Dennis Hardin

Hi Kat, I will be there with bells on. Looking forward to meeting you and Michael. Don't miss the luncheon with Nathaniel and Barbara. That event alone would make the trip worthwhile. Cirque's Beatles tribute does sound like it would be a fun show. If you are feeling adventurous, we could even take a field trip to the Red Rock Casino and mingle with the True Believers. Wearing full body armor, of course. B)

Your first post reminded me of a speech NB gave to the old Los Angeles Libertarian Supper Club in the 1970s on “The Old and The New Nathaniel Branden.” I can appreciate that your views have changed in the last 40 years, but I’m just not sure the old Smith would feel that the new Smith addressed the crux of the issue: i.e., superficial modern wrinkles don’t change the fundamental influence of the Christian tradition. So what exactly is it that the new Smith would disagree with about what the old Smith said? In your lengthy and very interesting quotation, I see a quasi-legal (i.e., coercion-related) analysis of Christ’s teachings, not an ethical one. What someone should be forced to do is a separate question than what someone should do. Are you truly willing to deny that, for almost every Christian, self-sacrifice is still presumed to be a primary virtue, or that Christianity does not represent a major obstacle to the explicit acceptance of rational egoism as a viable ethical code in the 21st Century? I think I misspoke when I said your argument was identical to Prager’s, but the key issue is the suggestion that, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, men are (or must be) “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The foundational need for that endowment is the crux of the matter and a key similarity between your argument and his. Ayn Rand acknowledged that no one could have formulated her philosophy—especially her ethics--without the background of the industrial revolution and what it demonstrated about the connection between rationality, productivity and human happiness. And you do a brilliant job of showing how certain key libertarian ideas evolved through history. But again, there exists an important distinction between how an idea developed and its proper, logical, scientific defense today. To make that statement today--that arguments which use a “theistic foundation” are strong or stronger than a defense derived from reason, reality and human nature--is to applaud the conservative’s religious defense of capitalism over a scientific, rational defense. In so doing, you lend credence to the conventional secularist viewpoint that capitalism cannot be defended rationally—that egoism cannot be defended rationally--and that both are inherently evil because altruism is self-evidently the only legitimate code of ethics.

If the casting is nearly complete, how come we don't know who they are yet? Why wouldn't they want everyone to know that Pam Anderson has agreed to play Dagny, but only if 'The Rock' plays Rearden??

I actually laughed out loud at this. Good one, Phil. Peikoff's categories are alarmingly similar to the names for military armament--M1 rifles, M1 tank, D3 armored vehicle. Not quite sure if we should be concerned about that.

To me, it makes no sense to speak in terms of films that “an Objectivist shouldn’t like.” There are so many potentially interesting aspects to any given work of art, especially cinema--including the professional work of the actors, writers and directors. Or perhaps one just happens to be a fan of a particular movie star. Or find a particular character fascinating, such as Javier Bardem’s cold-blooded but articulate, philosophical killer in 'No Country for Old Men'” Responding emotionally to various artistic aspects of a film and evaluating the values or sense of life being portrayed are entirely independent ways to react to a work of art, each completely legitimate by themselves. Moral evaluation of the film itself only strikes me as appropriate when the film itself is clearly intended to be used explicitly for immoral purposes, such as propaganda for evil (as Ayn Rand apparently believed to be the case with ‘Song of Russia’) or to promote irrational behavior, like drug use. There might be some exceptions to that rule, but they would be few and far between. I would not attend a movie made by the Iranian government out of concern that I would be financing terrorists, but the film itself could still be a decent work of art and have qualities which, in another context, one could respond to positively. It is so foolishly typical for Objectivists to drive themselves crazy wondering if it is “okay” to like a movie. Good grief. There are times when your brain can cut your emotions a little slack and let them take over for a while. A rational philosophy is not meant to be a strait jacket.

