Mike Renzulli

It depends on the speaker. For this one, I expect 10-13 people which is about average for the speaker format we have for our first meeting. When I had Dr Robert Balling give his presentation on global warming, I had up to 25 people.

Don't forget ANTZ.

When: Thursday, January 10th, 2008 at 6:30p.m. Where: China Village Restaurant 2710 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ Admission: Attendees must buy something to eat Event Description: For our first meeting of the year, our group will be joined by Institute for Justice founder and author Clint Bolick! In his lecture, Mr. Bolick will give a lecture on Protecting the Rights of the Individual. The Founding Fathers intended to create a government to secure individual rights. They listed and laid out numerous rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but they also added the Ninth Amendment to guarantee "unenumerated rights." In his lecture, Mr. Bolick will point out what these rights are, how can they be protected and will such a strategy to protect individual rights be successful as a means of protecting them. For more information about our group, please visit our website: http://phoenixobjectivists.blogspot.com

Its because of this non sense he pulled while in office and his policy stances that I call him Rudy Giusolini.

While I am critical of Ron Paul, I find Robert Bidinotto and Stephen Green's assessment of Paul disingenuous. Especially when it comes to Paul's non-intervention and gold standard stances since its a fact that in order to have freedom and free trade, government must be restrained from conducting imperialism like the US government is doing now and the ability to conduct an imperialist foreign policy is done by utilizing paper money. An immediate switch to the gold standard would end this and I believe Murray Rothbard pointed out how the US could switch to it. What leads me to have such a low opinion of Paul is his unwillingness to apply the non-aggression principle or the concept of individual rights consistently. Someone pointed me in the direction of Ayn Rand's essay on assessing a political candidate. While it was helpful, I am also reminded of her openly expressing frustration at the fact that there was no political party or candidate dedicated to laissez faire capitalism and individual rights. Well, there is a political party dedicated to much (if not all) of what Ayn Rand espoused. Its the Libertarian Party. While political voting is not the ultimate solution it is one method to get out the message and ideas of freedom. I realize the deck is staked against the Libertarian Party. However, electoral reforms can be enacted in order for the LP to become viable in terms of electing candidates. Heck, I would dare to argue that the LP already is 'viable' because it still endures to this day. Even though the LP has hardly elected anyone to office, the fact that its candidates can bring freedom-oriented ideas to the forefront where one of the 2 major party candidates can adopt its stances.

Yes I heard about this and am glad it happened. Great job, ISIL!

I realize this maybe a bit late, but stuff like this honestly tickles me to death. Critics, like Diana Hsieh, of the brilliant writings and scholarly work of authors like Chris Sciabarra are obviously grounded in philosophical prostitution. If I were Chris, I would wear her scorn as a badge of honor. Its a fact that there is a very active Objectivist group in Denver, Colorado that is tied to the Ayn Rand Institute where Hsieh lives and she obviously wants to position herself to move higher up in the ARIan movement if not this organization itself. Hsieh has obviously sold her soul and will do all she can to distance herself from her past. She is a reflection of the kind of altruism that Rand reeled against. I would not be surprised if she is going to be the unofficial head of the Stalinistic purges many of the ARIan groups (especially the Ayn Rand Institute) are known for. Unless her true reason is that, while moving up in the Orthodox Objectivist movement is to move up in it while demonizing people, like Sciabarra et all, in hopes our side of the movement prevails. Thanks for the exposure, Diana! We will relish in your vindictive attacks while gaining in numbers with the amount of ticked off ARIans who will swing to our side. KEEP IT UP!!!

I came across this at You Tube and it made me cringe. While I am sure Ron Paul is not an anti-semite and neither are any of you who support him, I think this endorsement from Hutton Gibson can come back to bite him since Gibson has expressed anti-semitic views on many occasaions. I also believe that Mel Gibson's antisemitic tirade in LA when he was drunk and his re-affiliating with a branch of the Catholic Church that performs the only Latin Mass is, in my view, a reflection of how Mel is influenced by his father. I believe Mel is the oldest child so if this is the case, the eldest son is usually influenced by the father. Despite the fact that Mel Gibson has distanced himself from his remarks and, by and large, makes some great films and is a wonderful actor, I am still suspicious of him. The term In Vino Es Veritas comes to mind.

