks! I have made corrections to the essay already when I had the chance to edit it. I was unable to change the paragraph/sentence ND recommended in his last suggestion. FWIW, I am going to submit this article for publication too as I think it hits upon some obvious points many Objectivists may not have considered. I am glad I was able to compliment Dr. Kelley's work in 1600 or so words and am surprised (as far as I know) that the points I brought up hadn't been considered before as a rebuttal to Peikoff.

ND, I tried to make the correction you point out last night but it was too late. Thanks for the feedback though. I think you mean: Thankfully, though they won't openly admit it, it seems that ARI has taken inspiration from Dr. Kelley's approach. You might still be able to edit it. I wonder if campus club leaders are screened to assure there are enough true believers in place, or if loyalty oaths are now demanded. When I was doing it the internet wasn’t as ubiquitous as now, and I learned about the Kelley split while “in office”. Nowadays you can’t help but know about it, and with Truth and Toleration (Contested Legacy…) available free online, there’s no excuse for ignorance of the issues anymore. If ARI is demanding loyalty at the campus club level, it bodes ill. It means the true believers are the public face of “the movement” where it counts most. They've never replied coherently to Truth and Toleration, and it's never stopped them.

Just goes to show how the marketplace can help weed out liars. Obviously the negative publicity and ARI (unofficially) distancing itself from Valliant's work lead to PARC's demise.

I could not agree more, James. However, in terms of the internal debate between Kelley and Peikoff (aside from being childish), it is an issue that needed to be addressed. I suppose I can take bragging rights since my point about Andrew Galambos demolishes Peikoff's assertion. Though I will not wait for a note from him admitting I am right, he and the others that subscribe to his interpretation can no longer legitimately make their claims. Any more points made by them that the philosophy is closed are nothing more than rationalizations. I will put this into the second to last paragraph of my essay though, aside from making some other alterations: Ayn Rand designed her philosophy as a coherent, integrated, and unified system of thought. It has many clear, definite, undebatable principles and premises. Objectivism does not need to be changed since it is a defined system and is very clear and consistent.

Thank you, sir!

Okay so are you saying my point about his disagreement and alleged change is incorrect? Thanks for the information about ARI's internal debate.

Thanks, ND. I run a community group. I will certainly consider your input and perspective too and I appreciate it. I didn’t find it groundbreaking, but I’ve been around the scene for about 20 years, so that’s no surprise. Good effort on well traveled terrain. BTW, there's still a Piekoff or two in your post. Sixth line from the bottom. Yes, though it could be an impossible assignment. If you got their tax returns, for instance, and saw that ARI had a bigger budget (I bet they do), that would be evidence. If you count the books published over some recent time frame, and could convincingly say this one’s ARI, this one’s TOC, that would also count. But Burns and Heller wouldn’t properly belong in either slot, and they’re certainly the best selling books on Rand/Objectivism in the last few years, so it’s a weaker indicator. Ed Hudgins gets on TV also, though Brook's certainly had more recent appearances. I’ll say this, when I was running a campus club, ARI was Hobson’s choice (it was that or nothing). I don’t know what it’s like now, though I bet you have to accept support from ARI to the exclusion of TOC, the link you provided looks like that situation. They would provide pamphlets of Rand essays: Philosophy Who Needs It, Man’s Rights and the Nature of Government, a few others. There were videos they’d provide by mail, and there were speakers you could schedule if you could get funding. They wanted to see your schedule for the semester, and it went without saying that you weren’t going to be showing videos of Nathaniel Branden (which I did, BTW, my last semester, plus a audiotape of David Kelley). I’m sure no one reported me, if ARI heard, they’d have called and told me off. I didn’t start posting to MDOP until after graduating, so that never came up either. I take it that you can’t get support from ARI because you have a TOC connection, is that the case? Are you running a campus club or a community group?

