Mike Renzulli

Indeed Steve's analysis was very informative. I would, however, point out something that Ayn Rand said that is found at Wikipedia: In answer to whether Objectivism is a philosophic system open to change, interpretation and alteration, Ayn Rand herself once said, "There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone (or their philosophy) with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods?" Is the quote from Wikipedia accurate and this to imply that she said her system is closed? I am venturing to say no because we give appropriate credit to Ayn Rand and it does not seem that TAS or Objectivists in our camp stray away from the philosophy, if not the core of Objectivism itself. Much of what our side of the movement espouses seems to be based more on interpretation. Steve, Excellent analysis! I've just discovered it now, as I try to do some catching up. Robert Campbell

Yes indeed. I agree with your premise. Also, in fairness to Brook and Epstein, their justification of authoring this critique of just war theory is more geared towards a context of government protecting the rights of an individual who is forced to live under a theocracy or the totalitarianism spawned by radical Islamists who could come to or already dominate a country. It seems to follow the logic espoused by Rand in her Playboy interview when asked about action taken against communist countries, like Cuba. However, one thing both gents seem to over look is that in order for such actions to be justifiable, in the case of Iraq, the government who wishes to take such action should decide, do an analysis or have an analysis done to see if there will be any kind of retaliation against them (i.e. blowback) when taking action, furthermore, if action is taken, the country doing so should follow its own constitution and declare war. The United States government had lots of knowledge via the C.I.A. about the retaliation that results for U.S. miltary of clandestine activities but obviously decided to ignore tham and did not follow the Constitution by declaring war when it took action against Iraq or even Afghanistan for that matter. As far as my touching on the U.S. government giving knowledge or aid to hostile foreign powers, I could list all of the nonsense they have done with regards to supplying countries hostile to us (our dues paid the U.N. in which a portion of them are disbursed in the form of foreign aid come to mind) that is longer than my arm. I am sure many on these boards maybe aware of such actions taken already.

I have just finished reading George H. Smith's excellent critique of an article (link below) that appeared in The Objective Standard titled "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense which was co-authored by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein. The article I am refering to is in last month's edition of Liberty magazine. In his essay, Smith gives an overview of Brook and Epstein's essay that declares that "Just War Theory" as described by Saint Augustine and others who have written about it is rooted in altruism and should be ignored. Brook and Epstein seem to say that the U.S. government's military response to the 09/11 attacks and incursions in the middle east since then (and possibly before) were the correct response since Islamic extremists or "radicals" are making an effort to attack the United States due to their alleged hatred of our freedoms and way of life. As Smith points out, if she were alive, Rand might have approved of the essay, respectfully. Unfortunately, she is not so we have no way of knowing if she would have. I have also read the article and could not disagree more with Brook and Epstein's logic as one main facet of Objectivism that doesn't seem to get taken into account in any Objectivist circles on the so-called War on Terrorism is the Non-Aggression Principle that Ayn Rand made specifically clear what it is in her writings and lectures. While not a prescription for pacificism (or anarchism for that matter), the NAP clearly points out that no one (including a country) shall committ an act of aggression against another unless they have been attacked. My take on war is that, while at times war is necessary and an appropriate response to agression by others. However, based on the evidence I have been able to acquire about U.S. foreign policy for the past 50+ years, the U.S.'s claim to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions is not morally, ethically or legally justifiable. Despite my opposition to capital punishment, no love is lost on my part for Saddam Hussein (who was evil to the core) being dead. But my misgivings about the Iraq invasion was (aside from being illegal) also unjustifiable since much of the knowledge he acquired (if any) to produce WMDs was the result of the U.S. government's supplying him the know-how to do so when he went to war with Iran. As many of you know, WMDs was the primary reason for the invasion touted by Bush and the neo-conservatives. Interestingly enough, I just finished listening to New York Times reporter James Risen's excellent book State of War on audio. In this book, Risen points out that the C.I.A. was going to try to give faulty information on making either a nuclear weapon or reactor (I do not remember which) to Iran with the help of a Russian scientist they were able to enlist in order to do it. Risen pointed out that Russia and Iran are allies and I believe Risen said they have supplied the Iranians with military and scientific technology. The plans the C.I.A. wanted to leak to the Iranians had flaws so obvious that, to the surprise of the C.I.A. agents who provided the plans to him, the Russian scientist pointed the plan's flaws out during his first look at them. If the C.I.A. had been successful then it would another notch in the U.S. government's supplying knowledge to a hostile foreign power and then Bush would have had all the justification he needed to invade or attack Iran. With the flaws the scientist saw in the blueprints, Iranian scientists would have seen them, corrected them and then Iran would quickly be part of the world's nuclear club. Thoughts anyone? Objective Standard article: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...-war-theory.asp George Smith's response: http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_05/smith-war.html