One thing I wanted to point out about The Golden Compass is that I wonder how Nicole Kidman feels. Kidman is Catholic and it would seem that her church has slapped her in the face by calling for a boycott of the film. I know I would have reservations if I were her if the church I belonged to did that to me. Matter of fact, when I was a Christian my church did in many ways. With all of the hoopla about the Catholic Church and fundamentalist groups making such a big deal about this saying the film will indoctrinate kids in or is geared to promoting atheism, I could easily make the same argument about the Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings movies that are out, that these movies want to indoctrinate kids in Christianity and/or religion. This whole controversy reeks of hypocrisy.

I also saw this movie last night and agree with everything you said. Its a wonderfully well-made, individualistic film.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1573421/story.jhtml Nov 2 2007 6:27 PM EDT "Thought Harry Potter was blasphemous? That was kids' stuff compared to the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, in which God is an imposter, angels are sexually ambiguous and the Church kidnaps, tortures and assassinates to achieve its goals, one of which is stealing children's souls." At least I know there is a movie worth seeing come December. Matter of fact, this might be a good activity for my Objectivist group. Right around Christmas time. Great timing!

Okay thanks, Michael. I will look these over. But I one of the things I am frustrated with is determining how I identify what the difference is between something that is Metaphysical and one that is Epistemological. I think its these 2 branches of Objectivism that I have the most trouble with. Is this the essence of Objectivism? Certainly these four principles are essential. But they are not enough. These are extremely broad doctrines as stated. Every one of them has been defended by other philosophers, and the package as a whole is not too far from the views of many Enlightenment thinkers. If Ayn Rand had said no more than this, we could not credit her with having created a distinctive system, much less a system that provides the fundamental alternative to Kant. She would properly be regarded as a secular and individualist thinker within the Aristotelian tradition. To identify what makes Objectivism unique, we have to be more specific. We need to identify the basic insights and connections that allowed Ayn Rand to give an original defense of the four principles I stated. So let us take a closer look at each of the relevant areas. In metaphysics, Ayn Rand's view of reality as objective, her view of facts as absolutes, is basically Aristotelian. But her formulation of this view states its essential elements with unprecedented depth and clarity. Her axiom of existence expresses the insight that existence is the primary metaphysical fact, not to be questioned or explained; that the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is meaningless; that existence does not derive from some more fundamental stratum of forms or essences. Her principle of the primacy of existence denies that reality is malleable by consciousness, even a divine consciousness. This closes off the possibility that nature has a supernatural creator—a possibility that Aristotle left open. And it distinguishes her from modern Kantian views which claim that the world we know is merely an appearance, shaped by our own concepts and conventions. Finally, she formulated the laws of identity and causality as axioms that define the realm of metaphysical facts, and that ground the operations of reason. The law of identity, which says that a thing must have a specific and non-contradictory nature, is the basis for all deductive reasoning. The law of causality, which says that a thing must act in accordance with its nature, is the basis of all inductive reasoning. In epistemology, Ayn Rand also agreed with Aristotle—up to a point. She held that reason is man's means of knowledge, that it gives us the capacity to grasp the world as it is, that the material of knowledge is provided by the senses, that the method of reason is logic, and that this method is grounded in fact. But she went far beyond this. I would say that three of her insights in epistemology are essential to Objectivism. The first is her concept of objectivity, and her rejection of the false dichotomy between intrinsicism and subjectivism. I described this insight at the beginning of my essay, and have relied upon it throughout. It runs through every part of her epistemology, as well as her ethics and politics; it is the Archimedean point from which she overthrows the Kantian system. A second and closely related insight is her recognition that reason is the faculty of concepts, and that a concept is an integration of particulars on the basis of their similarities. A concept is an abstraction. It is not merely a name for an arbitrary collection of things we happen to classify together, but an integration of them into a new mental unit that expands the range of our knowledge. An abstraction, however, does not exist as such, over and above the concretes it integrates; it is the rule by which they are integrated. So it cannot be divorced from its perceptual basis and allowed to float free. As a result of this theory, Objectivism has a highly distinctive view about what it means to think conceptually, to think in principles—a view that avoids the classic defects of rationalism on the one hand and empiricism on the other. The final