I just became aware of this, and did not see it mentioned elsewhere on OL other than my own reference in the Nathaniel Branden section. On Friday, July 9, 2010, there will be a special conference called "Ayn Rand Day" as part of FreedomFest 2010. Participants include Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley and the new Rand biographers, Heller and Burns. You can read about it here . .

I just found out today that the July FreedomFest 2010 conference in Las Vegas will include a special one day conference called "Ayn Rand Day," apparently sponsored by the Atlas Society. It will be on Friday, July 9, and participants will include Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley plus Rand biographers Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller. There is also a Q & A luncheon that date with Nathaniel and Barbara Branden which requires an additional fee to attend. It does not appear that there is any separate fee for this conference-within-a-conference apart from the luncheon. More information is available here.

Goldfinger, Dr. No , From Russia With Love and Thunderball would be near the top of my list. The other films that featured Sean Connery as James Bond would also rank somewhere, but not quite as high. The only actor who comes even close to Connery as Bond is Daniel Craig, but I don't seem to be quite as enthralled now as I was by Connery. His films did something for me emotionally that was comparable to reading Ayn Rand. I also absolutely loved the early Dirty Harry films with Clint Eastwood. Another movie I have always loved is South Pacific, with Rozzano Brazzi and Mitzi Gaynor. I cannot count how many times I have watched that wonderful film. More recently, Moulin Rouge and The Dark Knight both kept me coming back, again and again. I thought the musical scenes featuring Nicole Kidman and Ewan MacGregor were as romantic and beautiful as anything in the hostory of film. By the way, if you haven't seen The Dark Knight in IMAX, you haven't really seen it. The first time I saw it I wondered what all the fuss was about. Then I saw it in IMAX. Over and over and over again. It was thrilling beyond all belief.

George, An important part of your second response seems to be that Christianity cannot be deemed as supportive of the concept of altruism, and you cite the powerful influences of Thomism and a modern theologian who explicitly denies the practicality of living for the sake of others. The quotation from Austin Fagothey is clearly an argument from a Christian in opposition to altruism, so I stand corrected. But while it is certainly true that Christianity embraces a number of divergent schools of thought, it strikes me that you are overlooking the issue of the essence of the Christian tradition. Let me quote one of my favorite thinkers, George H. Smith: “…Some contemporary theologians…have attempted to reverse the otherworldly trend of Christianity to a concern for earthly well-being and happiness. From a historical perspective, however, this concern occupies only a fraction of Christianity’s history. A theologian, if he wishes, can preach a philosophy of life without reference to sin, salvation, obedience and the supernatural, but such a philosophy has nothing to do with the Bible and Christian theism. “Moreover, to the extent that modern theologians endorse pro-life attitudes, they are merely riding the current of public change. No one is foolish enough to claim, for example, that Christianity has been a primary force in effecting a more open and benevolent attitude toward sex in American society; on the contrary, Christianity has constituted the major obstacle in this area. Most Christian theologians who pass themselves off as radical reformers are decades, if not centuries, behind non-Christian writers; they are little more than politicians of the spirit who cater to public opinion. “When the Christian ‘reformer’ comes forward to declare that sex is not evil and that sex outside of marriage, may, after all, be permissible—and when he calls on Christian churches to spearhead his new movement—one must wonder if it ever occurs to him that he is nineteen centuries too late. If such theologians were truly concerned with man’s happiness on earth, they would begin by repudiating, totally and unequivocally, Christianity itself.” Atheism: The Case Against God, Prometheus Books, 1979, p. 309 Man, oh, man! Was that dude right on or what? As I see it, the essence of Christianity can be summed in two quotes from scripture: John 3:16—“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 15: 13—“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his fellow man.” Jesus took the words right out of Comte’s mouth. Here is another frequently cited quote from Christianity’s foremost spokesman, Jesus: “…But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go with him one mile, go with him two miles.” (Matthew 5:39-41) Addressing Christ's words, the author of ACAG (that would be you again) says: “My first response to these precepts is: Why? For what possible reason should one offer oneself as a sacrificial animal in this way?” (p. 325) And on page 308, by the way, you specifically cite self-sacrifice as a “primary Christian virtue.” The Thomist tradition is certainly the most rational influence on Christian thought. (I still have the book by Bittle than I bought from you back in the 70s.) But despite everything Aquinas has to say about the importance of the intellect and actualizing one’s potential, he downplays this world and frames our ultimate purpose in terms of seeking the Divine Essence. He does not connect living rationally and the pursuit of happiness in this life any more than the “selfish” seeker of personal salvation, In any case, most Christians would not even be able to tell you who Aquinas was. Paraphrasing you: No one is foolish enough to claim that Christianity has been a primary force in effecting an ethics of rational egoism in American society; on the contrary, Christianity has constituted the major obstacle in this area. This last point is, frankly, a little discouraging to me, because it seems to concede the other side’s position on the fundamental philosophical battle we are waging today. It is the exact same argument made by Dennis Prager, a popular radio talk show host whom I listen to frequently. He is steadfast in his defense of the Ten Commandments as the only value-system which has any hope of sustaining America as we know it. Why? Because unlike other codes of ethics, it is objective, i.e., it comes directly from God. Any value system which mankind originates is necessarily subjective, because it is simply based on the subjective values of the person who devised it. In other words, developing a code of values logically based on reason and reality is inherently weaker than an appeal to God. And he then echoes your statement that, for the same reason, God is also the best way (he would say the only way) to defend the idea of individual rights. (He has read Ayn Rand, by the way, and deems her arguments as similarly subjective.) Of course, he ignores the fact that his God-based approach was also originated by mankind, and crumbles as soon as you take note of the obvious fact that there is no such thing. A God-based argument cannot possibly be stronger when it is based on a myth. I am in awe of Ayn Rand for her brilliance in naming her philosophy Objectivism, because everything hinges on grasping the relationship between consciousness and existence. Any other philosophical foundation is as weak and flimsy as a house of cards. Could you kindly do future generations a huge favor and try to annotate all that stuff? And then appoint a legal heir a la Peikoff. Forty or fifty years from now, when you finally discover if your case against Him was accurate, the world is going to want to read it.