One other thing. When you say I should back up my point about the momentum shift from TAS To ARI, do you mean I should give examples other than Brook's appearances as evidence? You’re still misspelling Peikoff, you ought to edit your post to fix it. You say Kelley was “canned”, this implies he had a job with ARI or something like that. I don’t know what term I’d use, but it wouldn’t be that. He became persona non grata, or was excommunicated. You should back this up better, all you seem to have is the fact that Brook is getting talking head gigs. John Stossel had him on recently, for instance. In the ‘90’s he had David Kelley on, see his ABC special “Greed”, I well remember the prime time promos where Kelley said Michael Milken was more moral than Mother Teresa…wow! Peikoff never addresses the argument Rand made, which is cowardly, he should come out and say she blew it that night. That she mispoke at best. Note however that he claims that it's not a philosophical issue, so to say that he's contradicting her philosophically on this issue is not quite right.

I made the necessary corrections and thanks for your feedback. Overall, do you like what I have written? What do you think of it? I also agree with you re: Kelley on Stossel. You’re still misspelling Peikoff, you ought to edit your post to fix it. You say Kelley was “canned”, this implies he had a job with ARI or something like that. I don’t know what term I’d use, but it wouldn’t be that. He became persona non grata, or was excommunicated. You should back this up better, all you seem to have is the fact that Brook is getting talking head gigs. John Stossel had him on recently, for instance. In the ‘90’s he had David Kelley on, see his ABC special “Greed”, I well remember the prime time promos where Kelley said Michael Milken was more moral than Mother Teresa…wow! Peikoff never addresses the argument Rand made, which is cowardly, he should come out and say she blew it that night. That she mispoke at best. Note however that he claims that it's not a philosophical issue, so to say that he's contradicting her philosophically on this issue is not quite right.