I saw Iron Man last weekend and it is an AWESOME film! The special effects were great, the story line was very good and the it is paced well enough to keep your interest in the film. I won't go into details about the plot but, overall, its a creator as hero epic that every Objectivist would love.

I could not agree more, Brant. Even though it looks like Hsieh may not have a legal or moral leg to stand on, she will still carry on as if she is the victim who had her ideas stolen (which is not true). In other words, I will not lower myself to Hsieh's level. I tip my hat to you and all the others who posted on this thread in order to clear up the issues that resulted. Fortunately there are other Objectivist lectures from TAS that I can use and will starting next month. Brant - In spite of my immediately previous post which concentrated on the legal issues, I think this is good advice. I don't see where Diana's exposition is of such high value that it should be worth hassling over this. Alfonso

Yes indeed thanks! For some reason, I haven't gotten the spelling of his name right (yet).

Good point, Shayne, and I completely agree. Since Objectivism is based on reality only reality can control it. If my memory serves, when Buddha was going around spreading his philosophy, he told his followers that he did not want to be made into a messiah/god. Unfortunately, after he passed away, thats what a group of Buddhists did. Similar things happened with the messiahs of Christianity (Jesus) and Islam (Mohammed). Now, I see a similar thing happening with the Objectivist movement. One side just wants to practice her philosophy while the other has made her philosophy into a religion and, essentially, wants to deify Ayn Rand. I hope our side of the movement doesn't wither and die like the Buddhists who only practiced Buddha's philosophy were (for lack of a better term) beaten by the ones who deified Buddha. I apologize if my above statement is a bit simplistic. It's not important whether something is or isn't consistent with Objectivism. It's important whether it's consistent with reality. It's important to read and understand what Rand thought because she was a great thinker--to a great degree she properly identified reality. It's important to give her the credit she is due. It is not important whether or not she or her self-proclaimed followers would knight thee an Objectivist. Her obsession about whether somebody is or isn't a "true Objectivist" was a mistake on her part. Shayne

Happy Birthday!!!!

Is this guy: http://www.speedextreme.com/temp/apr/fastgun.wmv

Thanks again, Phil. FYI everyone! As it turns out some of the ARI lectures that can be bought on CD or tape can also be bought online for viewing too. I have seen a couple of Leonard Peikoff lectures at the Ayn Rand Bookstore that can be bought for viewing online for a little over $100. The only catch is that you will have access to them for a year.

Hm! I don't recall seeing that disclaimer but it does not surprise me in a way. Thanks for pointing this out.

Thanks very much, Michael! I will consider your points and appreciate your input. I also agree with you about Real Player too.

I appreciate it, Phil and thanks! I have no doubt Leonard Peikoff is as brilliant a write and lecturer as you say since, after having read some of his tracts on Objectivism its clear he knows his stuff. However, it is not the prices of the products you point out that matter to me as much as it is identifying which of his courses would be the most useful (which I am sure all of them are) but also to avoid the possbility of buying lectures that do essentially the same thing. For example, Peikoff's advanced course on OPAR seems to be similar to Objectivism: State of the Art. I want to get as good an education as possible but do not want to end up buying CD lectures that essentially say the same thing (not to say Peikoff or ARI would do this intentionally). FWIW, I do have Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking.