George, First of all I want to say how delighted I am that you’re working on a new book. Needless to say, I will look forward to reading it. And the excerpt you posted here is truly fascinating. This is clearly a crucially important chapter in the historical struggle for liberty, a chapter about which I was largely ignorant. You also write: You also refer to related theories of “natural law” originating in ancient Greece (which you probably clarify elsewhere). Isn’t it the “state of nature”--i.e., human nature--that we ultimately need to be concerned about here, and isn’t that likely to lead to some philosophical trouble from a religious (or emotion-based) perspective? Despite the citation of “natural law,” notions of “liberty of conscience” appear to have emerged more or less pragmatically in response to egregious acts such as those involving Philpot and Servetus. Sort of like legal protections which arose in response to flagrant transgressions—e.g., child abuse laws which place limits on parental authority. Such more or less pragmatic measures work up to the point where the perpetrator of brute force—the parent in this case--cites religious authority or God’s authority. “My child will burn in Hell if he is not severely punished.” Perhaps the parent takes the view that we are all somehow the property of God, and fundamentally beholden to His will. You refer to Mirabeau’s view of the ‘sacred right’ to the ‘unlimited freedom of religion.’ But any proponent of religion could arbitrarily propose a radically different view of sacred rights (such as the right to kill infidels). At that point, it is one arbitrary view of human nature duking it out with another, equally arbitrary view. Without a foundation in a rational view of human nature, such “social contract” restrictions on the state are unlikely to ultimately prevail. In other words, religion’s role in the progress of liberty was clearly very important, but—at a certain point—“liberty of conscience” required translation into a fully developed rational philosophy. So far, that hasn’t happened. At least not in popular culture or the conventional mind (e.g., Glenn Beck). Ideas of liberty that historically evolved from religious sources are now being undermined by those same sources, as science takes over more and more of the territory that was once religion’s domain. That is one key factor promoting the erosion of liberty in the world of today. Freedom is in peril because it lacks a foundation in science. I want to thank you for such a thoughtful response to my post. I will do my best to respond in kind, but, due to limitations of time, I would not be surprised to find a flaw or two in my argument. Alas, this will have to do for the moment—and all I have addressed is your first response. Unfortunately, for me, the real world often gets in the way of the virtual one. More to come. Soon, I hope.