point I would mention in epistemology is that reason is a volitional faculty: that conceptual integration, unlike sense-perception, is a cognitive function that must be initiated and directed by choice. This is the essence of our free will, and the source of our need for epistemological standards. It is also the psychological source of hostility toward reason. In analyzing the varieties of irrationalism, as I noted in Section III, Ayn Rand always traced them back to the desire for an effortless, automatic mode of cognition. This brings us to the fields of ethics and politics, where Ayn Rand's views were most distinctive. Her most important contribution in ethics is clearly her insight that values are rooted in the phenomenon of life. Values exist because the existence of a living organism depends on its own goal-directed action; in order to survive it must treat certain things as good for it and other things as bad. This is her solution to the notorious is-ought problem in philosophy, the problem of how normative conclusions can be derived from facts about the world, and it provides the basis for an objective ethics. If we value life, then our nature requires certain kinds of actions, which we identify as virtues. Since reason is our basic means of survival, the primary, essential virtue is rationality: the acceptance of reason as an absolute, and a commitment to the use of rational standards and methods in every issue we confront. All of the other virtues are implicit in rationality; they involve the acceptance and use of reason in specific areas such as judging others (justice) or creating value (productiveness). But the virtue of independence deserves special mention because it also involves the recognition and acceptance of the volitional character of reason. The fact that we must initiate and direct the process of thought means that we must not subordinate our judgment of the facts to the minds of others, no matter how numerous; and that the sense of efficacy that is crucial to self-esteem is ours to achieve by our own effort. In this respect, the virtue of independence is the key link between epistemology and politics. Because reason is volitional, it is a faculty of the individual, whose freedom to act independently, on his own autonomous judgment, must be protected by a system of political rights. If these are the central virtues in Objectivism, what are the central values? Life, of course, is the fundamental value, but what about the subsidiary values, the ones we need if we are to maintain, fulfill, and enjoy our lives? What is most distinctive to Ayn Rand in this regard is her new about the central role of production in man's life. Productive work, the creation of value, is our basic means of dealing with reality and a precondition for the pursuit of any other value. Psychologically, it is a vital source of one's sense of efficacy and self-worth. Production is not merely a practical necessity; it is man's glory. Our ability to reshape the world in the image of our values, in a world open to our achievement, is the essence of her view of man as a heroic being, a view that shaped and colored everything she wrote. Finally, we cannot omit her explicit rejection of altruism and the mind-body dichotomy. This is a negative point, but we need to include it because Ayn Rand was virtually without precedent here. Many other philosophers have adopted views that are implicitly egoistic, but few were willing to put their cards on the table, to say explicitly: altruism is wrong, self-sacrifice is a perversion of ethics. The same is true of the dichotomy between mind and body, between the material and the spiritual. Ayn Rand is distinctive in her exalted, idealistic defense of such worldly values as sex and wealth. In politics, the essence of the Objectivist view is the principle of individual rights. The rights of the individual, not the welfare of the collective, provide the moral basis of capitalism. Of course Ayn Rand did not originate the concept of rights; she inherited it from the individualist thinkers of the Enlightenment. Her contribution was to give their political individualism an ethical basis in egoism, the right of each individual to pursue his own happiness; and an epistemological basis in the fact that reason is a faculty of the individual mind. She also identified the fact that rights can be violated only by force. A right is a right to action, not to a good like food, shelter, or medical care, and it can be violated only if someone forcibly prevents one from acting. The political implication of these views is that the government must be strictly limited: limited in function to the protection of rights, and limited in its methods to acting in accordance with objective law. Such, in briefest outline, is the essential content of Objectivism as a philosophy. Not all of the ideas I've mentioned were discovered by Ayn Rand, but many of them were, and the integration of them into a system was hers. This outline captures the essential principles that distinguish Objectivism from every other viewpoint—no adherent of a rival philosophy would embrace all of them. Conversely, anyone who accepted all of these ideas would have to consider himself an Objectivist. But notice what I have left out. I omitted a number of points in epistemology, ethics, and politics. I omitted the entire field of aesthetics, just as Ayn Rand did in her brief summary. I haven't said anything about the role of philosophy in history, or the identification of Kant as an arch-villain. I've omitted these things, not because I disagree with them, or because they