The "Closed System" Impossibility by Mike Renzulli There has been a long standing debate in the Objectivist movement regarding the approach to Ayn Rand's philosophy. No single issue divides the Objectivist community more than this internal debate[1]. The two schools of thought are from the minds of 2 men: Dr. David Kelley head of The Atlas Society (TAS) and Dr. Leonard Peikoff head of the Ayn Rand Insitute (ARI). According to David Kelley, Objectivism is an open system subject to revision and addition. While studying Objectivism, I had concerns about TAS's approach since many Objectivists associated with ARI whose posts I read online allege that Kelley wants to change the philosophy or do things that aren't in accordance with Objectivism. They further state that the approach The Atlas Society takes doesn't work. After having read Dr. Kelley's book The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (a.k.a. Truth and Toleration), I do not get the sense that Kelley wants to change anything about Objectivism at all. He just leaves open the possibility of change while looking to other scholars and ideas that compliment or build upon Ms. Rand's. I talked to Edward Hudgins who is Director of Advocacy at The Atlas Society last week at a conference recently held in Phoenix in which Ed, essentially, confirmed this. The key to Kelley's approach is in Chapter V of his book. He states: If Objectivism is to survive and flourish as a system of thought, it must attract philosophers who will build on Ayn Rand's discoveries, using them as a base for an assault on specific problems in philosophy and drawing out their implications for other disciplines such as economics, psychology, or literary theory. And Objectivism is more than a theoretical structure; it is a philosophy to live by. Dr. Peikoff disagrees. He says in his essay Fact and Value which was done in response to Kelley's Truth and Toleration: Kelley states that Ayn Rand’s philosophy, though magnificent, “is not a closed system.” Yes, it is. Philosophy, as Ayn Rand often observed, deals only with the kinds of issues available to men in any era; it does not change with the growth of human knowledge, since it is the base and precondition of that growth. Every philosophy, by the nature of the subject, is immutable. New implications, applications, integrations can always be discovered; but the essence of the system—its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch—is laid down once and for all by the philosophy’s author. If this applies to any philosophy, think how much more obviously it applies to Objectivism. Objectivism holds that every truth is an absolute, and that a proper philosophy is an integrated whole, any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system. However, after some research regarding Dr Peikoff, as it turns out, he has modified the very philosophy he opposes making changes to. For example, when she was alive Ms. Rand had a dislike[2] of homosexuality. Though she felt consenting adults had the right to conduct their sexual activities in the manner they chose and opposed laws outlawing or regulating them as such, Ms. Rand did state that in terms of homosexuality that there is a psychological immorality at it's root. Upon Ms. Rand's death, Dr. Peikoff publicly stated he disagreed with some of her views and declared that homosexuality is not open to moral judgement. Down the line Objectivists have supported and expanded upon Peikoff's view (which is also my own) that government-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians is wrong but (consistent with recognizing the natural right of association and private property) believe private groups and individuals should be free to choose on the matter. Some Objectivists (like myself) even support the legalization of gay marriage, respectfully. If, as Dr. Peikoff contends, that Objectivism does not change with the growth of human knowledge and follows Ms. Rand's philosophy by opposing any change in any element then he should have held to Ms. Rand's original view of homosexuality by still condemning it. Furthermore, with Dr. Peikoff's statement in the above quoted paragraph that the essence of [Objectivism]—its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch—is laid down once and for all by the philosophy’s author is logically impossible. One person who had a truly closed system was a gentleman named Andrew Galambos who developed a philosophical system called Volitional Science. Former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Harry Browne knew Galambos personally and refered to him as the unknown libertarian. According to Browne[3], Galambos never wrote books or appeared on television or radio. To spread his philosophy he relied on word-of-mouth advertising and was a mutual fund investor on the side. He ran a school named the Free Enterprise Institute in Los Angeles, California in the 1960's which sponsored classes on Andrew Galambos's philosophical system. His venture was enormously successful. People came by the hundreds to take Andrew Galambos's classes in order to learn about his philosophical system and his investment methods. Like Ayn Rand, Galambos was very possessive of his ideas. So much so that he had his students sign contracts stating they would not tell anyone else about what they learned or use any of his ideas without Galambos's permission. As a result, Andrew Galambos is relegated to the status of an unknown personality in and out of the libertarian movement and his philosophy is now a historical relic that can still be purchased at a website run by his wife Suzanne. If, as Dr. Peikoff says that Objectivism is closed and not open to change, then he and Ms. Rand should have followed Andrew Galambos's model. The manner in which Andrew Galambos spread his philosophy is the only way a philosophy can remain closed and systematic. The difference between the approaches of Doctors Kelley and Peikoff is their method. Kelley prefers approaching Objectivism from a scientific, peer-reviewed approach while Peikoff prefers one based on authority. Yet, Peikoff's authority-based approach may be in conflict with the philosophy as well. In John Galt's speech on page 1019 of Atlas Shrugged, Ms. Rand states: The vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middlemen between your consciousness and your existence. If this statement by Ms. Rand is any guide and taking into account what Dr. Peikoff says in Fact and Value, his approach from authority is right out of Plato's Theory of The Forms. It is an expectation that Dr. Peikoff and other heads or scholars of the Ayn Rand Institute will lecture ARI supporters of what is and is not Objectivism while Peikoff will have the final word on what they can say with Papal infallability. Unfortunately, ARI's excommunications weren't just limited to David Kelley or Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. Other individuals were subject to ouster as well. After David Kelley gave his speech at a Libertarian supper club in New York, the Ayn Rand Institute's founders and heads Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Henry Binswanger, and Peter Schwartz decided to give Kelley the axe. After he was kicked out, Kelley did what was consistent with Objectivism and started his own group. When Kelley started the Institute for Objectivist Studies (now The Atlas Society), it attracted a number of scholars and philosophers. New communities of Objectivists sprouted up too along with new books and journals based on scholarly research. Websites were created by that commented on issues of a number of subjects from an Objectivist perspective. Now the momentum that was present in the Institute for Objectivist Studies/The Atlas Society faction has obviously shifted to ARI. Thankfully, tough they won't openly admit it, it seems that ARI has taken from of Dr. Kelley's approach. Thanks to the leadership of Yaron Brook, the Ayn Rand Institute has opened up quite a bit. Brook has appeared on television and radio talk shows and ARI authors and scholars have gotten op-eds published in newspapers and magazines as well as other venues ARI's founders either wouldn't or couldn't consider. When it began, the Ayn Rand Institute did follow Ayn Rand's logic to the letter when it came to their disassociation with Libertarians due to Ms. Rand's dislike of them. For a time Dr. Kelley left as head of The Atlas Society to pursue other ventures. Unfortunately, after he left, the organization dwindled in size and, possibly, influence. Fortunately, Kelley is back at the helm and it is my hope that he can replicate the success he had when TAS first started. I am impressed with the growth in the size and scope of the Ayn Rand Institute and am glad the mentality of Dr. Peikoff, Harry Binswanger and Peter Schwartz seems to have somewhat worn off. Unfortunately, the culture of exclusion that existed when ARI first started does still exist in the orthodox community [4]. If this still continues and the orthodox Objectivists continue with excommunications, then they will set themselves up for another schism. If it happens they will have no one but themselves to blame. As for me, I have headed an Objectivist club since 2006. While we use TAS's audio and video items for our meetings, I would have no problem using the Ayn Rand Institute's materials since I find much of their work to be very well done. I also do not discriminate or make litmus tests as to who can and cannot attend my meetings and some ARI supporters have attended. I have told them up front that they are always welcome to attend and give lectures if they would like. In reality Objectivism does not need to be changed since it is a defined system and is very clear and consistent. Ayn Rand designed her philosophy as a coherent, integrated, and unified system of thought. It has many clear, definite, undebatable principles and premises. If given the choice, I would not make any modifications. I get the impression that, ultimately, Dr. Kelley is of the same mindset. Though I will not wait for a note from him to admit I am right, Dr. Leonard Peikoff and other Objectivists that subscribe to his claim of a <em>closed system</em> can no longer legitimately justify their claims. Any more points made by orthodox Objectivists (such as Diana Mertz-Hsieh) that the philosophy is closed are nothing more than rationalizations. [1] http://www.theobject...dependence.aspx [2] http://www.noblesoul...faq.html#Q5.2.6 [3] http://www.harrybrow...es/Galambos.htm [4] http://www.nw-object...g/nwo/join.html