Hmmmm…The silence is deafening. Somewhere out there in cyberspace, George is shaking his head, muttering to himself as he reaches for another cold brew: “Oh my god! This can’t be the same Dennis Hardin who took my ‘Principles of Reasoning’ course back in the 70s. An ex-student of mine spouting such sophomoric Rand-parroting altruism-bashing clap-trap?! Where oh where did I go wrong?”

Your essay is insightful and scholarly, George, but you seem to frame the compatibility issue in terms of historical anti-statist precedent and downplay the issue of fundamental values. Religious institutions and leaders have often promoted concrete freedoms in the name of upholding their faith, but without breaking free from the mistaken, deeply imbedded values that ultimately serve to undermine the wider goal of freedom. The values of individualism and productive work have been traditionally endorsed by some Judeo-Christian traditions, but nowhere have I seen a religious argument against altruism or the derivative view of social justice described by David Kelley (excerpted below). There are religious spokesmen who have taken such a view, but they have not argued from religious premises. The closest they have come is to argue for personal responsibility, but within a very delimited context of moral and cultural decay that leaves the underlying altruism intact. That’s why I see religion as fundamentally incompatible with capitalism, and religious values such as “faith, hope and charity” (often explicitly praised by Beck) as ultimately destructive to any long-term prospects for freedom. I think Kelley’s analysis is superb: Altruism and Capitalism by David Kelley http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=1&h=53 The capitalist system came of age in the century from 1750 to 1850 as a result of three revolutions. The first was a political revolution: the triumph of liberalism, particularly the doctrine of natural rights, and the view that government should be limited in its function to the protection of individual rights—including property rights. The second revolution was the birth of economic understanding, culminating in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Smith demonstrated that when individuals are left free to pursue their own economic interests, the result is not chaos but a spontaneous order, a market system in which the actions of individuals are coordinated and more wealth is produced than would be the case if government managed the economy. The third revolution was of course the Industrial Revolution… The political revolution, the triumph of the doctrine of individual rights, was accompanied by a spirit of moral idealism. It was the liberation of man from tyranny, the recognition that every individual, whatever his station in society, is an end in himself. But the economic revolution was couched in morally ambiguous terms: as an economic system, capitalism was widely regarded as having been conceived in sin. The desire for wealth fell under the shadow of the Christian injunction against selfishness and avarice. The early students of spontaneous order were conscious that they were asserting a moral paradox—the paradox, as Bernard Mandeville put it, that private vices could produce public benefits. The critics of the market have always capitalized on these doubts about its morality. The socialist movement was sustained by allegations that capitalism breeds selfishness, exploitation, alienation, injustice. In milder forms, this same belief produced the welfare state, which redistributes income through government programs in the name of "social justice."... There is no mystery about where the moral antipathy toward the market comes from. It arises from the ethics of altruism, which is deeply rooted in Western culture, as indeed in most cultures. By the standards of altruism, the pursuit of self-interest is at best a neutral act, outside the realm of morality, and at worst a sin.... …This principle of altruism is not compatible with the recognition of the individual as an end in himself… …Demands for social justice take two different forms, which I will call welfarism and egalitarianism. According to welfarism, individuals have a right to certain necessities of life, including minimum levels of food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, and so on… According to egalitarianism, the wealth produced by a society must be distributed fairly. ... The welfarist demands that people have access to a certain minimum standard of living. So welfarists are primarily interested in programs that benefit people who are below a certain level of poverty, or who are sick, out of work, or deprived in some other way. Egalitarians, on the other hand, are concerned with relative well-being. Thus egalitarians tend to favor government measures such as progressive taxation, which aim to redistribute wealth across the entire income scale, not merely at the bottom… …Every form of social justice rests on the assumption that individual ability is a social asset... It says that the individual must regard himself, in part at least, as a means to the good of others. … Capitalism was the result of three revolutions, each of them a radical break with the past. The political revolution established the primacy of individual rights, and the principle that government is man's servant, not his master. The economic revolution brought an understanding of markets. The Industrial Revolution radically expanded the application of intelligence to the process of production. But mankind never broke with its ethical past. The ethical principle that individual ability is a social asset is incompatible with a free society. If freedom is to survive and flourish, we need a fourth revolution, a moral revolution, that establishes the moral right of the individual to live for himself… My comment: That revolution will necessarily take place in opposition to religion, because it will be based on a view of man as independent and rational, not beholden to some mystical higher power. [some day I will figure out how OL's link function works, but evidently not today...)