are unimportant, but because they are not primary. Some are technical theories required to explain and defend the primary claims that I did include. Some are implications and applications of those primary claims. All of them are principles of limited range and significance for the system as a whole. They are logically connected to the points I've mentioned, and they contribute to the richness and power of Objectivism as a system of thought; if we regard them as true, we will naturally include them as elements in the system. But someone may challenge these noncentral tenets without ceasing to be an Objectivist. The outline I gave was not intended as an exhaustive presentation of Objectivism as I understand it. My purpose was to identify the boundaries of the debate and development that may take place within Objectivism as a school of thought. It's also important to stress that the principles I have mentioned are not to be taken as a list of articles of faith. They are elements in a connected system. I have been asked whether I would consider someone to be an Objectivist if he accepted all these principles but denied some other point—e.g., that honesty is a virtue. My answer is that the question is premature. I would need to know the reason for his position. If he rejects honesty because he doesn't like it, even though he happens to like the points I've mentioned, then he would not be an adherent of the Objectivist philosophy because he is not an adherent of any philosophy. A philosophy is a logically integrated system, not a grab bag of isolated tenets adopted arbitrarily. If the person did have a reason for his position, then I would need to know what it is. I cannot imagine any argument in favor of dishonesty that does not rest on a rejection of rationality, in which case the person is outside the framework of Objectivism. But if his position is that honesty, while good, is not important enough as an issue to be considered a cardinal virtue; or that the scope of legitimate "white lies" is larger than Ayn Rand allowed; or any number of other variant positions in all such cases, I would consider him an Objectivist even if I disagreed with him, as long as he defends his view by reference to the basic principles. Like any other philosophy, in short, Objectivism has an essential core: a set of basic doctrines that distinguishes it from other viewpoints and serves as the skeleton of the system. The implication is that anyone in substantial agreement with those doctrines is an Objectivist. I believe that a great deal of damage has been done by refusing to take this attitude. It's been thirty years since Atlas Shrugged was published, the length of an entire generation. After all that time, only a handful of philosophers are willing to identify themselves as Objectivists, and our output has been pretty thin; a complete bibliography would not amount to much. This is partly because Objectivism lies so far outside the main-stream of academic thought. But another reason is the insistence on defining Objectivism in the narrow fashion that Peikoff urges, and the atmosphere of dogmatism that accompanies it. In the name of preserving the purity and integrity of the system, Objectivists have too often relied on stereotypical formulations of Ayn Rand's ideas. They have been quick to pounce on thinkers who might have been their allies. They have greeted new extensions of the system with a timid caution that reminds me of the Council of Scholars in Anthem, who spent fifty years debating the wisdom of accepting that radical innovation, the candle. These policies have discouraged independent thinking, they have driven away creative minds, they have kept Objectivism from being the living, growing philosophy it could be. This is very well put. I am in 100% agreement with this. Well, you do see the four usually mentioned among others in a Google search. My own view, admittedly influenced by Nyquist, is that a couple other branches should be added to the Objectivist divisions of philosophy: Human Nature, and History (specifically, Philosophy of History). I have argued this with people at times - but I usually come up against the attitude that five is all there is. Why? Well, because. That's why. Apropos, I came across an extremely interesting item while researching for an article. Get a load of this from the ARI site: Essentials of Objectivism. There you have Human Nature just as big and bold as all get out - right in between Epistemology and Ethics. Here is a direct quote, but leaving out most of the text for copyright reasons (you can read it at the linked page). My own view of what human nature is does not agree with ARI's oversimplification, but the part that ARI gets right is right. (I also don't agree with the ham-handed "rejections" for the same reason - oversimplification.) In ITOE, Rand defined man as a "rational animal," with "rational" being the differentia and "animal" being the genus. The ARI blurb on Human Nature starts thus: "Man is a rational being." They left out the "animal" part, thus oversimplified. They used the differentia only as his nature. They airbrushed the genus!!! The important thing, though, is that the lack of a philosophical category for Human Nature was perceived even at the ARI level. Dayaamm! This is the orthodoxy! History might not be too long in coming. (There is that little thing Rand wrote called For the New Intellectual...) (The rest of the above post dealt with a specific topic that causes much disagreement in Objectivism: the rights of children.) I hope these posts help get your mental juices flowing. Michael