Thanks for the recommendations, Alfonso.

I will consider it, Shayne. Thanks! I have found a few more lectures of interest on the subject of science that seem to be compatible with ARI ones. For example, at Objectivism Store there is a Symposium on Cognitive Science series that seems to be compatible with some things Harry Binswanger has done and another on Objectivism and the Philosophy of Science that are along the lines to lectures done by either Keith Lockitch or Harry Binswanger.

As many of you may know I head an Objectivist philosophy group. When I first formed it we listened to Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism lecture series. Now that we are done, we are moving on to other series. However, the problem is is that, unfortunately, TAS seems to be limited in their selection of pre-recorded lectures available for sale. I have been to ARI's Ayn Rand Bookstore and they have selections galore about almost every topic alot of which sound fascinating to say the least. I have bought some CD's from ARB but would rather buy from TAS since, while they have got their act together, I would rather not give money to ARI. The frustrating thing is not only the variety but also the limited amounts of subjects TAS has too. The advantage TAS lectures have over ARI are (aside from the fact that TAS lectures are also very well done) that they are not as expensive. Can anyone enlighten me and others on these boards as to what alternative lectures to ARI's courses exist that TAS has produced could be used as alternatives and are equal subject and content wise? For example, at Objectivism Bookstore it has a lecture called Atlas Shrugged as a Philisophical Novel while Ayn Rand Bookstore has a lecture that seems to be similar called Atlas Shrugged as a Work of Philosophy. I am sure, over time, TAS will have more lectures available. If they do, I hope that they will make up for the lack of subjects.

I have come across 3 films that look very promising that will be coming out soon! They are: 1) The Spirit - This movie was written and directed by Frank Miller (300 & Sin City) and is based on the comic book series by Will Eisner. It is about a police officer who is murdered and some how is resurrected where he becomes a clandestine crime fighter. As many of you know Miller dedicated his Martha Washington series to Ayn Rand and is a self-professed libertarian. Website: http://www.mycityscreams.com/ 2) The Watchmen - This movie is based on the comic book series of Alan Moore (V for Vendetta). It takes place during the 1980's and the war is about to break out between the US and USSR. While this is going on, former superheroes of the Crimebusters are the targets of a campaign to kill or discredit them. Website: http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/ 3) Marina of the Zabbaleen - A documentary about Christian entrepreneurs in Egypt. Looks very promising! Website: http://www.marinathemovie.com/

Thanks for clarifying and you make a good point about her blog. Hsieh's attitude is similar in many respect to card-carrying members of the Red Guard who would would criticize members of their own group to point of ostracization and demand confessions of guilt. The attitudes of ARIans, like Diana, are indicative of many members of utopian movements in the past. Like George Smith points out in his book, Rand is a passionate writer and they can attract passionate readers. But by some quirk of fate, missed their calling as Christian missionaries. AFAIK, Diana has never had any dealings with Barbara. She WAS, for a time, Nathaniel's webmaster. I guess he rubbed her the wrong way, and she no longer liked him, but only when she got involved with the ARI-crowd did she adopt the official anti-Branden attitude. AKAIK, she was never mistreated by Sciabarra. For reasons I can only assume is due to her involvement with the ARI-crowd, she turned on him. This despite his apparent help to her in the past, as I understand it. Her website, Noodlefood, is a decent repository of her attacks and disavowment of people.

Yes and in order to appease the ARI hierarchy which she hopes will lead to further opportunities for getting published or in ARI leadership she bashes the people she used to associate with. Very similar to someone who lives to please other people (in this case ARI) and I believe Ayn Rand rejected in The Fountainhead. I tried looking for it but can't pull it up but I recall seeing a post by Barbara Branden titled "Enough is Enough!" which I believe was due to Hsieh criticizing or scolding Sciabarra and possibly Barbara too at Diana's blog or SOLO Passion. Something Diana seems to do on a regular basis. Perhaps the best source is her own blog Noodle Food. I would also like to add that, while there is nothing wrong with criticism and no one (not even Ayn Rand) is beyond it, Diana seems to do so in order to agitate her former colleagues and not out of any genuine interest in Objectivism itself.