SPOILER ALERT: Final scene revealed. Do not read if don’t want to know how the series ends… The closing two hour episode was phenomenal. A thrill-ride from start to finish! And the final sky cam shot of Jack as he says his last good-by to Chloe was as intensely dramatic as any television moment I can ever recall. All I can say is a profound ‘thank you’ to anyone who had anything to do with producing this amazing show.

I called it puerile abuse, meaning it’s a childish taunt. I’m all for ridicule when its called for, but I keep it tied to the intellectual content at hand. Except when Phil tries to get on my nerves, then all bets are off. I brought up Hawking because he’s the extreme example of why not to judge someone based on looks. Don’t you see that your comment is the kind of thing a fundy will quote as typical of this site? You really think it’s fair comment in the context of a discussion of Peikoff’s political views? Yes. I think it was totally fair and appropriate and that any honest "fundy" would find it refreshing. I could have gone a lot farther and spelled out just how pathetic Peikoff is by comparison to Branden and how much damage his so-called "leadership" has done to the Objectivist movement. But I decided to keep it jovial, perhaps because that was my mood on that particular day. That doesn't make it less truthful. You totally misconstrue my meaning if you think it's a matter of judging people based on looks. Being a nerd is much more an issue of weird and inept behavior than looks. This feels like a total waste of time. I'm only saying the obvious (to everyone but Phil, apparently). I'm not sure whether to tell you to lighten up or grow a pair. Maybe both.

If you're going to sling gratuitous insults at me, you could at least have the decency to be original. I responded to your last comment by saying that I felt the need to take a shower. Come on, Phil. You can do better than that. Now why would a cruel, heartless SOB like me ever do a thing like that?

The series finale of ‘24’ airs tonight. This gripping drama, which follows a day in the life of special agent Jack Bauer and his personal war against terrorism, has lasted for eight amazing seasons. Like so many others, I have become totally addicted to the breath-taking adrenalin-rush which begins as soon as the ‘24’ clock appears on the screen and does not stop until the last tick. Each show is brilliantly written with a well-constructed plot, surprising twists and turns, and truly fascinating characters. It is unlike anything else on television. Bauer could be compared to a 21st century Mike Hammer in terms of his relentless pursuit of justice despite the countless governmental and circumstantial obstacles being thrown in his path. Without giving his exploits an unqualified endorsement, I could never question his personal moral rectitude, his willingness to stand alone against the forces of evil and the spectacular heroism of his courage in the face of overwhelming odds. I dearly wish the powers-at-be at FOX would reconsider their decision to cancel this fantastic show.

