Alfonso Jones

1) The problem with the shooting of the guard lies in how Rand described Dagny's motivation. She could have grounded it with rising impatience and a decision by Dagny that there was simply no more time to waste. Instead she turns the scene into something to point out a fundamental idea in her philosophy: Dagny doesn't shoot him because she can't wait any more on his dithering, but because he is dithering in the first place. 2) The doctor is, I think, more complicated than you indicate. Doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath, don't they? Even without a formal oath, a doctor takes on voluntarily an obligation to preserve life when he can do so: it comes not from the fact that he has a large amount of medical knowledge, but from the fact that he was a doctor in active practice (even if he retires afterwards). Refusing to share that knowledge would arguably violate that freely undertaken obligation. Jeffrey S. Two bridges too far. 1) What is the basis for your assertions about Dagny's motivations? Look at her actions after they get into the room to see that she was anxious. Where do you find specific statements of th emotivations which you indicate above? 2) Do you really believe that every doctor has voluntarily taken on an obligation to preserve whenever he can do so? Does this mean to you that every doctor is obligated to never rest - because he/she could instead go somewhere and find an emergency room where he could treat someone? This is an amazing obligation. (Inter alia, I'm not certain that the Hippocratic oath is something taken seriously. I'm not a scholar on the Hippocratic Oath. What version is used? Does it contain the item you mention? And what does it mean (see my question above)? Bill P

Well put: 1) The longer Dagny delayed taking care of the guard, the more she had to consider the risk she was taking wrt Galt, who for all she knew at the time was being tortured at that very moment and in danger of death, with the guard standing in the way of Galt's rescue. The group taking over the building displayed a lot of restraint in the small number of casualties. The guard was offered multiple opportunities to surrender and let Dagny in, and he refused. The threat being made to him was quite clear. Explicitly clear. 2) My reaction on the doctor (Hendriksen): I would concur that he had no OBLIGATION to share his knowledge. What would make him somehow debtor just because he had developed a new procedure? But I would hope that the knowledge would be shared, nonetheless. Of course, Rand wasn't trying, I think, to make every moment in AS a "prescription for living." Galt celibate until the tunnel scene with Taggart? Francisco after the night when he made his decision to go on strike? "We never say 'give" in the valley?" Do a word count on uses of "give" in the Atlantis chapter. Bill P

Think of the historical timeline. Peikoff had for years been requiring students to sign agreements that they would never buy Branden books. Can you imagine him finding out after Rand’s death about “The Affair”, then doing some kind of public reversal? That would have required far more integrity than he’s ever demonstrated. He’d have risked losing his quasi-papal position just as he’d finally acquired it. Now you didn’t say Peikoff, you said the “Orthodox”. 1986 was pre-Kelley split, there were few factions back then. Some Peikoff associates (e.g. Kelley, Hessen) praised PAR, albeit privately, and their excom’s followed in due course. Why do the remaining Orthodox still refuse to read PAR and/or damn it? Does it not suffice that it's because Peikoff says so? I think that covers a very high percentage of the cases. Good post. When I referred to "Orthodox" I was referring to those who would today be referred by that designation. I understand well about the loyalty oaths. It's the amazing hate poured out on the content of the book by those who would today be termed Orthodox (see how awkward that construction is?), some of whom claim never to have read the book. Of course, the mother of all splits had already happened - the Great Schism, Rand-Branden. Of all the books about Rand's life or major portions of same (save Who is Ayn Rand and the Britting mini-book) the BB book is the one which paints the strongest positive picture of Ayn Rand. Peikoff's reaction has been smallminded and petty. Bill P

You are correct. In fact, I read your recent post and downloaded the mp3 for the BB interview. Then, by the time I read the interview . . . I had forgotten where the link was so I could point others to it. Thanks for providing that information. Bill P

