Alfonso Jones

Sorry to hear of your loss. I have very pleasant memories of stories told by all four of my grandparents (all now deceased). I am glad you had the time to stay connected with your grandmother. Alfonso

Yes - all the flakes, including Rosie. Alfonso

Barbara - Thanks for pointing out this statement. O'Donnell's statement must be condemned as immoral. To fail to recognize terrorism for what is, to fail to recognize the deliverate slaughter as what it is --- this is the sort of thing which use to merit mention in "The Horror File." Alfonso

Some of us read Valliant's book first. UUGGHH!! I thought I would enjoy the snippets from the journals - but they were so edited (clips in the middle of sentences, ... as to have less than the expected value. Alfonso

Adarsha - You seem to write long posts quickly (with lots of cut and paste from earlier ones, of course. I would suggest purchasing and reading the book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." This book contains articles by Ayn rand, Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan and Robert Hessen. I think you would find it extremely helpful. I would most particularly suggest the essays "What is Capitalism" by Rand and "Common Fallacies About Capitalism" by Branden, among the many splendid essays in that volume. I would also suggest the essay "The Ethics of Objectivism," by Ayn Rand. It is available in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness." After you read these, it will be easier for you to attempt to speak about your ideas as they relate to the primary subject of Objectivism Online, and for us to respond without writing extremely long posts. Alfonso

Ah! So true. We helped bin Laden fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Look where that got us. Ba'al Chatzaf An excellent and timely example. Alfonso

You ground your theory on the assumption that "we, as human beings, have been designed." And from this assumption you derive a "transcendent objective." I do not recognize trees as imposing transcendent objectives on me. Alfonso

If we had not helped Stalin the Nazis would have won. It was a question of choosing the lesser evil. After the Russians bled themselves white fighting Germans, we should have use the German survivors to fight the Russian survivors. At least, that is what George Patton thought. Ba'al Chatzaf And my point is that it is a dangerous compromise. Not all things which are dangerous are wrong. But caution is required. Alfonso

This quote from Barbara Branden above is a splendid example of clear and succinct writing. Alfonso

It may be worse than that, in fact. To make an alliance with someone who is one's mortal enemy is at least potentially a form of protracted suicide. It involves strengthening one's adversary. That is precisely the result of making common cause with religionists in attempting to make a case for capitalism. You are walking a dangerous road of compromise of values when you cooperate with one enemy to attempt to defeat another. Stalin may end up being just as dangerous as Hitler (or more so). Alfonso

Thanks. ALfonso Chris - Provocative idea! Anyone know how to find bestseller lists from the past so one could actually ask the "whatever happened to that book" question about bestsellers from the 1950s? Alfonso A Google search provided these, among others: http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/course...lers/best50.cgi http://www.hawes.com/no1_nf_d.htm Other than Atlas the only novels from 1957 on that first list that I've even heard of are Peyton Place and On The Beach, and I kinda doubt that either of these changed anyone's life as AS has done. (I did read Day Of Infamy from the NYT list as a teen, but the same comment applies.) Alfonso, I wonder what you had intended to say...? Just thanks. Alfonso

More, this time from the New York Times: Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in the interview as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.” It was a presidency marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he writes, but he fondly describes his alliance with two of Mr. Clinton’s Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, in battling financial crises in Latin America and then Asia. By contrast, Mr. Greenspan paints a picture of Mr. Bush as a man driven more by ideology and fulfilling campaign promises made in 2000, incurious about the effects of his own economic policy, and portrays an administration incapable of executing policy. Mr. Greenspan described his own emotional journey in dealing with Mr. Bush, from an initial elation about the return of his old friends from the Ford White House — including Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — to astonishment and then disappointment at how much they had changed. “I indulged in a bit of fantasy, envisioning this as the government that might have existed had Gerald Ford garnered the extra 1 percent of the vote he’d needed to edge past Jimmy Carter,” he wrote in his memoir. “I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets.” Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/business...&ei=5087%0A Alfonso

Thanks, Chris. Alfonso

I recommend reading the parts inbetween the references to Rand, also. Greenspan = smart guy. Alfonso

Did you get a response suggesting possible progress on having a publication of a transcript of the Basic Principles of Objectivism lectures? Alfonso

I purchased a copy recently from Laissez-Faire Books in CD format (what did happen to those old cassettes...?), so they are still available. Any word on possible progress on these lectures coming out in transcription format? I'd purchase a copy. Alfonso