Has anyone here ever gone to this event? If so would you comment on your experience? Thanks. www.campaignforliberty.com 230,949 gulch I attended a few days of the Free Minds 2009 event last year in Las Vegas. Some of the presentations--e.g., Nathaniel Branden, Robert Campbell, Mimi Gladstein--were excellent. The speakers were well-prepared, eloquent and professional. Others were far short of excellent. I walked out of one presentation in which the speaker simply read from one of his essays. Another presenter was somewhat boorish in the way he handled questions. Overall, I would certainly say it was worthwhile. I have never attended an Atlas Society event.

Neil, In his podcast of March 3, 2009, Peikoff states that he thinks it is fine for an Objectivist to attend a Catholic confirmation ceremony without sanctioning religion because, like marriage, it is a rite that “can have a secular base.” Despite all of the viciously irrational religious indoctrination involved, he does not see it as fundamentally different from a secular “coming of age” ceremony, a rite of passage. And then he states that he has attended such services. “I have attended a couple of Catholic weddings and a confirmation,” he says. I made it a point to listen to it three times to make sure I wasn’t losing my mind.

Jesus, man! Even I’d say you’re crossing the line to puerile abuse. One glance? How would that standard apply to Stephen Hawking? Geez man. Puerile abuse? My post was partially intended to be satirical, while also pointing out a rather obvious fact. One glance would be sufficient to determine that both Lenny and Harry are nerds. How is that abusive? The contrast with Nathaniel Branden is immediately obvious to anyone with a shred of honesty. But so what? I'm sure a lot of people would label me a nerd. Big f'ing deal, as Biden would say. It is ridiculous to make any comparison with Hawking. Obviously a very different standard applies, given the context of his overwhelming physical disability. There is no way he could not be considered supremely heroic by any rational standard.

One important contribution LP has made has been to dispel certain Randian/Objectivist stereotypes. Lots of male readers used to feel completely inadequate to the pressure of living up to the exalted standard of the Ayn Rand hero. They felt utterly incapable of emulating the heroism of Howard Roark, John Galt or Francisco D’anconia. The imposing figure of a real-life Nathaniel Branden further reinforced their fears. (I would guess this was less of an issue for female readers inspired by Dominique or Dagny.) Countless pointy headed intellectuals may have been attracted to the philosophy but felt intimidated and often took refuge in existentialism (or worse). And then along came Lenny (and, while we’re on the subject, Harry). One glance at either of them and all anxiety was instantly relieved. Let’s just say that together they did a stellar job of separating fact from fiction.

Thanks for clarifying. So basically you just deny that there is consciousness apart from physical reality--that the former reduces to the latter. Right? Yet you embrace free will over determinism. It strikes me that you may have modified your views somewhat since the discussions we used to have on RoR. Fascinating P-O-V...

I thoroughly agree. I allocated your vote based on what you wrote here, if we do a recount I suppose I should change your vote to explicitly supportive. It’s a pretty fair interpretation of “thoroughly agree”, at least you and RC didn’t harp on it. It must be dinnertime, because this whole issue makes me think of the spicy wings at Hooters. Most people like them just fine, there’s often one or two people saying they’re not spicy enough, and then sometimes there’s that one jackass who tries spicy wings and then goes on and on about how they’re too spicy. Robert said he wouldn’t headline it that way, because it was too mild. He didn’t say it wasn’t accurate. That sentiment is what I meant to agree with. Hooters ain’t for people who don’t like spicy things. As for me, I like them just fine.

I regret to say I never knew anything about the man or his music. Dave Brubeck. Herbie Hancock. Bill Evans. Oscar Peterson. Hank Jones?? Makes me think of the words of another pianist, Oscar Levant: "What the world needs is more geniuses with humility. There are so few of us left." Looks like we just lost another one.

I don't know about Robert, but my view is that "Peikoff flip-flops" does not go near far enough. In other words, I am not opposed to the conclusion that he "flip-flopped." I am opposed to the implication that the sight of a clown "flip-flopping" should be any surprise.

Bob, I apologize for not having followed all the nuances of this elaborate discussion. I would just like clarity on one point: you still deny the existence of consciousness and human volition, right? There is some solace to be found in immutability.