Those who would pretend Rand was some sort of "perfect person" do her a profound disservice. If they would consent to acknowledge she was human, they would avoid having to build myths around her. And Rand's accomplishments were so impressive that she doesn't need any second-hander to attempt to overstate them, or to minimize her mistakes/faults. If I may quote NB: "She has so much to offer us that is truly marvelous. So much wisdom, insight, and inspiration. So much clarification. Let us say 'thank you' for that, acknowledge the errors and mistakes when we see them, and proceed on our own path - realizing that, ultimately, each of us has to make the journey alone." Well put. My independent observation: When I find somewhere Rand appears to me to have been wrong, I check very carefully. Her track record is good enough that I give her the respect of wanting to check my own reasoning very carefully before before being confident she was wrong. She gets smarter with every passing year (even after 1982). (Before someone misinterprets this last sentence in a silly way - I caution them to think carefully about what I must mean in that last sentence, given the preceding sentence!) Bill P

Michael - Excellent and thoughtful post! I almost just posted something snarky about me being glad that one no longer had to be "morally perfect" to post. (With all that past history on OL and elsewhere THAT would allude to. But I didn't. Or I guess I just did. Anyway - back to ValuChaser: Don't worry. Post when you want to. I personally think short pithy posts are the best. If it goes past two screens, some may lose interest unless you GRAB them with the first paragraph. (This is sort of like, well, writing ...) But you are unlikely to find many people playing oneupmanship type games with you on OL. Michael and Kat have succeeded in founding a pretty benevolent online community here. Bill P

Adam - First - - Thanks. I think you may be surprised at how upbeat Passion of Ayn Rand is. The dominant tone of the book is "What an amazing and brilliant woman Ayn Rand was!" Will you see pain - yes. BB's account of the "showdown" with the repeated slap still makes me shudder - thinking of those four people having to endure those moments (and the times to come). But unless one is a scandal-monger, that isn't the major message of the book. At least not as I see it. When I first read it, I came in with dread. I had heard the story of the Rand-NB affair and the schism, and had no doubts of its truth. I was so pleasantly surprised to find what I have described above - a labor of love. Bill P

Ed wrote: I think you're right, Ed. Unfortunately, the populace has such a limited knowledge of capitalism that I hear the following (teaching in an intensely international business school!): 1) Enron is an example of what happens with "unfettered capitalism." 2) Ditto for Bernie Madoff 3) The market behavior in 2008 fall is an excellent example of what happens when you have laissez faire capitalism Unabashed ignorance! So I have no doubt but that the bad guys in Avatar (as I have had the movie described to me) will be perceived as "capitalists at their worst." Has anyone caught interviews by Cameron discussing the political/economic content of the movie? Bill Parr

Adam - You ask Xray a question which begins with "Are you aware?" Oh, I get it - - - a purely rhetorical question. Bill P Bill: With a huge dollop of dripping sarcasm also. I think that Radicals book that our cohort suggested may be right up your alley. I am going to get a copy myself. Hell, I have been so far out of the "Oist war" period that I have not even read Barbara's book Passion of... Needless to say I am going to finish the Burns book which I find extraordinarily well written so as to fill in the huge gaps that I have and then tackle Barbara and Nathanial's post schism books. Up to page 110, I read slowly and carefully the first time through, with tons of underlining and commentary, but I forget virtually nothing. What a shame that it was that bad. I am glad I was not directly involved, I would have made live long enemies I am afraid. Adam Adam - Understood on the sarcasm in your response to Xray. I was making it was clear to all - in case there are any who are tone deaf on this thread... We have seen strong evidence that is the case. I really enjoyed the Burns book. She is a strong writer. I'm surprised you haven't read Passion of Ayn Rand and My Years with Ayn Rand. I urge you to read both. And I am specific here - - - I would strongly recommend My Years with Ayn Rand over Judgment Day (NB's earlier version of his memoir of his Rand years). It is, in my judgment, a much better book. Judgment Day has more of a bitter tone in it. My Years with Ayn Rand reflects, I think, NB looking back and reconsidering some of his evaluations. (He said as much in the introduction.) I think I recall BB indicating she liked MYWAR much better, also. (Don't recall her exact words, which as usual were probably very well and precisely chosen.) The Heller book: I read it also, carefully. Obviously Heller has done A LOT OF RESEARCH on Rand. It's a shame the archive folks didn't allow her access. Far too often, however, she seemed to me to take a rather nasty tone to Rand, or to make an inference which she surely could have checked with one of those who is willing to talk about their years with Rand, to correct it. So I recommend it - but I put it in fourth place, after: Passion of Ayn Rand, Russian Radical, and Goddess of the Right (I don't list NB's memoir for comparison with these four - it's really a work of a different sort - a memoir of relationships.) Bill P