It is unfortunate that you do not consider my commentary serious analysis since it based almost exclusively on Paul's voting record. As far as the earmarks are concerned, the way I see it is that rather than putting in the requests is that he should stay true to his principles and bluntly tell the local officials or people making the requests for the earmarks that it is not the proper function of government to fund such projects. What good is it going to do to elect someone who reels against an empire in the United States but then turns around and use government force on doctors who perform abortions? Let alone gay and lesbian adult couples who want to adopt orphaned kids in DC? How about businessmen who hire an illegal immigrants? Based on Paul's voting record and the stances he has taken running for President it doesn't seem like he is too friendly to letting these things alone. Like I said, I have no doubt that if he is elected that Paul could scale back the federal government in many areas. However, if his stance on social issues is any indication, people's civil liberties could still be on the chopping block. The point I am making with this whole article is that Paul is not a defender of freedom nor serious about its defense anymore than his opponents of both parties are. If freedom-lovers like us are to back candidates for elected office, it should be for candidate(s) that consistently uphold people's rights and not pick-and-choose like Paul and other politicians like him do. Much of the arguments in libertarian and Objectivist circles make are vaguely reminiscent of the lesser of two evils argument. That doesn't set well with me. My attitude towards Paul is no different than it is towards Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. However, I would pose the question: Is it really cynicism to see Paul or a politician for who he/she really is? As far as working within the system to enact change, it does not have to be just limited to electing people to office. I would point out that Ayn Rand worked outside the system quite well with publishing her books. Matter of fact, it can be argued that if the sales and influence of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are any indication that one can have a bigger influence outside the system than in it. I would also dare to argue that Objectivists themselves can have a much larger impact on American culture at large since they are a vital forum to persuade the culture back to the Aristotelian-oriented principles the country was founded on. I also distinctly remember reading something written by Ayn Rand stating something along the lines of how disappointed or frustrated she was that there was no political party or candidates truly dedicated to defending capitalism. Fortunately, there is one in existence and, despite recent events, I need not tell you the party's name. Such arguments to work outside a system that has become very corrupt and now exists to inhibit the very rights of people it was implemented to uphold aren't arguments for anarchism as much as they are rooted in common sense. Then you're proposing to not work within the existing constitutional system at all, because the institutions in place work strenuously against this. Much more so for going through third parties, but against anyone who speaks plainly. Especially when it's about the war-making pillars of the regime currently in charge, at least since 1940. Ron Paul does NOT shy away from using the appropriate word: "empire." That is what we have. That is what we've had since, again, at least 1940, the last year the U.S. was essentially a peacetime economy. In any event, you're never going to get an "exact match." Even leaving to the side the whole issue of what "our principles" includes. I don't see any common ground between rational Objectivist types and ARI ... or should I say, AEI? eh, what's the real difference? ... calling for Tehran to be turned into radioactive glass. What you're calling for, in practice, is extra-constitutional action, either resisting or ignoring or bypassing or monkey-wrenching the system — most likely, all four paths. That brings Objectivist action, in relevant practice, far closer to the "anarchists" who are unjustly dumped upon routinely, here and in every other Rand-related forum. The closest we're going to get — within this system, and its favoring of the two wings of the Statist Party — is a fiercely principled man, whether you agree with every position of his or not, who approaches every issue from the viewpoint of reducing or eliminating government power. We have that with Ron Paul, at least for this primary season. Even for the publicity value of his making a good showing, and leaving a remnant for further agitation and change, I'd advise not throwing it away.