Alonso, the issue is whether we are speaking of the political party called the Libertarian party, or about libertarianism as a political philosophy. In purely political terms, libertarianism simply refers to the conviction that the role of government should be limited to the protectiom of the rights of its citizens, and that force should be eliminated from human dealings. In that sense, Objectivists certainly are libertarians. As, clearly, was Rand. If we are speaking of the Libertarian party, that's a different matter. The convictions of so many of its most vocal members and the nature of its various platforms has altered radically over the years -- which also can be said of the Repubican and Democratic parties. Today, the Libertarian party is split into warring factions -- as are the other two parties. So many Libertarians are anarchists or pacifists or war-mongers, etc., that I can no longer align myself with it. (But then, so many Objectivists today -- such as The Ayn Rand Institute -- advocate bombing Muslim countries out of existence, and slaughterig innocent civilians as an object lesson, that many people refuse any longer to call themselves Objectivists.) Rand objected to the Libertarian party in large part because it was not based on a coherent philosophy, meaning Objectivism. But no political party is or can be based on an all-encompassing philosophical system; its purpose is strictly and narrowly political, and can be nothing else. A party cannot demand that its members be Kantians or Aristotlelians or Objectivists or Platonists. When people today say that Ayn Rand was a libertarian, what they generally mean is that her political ideas were instrumental in the creation of the party and of the wider libertarian movement, which is true -- that a great many people became libertarians through reading her books, which is true -- and that a great many libertarians and Libertarians are profoundly influenced by Objectivism, which is true Barbara Barbara - Agreed, exactly. My concern is that the term "libertarian" carries with it for so many people the connotation of the political party, not merely the sense of "libertarianism." Meaning that one courts the probability of being misunderstood if one uses "libertarian" in the broad sense (one who advocates liberty). I think it is best to qualify, especially in the light of the oft-expressed intensity of commitment of many on the matter. That being said - no big problem. Your analogy to the silliness and meanness of many who call themselves Objectivists is apt. (I am sometimes tempted to use the phrase "professed Objectivists" or "so-called Objectivists" but that is just so awkward.) Alfonso

Thanks. ALfonso Chris - Provocative idea! Anyone know how to find bestseller lists from the past so one could actually ask the "whatever happened to that book" question about bestsellers from the 1950s? Alfonso A Google search provided these, among others: http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/course...lers/best50.cgi http://www.hawes.com/no1_nf_d.htm Other than Atlas the only novels from 1957 on that first list that I've even heard of are Peyton Place and On The Beach, and I kinda doubt that either of these changed anyone's life as AS has done. (I did read Day Of Infamy from the NYT list as a teen, but the same comment applies.)

Not nearly so straightforward, Michael. More like: "I may have committed some unfortunate acts which have been misunderstood and misinterpreted, and if anyone has been offended (though I did not intend to offend) I am sorry that they took offense." Alfonso

Would that we could all write as clearly, succinctly and forcefully as Barbara seems to do routinely. Alfonso

I do not want to start a big dispute on this, but why do you state that the denial that Ayn Rand was a Libertarian is "silly?" The facts, on which I think we all agree, are that: 1) Ayn Rand specifically and repeatedly, with great vehemence, denied that she was a Libertarian, condemned the Libertarian movement and did everything she could to separate herself from them. 2) Ayn Rand specificlly stated fundamental points of disagreement she had with Libertarianism. 3) Yes, Rand's writing did supply some of the intellectual ammunition for the LIbertarian movement. So, respectfully, why is it "silly" to deny that Rand was a Libertarian? Do you disagree with some of 1, 2 and 3 above? Or are 1 and 2 not enough in your view to be reasons for denying that Rand was a Libertarian? Alfonso

Chris - Provocative idea! Anyone know how to find bestseller lists from the past so one could actually ask the "whatever happened to that book" question about bestsellers from the 1950s? Alfonso

From the Wall Street Journal: Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says the Republican party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles. Greenspan delivers the withering critique in his memoir, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World." In the book, scheduled for public release Monday, Greenspan writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out of control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose." http://wsj.com/article/0,,SB118978549183327730,00.html?mod=djemalert Sound familiar? It should. Enjoy. Alfonso

Barbara Branden could --- and can --- write extremely well. Cohesive, well-argued, and to the point. Alfonso

Ellen - I was hoping for a moment of high integrity leading to an unexpurgated publication of the journals - or, if they are not "publishable" (economics) then making them available in some form to scholars. Obviously that has not happened yet. Perhaps it will happen after the passing of the current generation. Alfonso