I don't post much because I don't consider myself to be qualified. I'm not even familiar with the core Objectivist works yet, let alone the works of other philosophers. I have zero debate skills and no brilliant insights other than intensely personal ones at this stage. I'm a rank beginner; I'm studying and learning, but it takes time, and there are other things on my plate too. Since my initial long post (which I'm not exactly proud of) I've figured out that I'm in over my head, and probably became a member for the wrong reasons despite lurking before doing so. I definitely don't want to post for the wrong reasons. Opening your mouth just to get your voice out there is a recipe for disaster. As I learned from Linux forums, asking a question that can be answered by Reading The Fine Manual just wastes the scarred veterans' time, and the answer can always be found in The Fine Manual. Maybe this is why the n00bs don't last, or at least, don't post? I suggest not worrying about it. Post when you want to. Post insights, IF YOU WANT TO. Post questions, IF YOU WANT TO. You have no involuntarily assigned "duty" to post. On OL, such a thing would be truly ironic. Bill P

Done by either, it is despicable. Bill P

Well put! Bill P

Adam - You ask Xray a question which begins with "Are you aware?" Oh, I get it - - - a purely rhetorical question. Bill P

I'm looking for a book which which would provide a good/reasonably accurate history of the history of the anti-statist intellectual movement in the USA. I'm thinking of such disparate elements as: William F. Buckley, Jr. and the National Review, and that cluster of folk Ayn Rand and Objectivism Isabel Paterson etc... Anyone have a suggestion? I can think of books looking at one of the above elements, but am struggling to find one which attempts to capture the anti-statist movement in general. Bill P

Right on that, Adam. Many of the opposition are followers of another cleric. The rhetoric we hear/read from the opposition sounds very pro-freedom, pro-free speech, and opposed to the restrictions on women, sexuality, etc... which have characterized the current dictatorship. Bill P

To tie Xray to reality - priceless. LOL. Bill P

I just listened to an audio of a Barbara Branden interview from 1986 about her book, Passion of Ayn Rand. It's an impressive interview. Barbara is extremely articulate and on point. Something which impresses me - is the extent to which Barbara so obviously admires and loves Ayn Rand. It's the same tone which I get from the book. I remain unable to see why the "Orthodox" crew got so upset about the book, beyond the fact that it points out that Rand was not perfect. But of course that seems to be the key matter some would attempt to defend. As BB says in the interview "we all have a right not to be perfect." Or as NB says in "Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, "Rand had the right to be wrong sometimes." She did and she was. But what a track record overall! Bill P