While I am relatively new to the philosophy, there is one thing that I am in need of assistance with. While I understand that the philosophy should be a guide for life (i.e. a roadmap), I am having a difficult time remembering the names of the 5 branches of the philosophy and how to apply them in every day life. I realize this maybe a pretty broad or large request. However, I am having difficulty being able to identify who and where the 5 branches of Objectivism would apply. Any assistance with this would be helpful. Thanks!

Anytime, Angie! Keep up the great work! :-)

Yes indeedy! I just learned about this myself and am relieved! ISIL to the rescue! Yahoo!!

Agreed on Goldwater and the CAP. While he was not consistent, I like Barry Goldwater because he mostly said what was on his mind and was principled enough to stand up for what he believed in. I will look up the Ayn Rand article you speak of. However, my opposition to Ron Paul is solid since I think it is time for Objectivists and libertarians to no longer back candidates that do not exactly match our principles and philosophy. I will say this much Johnathan Hoenig owner of CaptialistPig.com endorsed Michael Badnarik for President in 2004. As many of you may know, Hoenig is a supporter of ARI but seems to have some tolerance for Libertarians. His book Greed is Good was sold at Laissez Faire Books for sometime, respectfully. I am taking from Hoenig's example and would urge you all to consider doing the same.

Its very possible that you may never be bothered about anything. Then again, you might (which I hope never happens). For example, soon after speaking out against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the owner and webmaster of Raise the Fist dot com got a visit from FBI agents who seized all of his computer equipment and files. This kind of conduct is legal as per The PATRIOT Act and I believe the FBI did this without a warrant too. In instances where you have no choice to pay taxes or follow regulations then in order to live many times you have to. However, do you feel comfortable living in a society or living with a government that once used to believe that you are innocent until proven guilty but those who make it up now feel otherwise? I know I don't. You should not either. As free as I have ever been. I buy what I like for cash or with a credit card. I even look up the Anarchist's Cookbook online. I have never been bothered because of my purchases or downloads. Not once. However none of us are all that free. We are compelled to pay unjust taxes (we work for Uncle until the middle of May) and we are subject to insane regulations. Feel free now? Ba'al Chatzaf

The airlines are required to keep a list as per directives of the Dept of Homeland Security. I believe the good ol' PATRIOT Act enabled this to happen. You do any activities deemed questionable by the feds and you can end up on their too. Once you are on, its nearly impossible to be removed even if its a mistake. 60 Minutes did a news report on this last year. While there is no right to fly in the constitution, there is a right to privacy via the 4th amendment regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. I would guess people who have been blacklisted like this even if they are innocent would be considered unreasonable, wouldn't you agree? My calls were tapped prior to 9/11. So what has changed? And anyone on the "no fly list" can charter a private flight if he has the where with all. The no fly list is maintained by the airlines, not the government. It is a way of protecting the bulk of their passengers. What civil rights have been lost. There is no civil right to fly. You can fly if a private carrier will carry you, otherwise you won't. Flying is a privilege, not a right. Search the Constitution and find me a Right to Fly, would you? Ba'al Chatzaf