I will give it a look, thanks!

Hi Jonathan, Thanks for this. I am very glad to hear that OO has opened up like ARI. It seems that the ARI side of the movement has relaxed quite a bit and I will mention this in my essay. In lieu of ARI's more open attitude I am wondering if down the line The Atlas Society may go out of business and the people affiliated with it would go to ARI.

No problem, Aaron. I will post my essay in the Articles section of OL soon contingent if I can get enough responses here to my original question. Some of the points in it may come across as simplistic but I think it hits on some obvious facts that many Objectivists may not have been aware of. It's not a long essay either. Probably 500 to 800 words. But I hope it is enough where it will have an impact. Thanks for your interest!

Hard time yes but not impossible. Who is Richard Sanford? Is he on OL or is he Googleable? Any info would help. I also have Kelley's Evidence of the Senses too. While I am sure it is a great contributor, I got bored with it because, for me, it was very dry like IOE. I will revisit these books in due time. Thanks!

Okay fine. I will have a look, Michael. Thanks!

Jim, Thanks for your response. The goal of my post is one of research. I am culminating an essay that will demonstrate that Dr. Piekoff's closed system approach is not only wrong but an impossibility. I will be utilizing a number of sources for it and am interested in finding out if orthodox Objectivists still conduct excommunications. It will tie in with what I am hammering out. However, I get the impression that your post seems to assume that I am concerned with which institution (TAS vs ARI) is correct. While I admit some concern about that, I have finally asked myself which of the two gentlemen (Piekoff or Kelley) are correct. Any responses from people who have recently experienced excommunications on orthodox Objectivist boards or in clubs would be appreciated and helpful.