You said you only skimmed my post alerting you to a problem in the software. Answer me just one question: how is it that it says immediately before I make a post you can make five posts today, and after I make that one post, I get the message "you have used up your five". This can't be explained with a 24hour rhythm. Not only that, I even recall occasions when it announced "you can make 2 more posts until ..." and then it gave the precise time of day (which btw was on the next day in one instance - any 24 hour rhythm is not the problem), but then, when I made one of two, got the message you have used up all five. THAT's the problem. The software saying one thing and then giving a contradictory message. Why is that so hard to grasp? But if you only skim my posts, it looks like you miss this each time. Nor did the 'posts to go' add up with the count I had in the top posters section. 24-hour-rhythm or not, the 'top poster count' has to be in sync with whatever message I get via software on the remainder of posts I can make if the software works. Right or not, Michael? And a software telling me "You can make 5 more posts today" and then, immediately after I made one, says "you have used up your five" has a glitch. Right or not, Michael? This has not happened every time, but on several occasions. Indeed it is. For example, having the 'top poster' count aligned in sync with other info on 'posts to go' is required in order to tie info to reality. The info I got via the top posters section was, on several occasions, not in sync with info I got via other software when I logged in to reply to posts. For example, if according to the top posters section, I had not yet used up my five (so there was three to go, and the software when I logged in to reply said just that), but after I made one post, it suddenly said "you have used up your five"). The opposite happened as well: yesterday for example, I was listed with "2" already made posts in the top posters sections, and when I logged in to reply, it said "You can make 5 more posts today". The glitches are multiple; I hope it gets fixed soon. It's amazing how well Rand could capture a concept. For instance - - - "crow epistemology." Captures the situation perfectly, I think. Bill P

Merlin, I didn't even realize that this particular function worked the 24 hour calculation way. But I checked and that's the way it worked with my posts and those of another. It says "today," but it includes posts in the count from yesterday within up to 24 hours. Here is a very clear case where a word ("today") has more than one meaning. It might sound wrong to our everyday usage ears, but it is 100% accurate as used by the geeks who made this program. "Today" to us means a 24 hour period we are currently in that starts at 12:00:01 AM and ends on 12:00:00 PM. "Today" to the geeks means a sliding 24 hour unit we are currently in. I don't care for geek-speak. Never have, although I have learned to speak enough of it (unlike Xray-speak, which I can't seem to get a handle on). Geek-speak is always accurate and learnable, but to me it is often like an old joke about Microsoft: Michael Yep. I read that old joke (heard several versions before) and smiled. I work with many such people (professor, working with techies/geeks some of the time) and often derive amusement by the peculiarly uselessness of the information. And the fact that the profferer of the information is typically totally unaware that what they are offering is totally useless information. I'm fairly certain that Ba'al/Bob can relate to this. Bill P

Michael - "How some people face reality" - - - that's quite a phrase to use in description of Xray's behavior. I would phrase it "how some people avoid facing reality." Otherwise, I agree with your post. Bill P

Xray - Do you really not understand what the algorithm does? It has been explained several times. Yes, the notices you report getting don't seem consistent with what the algorithm does. But hopefully when you get the notice you don't assume everything has suddenly changed again. The algorithm is still there and working as before, I would presume, pending clear evidence to the contrary. So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc... You can always ask "how many posts did I make in the last 24 hours" to determine if you can post. If the answer to "how many" is 5, then you can't post. You have to wait until the answer is 4 or fewer. I urge you to get over this obsessive fixation with the notices and focus instead on dealing with the root issue: Reform your posting behavior (nature of posts, developing logical argumentation, etc...) so that Michael does not find it essential to limit your posts. Bill P

Rand did get front-cover billing on NB's last book. I think that's the first such case for NB (other than Judgment Day and My Years with Ayn Rand, his original and revised memoir of his time with Rand). NB has published a large number of books since the split with Rand. (There is a bibliography of his work somewhere on the OL site, and another at the Nathaniel Branden site.) NB is in stark contrast with LP in this regard. Bill P

Interesting note re Ted Kennedy's (lack of) success at surrogate fatherhood. We hear/read a lot about him having a lot of activity in the area. I think it's worthwhile to point out that he wasn't such an outstanding success... Bill P

I purchased a combo of the audio and video recordings. Got the audio recordings quickly. Still waiting on the video!!! Did you get the audio or the video? Bill P

Thanks for the review. Will pick up this one. Bill P