Okay, How about the banks who are now REQUIRED to keep recored of your bank transactions or the fact that if you protest against the Prez at one of his appearances that you have to do it in a Free Speech Zone like many did during the Republican National Convention in 2004. Read the ACLU's analysis of the PATRIOT act and look at all of the things gummint can do to monitor and track you. I wont go into the National ID card coming soon to a DMV near you fitted with an RFID chip that will make it easier to track your whereabouts. Also, lets not forget Section 215 of the PATRIOT act that required libraries and bookstores to keep records of your book purchases and check outs. An FBI Agent can show up and look at them without a warrant and the bookstores or libraries are not allowed to tell you if your information has been requested. Ever wonder why bookstores now have these discount cards? It isn't just to give you points towards a book, CD or DVD purchase, it is also a way to keep track of your store purchases in case the FBI shows up and wants to look at them. Any book purchase deemed suspicious and you can be dragged in for questioning. Feel free now? I must have been asleep since 9/11. I am unaware of any freedom that I have lost. Can you tell me what I have lost? I am still free to criticize the gummint. My right to travel abroad has not been any more abridged than it was prior to 9/11. I can even visit a Mosque (although I have no desire to). So what are my Lost Freedoms? On the other hand, I am still paying taxes which I was prior to 9/11. Hep' me, hep' me. Ba'al Chatzaf

Galt, With my posts on Paul, please let me make it clear that I do not belittle anyone who has decided to support him for President. However, from my vantage point, it would seem that Ron Paul is nothing more than a wolf in sheeps clothing. If Objectivists and libertarians are to support a candidate for office, I would recommend that you back a candidate that is consistent about upholding individual rights and is also honest and truthful about what they want to do. Its very possible that if Paul gets elected (which I think is highly unlikely) that he might actually do a lot of good to restore our nation's economy if not lots of the freedoms Americans lost after 9/11. However, any of the things he does will be overshadowed by the fact that he wants to restrict personal liberty in many areas of people's lives and weaken church-state seperation. I will say this much, out of the Presidential candidates, one that has caught my eye is Christine Smith who is running as a Libertarian. I have exchanged e-mails with her and talked to her on the telephone and she is very articulate and passionate about freedom. While I do not endorse her since I am an officer of the Maricopa County and Arizona Libertarian Parties, she is the most consistent out of all of the candidates running so far.

Roger, Paul has actively worked to get the money for his district. According to a June 26th interview of one of his aides done by NBC affiliate KCEN Texas television news, Paul " has always asked for spending for his district in response to local government requests." Additionally, the report states: Among the written requests [Paul] submitted to the House Appropriations Committee, Paul asked for eight-point-six million dollars for the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the Texas City Channel. He also asked for ten million dollars for the Galveston Rail Causeway Bridge. This despite Paul's voting against the final appropriations bill presented on the floor. There is a representative in Arizona named Jeff Flake who did a C-Span televised speech reeling against federal earmarks. It wasn't until one House member pointed out Flake's lobbying for and accepting federal ear marks for his district that Flake stopped the practice. In my view, such hypocrisy should not be rewarded by anyone. Aside from the fact that Paul is a hypocrite for support such things as restrictions on abortion, immigration and allowing school prayer, his actions on federal pork while lobbying for it speaks volumes of the seriousness of his cause which is: not serious at all. I realize this maybe nitpicking. However, if Paul isn't going to practice what he preaches and pick and choose what issues he will embrace freedom when it suits his purpose what good is he? Isn't there a huge difference between ~accepting~ federal money for his district and ~actively pursuing~ federal money for his district? While more details would be helpful in evaluating this, it seems likely to me that Paul was simply accepting the usual routine federal funds allocated for highways and the like, not pursuing funds for bridges to nowhere (as in Alaska). Rand argued in "The Question of Scholarships" that people are justified in taking scholarships and grants for education from the government, as long as they are opposed in principle to people being taxed to fund such things. Same for government jobs, as long as the job isn't something that no one should be doing. I note that the Social Security Death Records list Ayn Rand as a recipient. That does not surprise me; nor does it seem to be a contradiction with her stand against the welfare state and taxation. I agree with Chris. The good is not the enemy of the perfect. Paul is a good guy, one worth supporting, in my opinion. REB