All, In light of my (albeit short) contact with and other people's experiences with Diana Mertz-Hsieh, I thought it would be appropriate to comment on her actions overall since they match nearly perfectly with what George H. Smith points out in his book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. On page 220 of Smith's book he delves into his observations of a religious Objectivist. Smith points out that a religious Objectivist will pass moral judgement for the purpose of intimidation which is supposed to evoke guilt and shame making the term "immoral" as the secularization "sin". George Smith delves into 3 examples that seem to match Diana Hsieh's actions perfectly! Pointing out that such ex-cathedra denunciations of people like the Brandens and Chris Sciabarra that would turn the Pope green with envy. Aside from being a great book, George Smith's observations about this are very insightful and I am wondering if the condemnations Hsieh likes to delve out are indicative of the kind of ostracization she experienced at the hands of the Front Range Objectivists she hangs out with. After finally giving in and joining ARI she is now in a position to damn everyone else because, in her mind, after feeling the heat, she has seen the light. I am guessing she was so passionate about Objectivism she felt that ARI was the best resource to achieve her goals of wanting to pursue philosophy as a career. Which is fine. Except she decided in order to win ARI's trust she has burned all of her bridges and condemns anyone who is not an ARI Objectivist. Similar in many respects to Leonard Piekoff. She not only is her own worst enemy but I believe she is the epitome of everything Ayn Rand spoke out against by selling her soul for the cause.

Lots of good research here, Phil. Thanks very much. However, is there a difference between performance rights and listening rights? Diana seems to think so despite the fact that we would listen to her lecture in an enclosed room and she also states that since TOC didn't produce her lectures via anything other than TOC Live that the copright expired and the rights reverted back to her.

You know I might have considered not playing it if Hsieh had asked me not to. However, instead, she decides to punch me in the face. This reminds me of something Leonard Piekoff did to a rockband that named themselves Atlas Shrugged. I believe Piekoff threatened to sue the band if they did not change their name. While Piekoff was right I didn't like the way he went about it and the band wasn't too happy either. Like the saying goes, you can accomplish more with honey than with vinegar. If ARIans choose vinegar over honey, its no wonder that, up until recently, ARI didn't go very far in terms of their furthering Objectivism. On a more positive note I got a phone call from Ed Hudgins today in which the attorney he consulted on this issue was out on vacation. He offered to send me a similar course at TAS expense since he didn't think he would have an answer by Thursday. I replied I think I might have another and thanked him very much for the offer.

Thanks, Kat and to everyone who posted. I also replied to her e-mail asking her to provide any documentation to back up her claim. While I am kinda fuzzy on the sanction issue, it was/is still a good lecture. None the less, if I have to change my plans, okay by me. Theres plenty of other lectures I can play.

Well Folks, Diana Mertz-Hsieh has struck again. As it turns out, she just sent me an e-mail stating that she doesn't give me permission to play her Objectivism 101 lectures for my group's meeting coming up this Thursday. Hsieh says that she holds the copyright for it, that TAS's copyright for her lectures has expired and, while she will not stop me, she states that my doing so would be stealing her intellectual property. I already have a call into Ed Hudgins at TAS to see if what she is saying is accurate. I may have to bag using the lectures until the legalities of doing so are cleared up unless someone on these boards knows otherwise. Regardless if she is right or not, its one more feather in her cap of making an ass out of herself.

Yes I realize that and thanks for pointing that out. Despite my disagreement with Hsieh with regards to leaving TAS for ARI, this is still a damned good lecture series. Fortunately, TAS is cranking out some good lectures too that I can use for my group meetings and I have bought more items from TAS than ARI.