Dennis Hardin

Michael, You say: As I understand the history of Nazi Germany, Hitler preached his Nazi doctrine of “Aryan” Master Race superiority throughout his gradual rise to power. It seems likely that a program of persecution of Jews and other “inferior,” non-Germanic races was easily predictable. There was widespread support for Hitler’s nationalist rhetoric among the German population who were suffering severe economic hardship and still reeling from the humiliation of the Versailles treaty And there were the additional cultural factors of mysticism-nihilism and the worship of emotion in a rabidly anti-reason climate. As soon as Hitler achieved power, of course, the concentration camps became a key element of his police state. If there were Jews who saw this coming and did nothing to stop it, they might bear some minimal responsibility for the holocaust. There were many Jews (e.g., Ludwig von Mises) who either got out or did what little they could to prevent Hitler from succeeding. No doubt the storm troopers would have murdered anyone who spoke out loudly enough for the “Aryans” to overhear. So the ultimate moral responsibility must obviously be attributed to the vast numbers of Germans who actively supported Hitler--not the Jews. If ever there was a nation who truly deserved a full scale carpet bombing campaign, it was Nazi Germany. Your words: This sounds like an endorsement of Johnson’s TV commercial with the little girl and the mushroom cloud in the background. Are you suggesting that what Lyndon Johnson did was okay—simply because he succeeded in scaring people? Sometimes I really don’t understand you at all. Barbara, Great job of summarizing the essence of the two positions. My one disagreement would be with respect to the legitimacy of targeting the ideology of Islamism—that segment of the Muslim religion described by Daniel Pipes as follows: In the aftermath of World War II, we compelled Hirohito to renounce his personal divinity and to dismantle the shrines of State Shinto which many Japanese saw as the divine source of their quest for empire. We are all aware of the price we exacted in human lives to achieve that end. As much as I would prefer to avoid it, I agree with ARI that a significant human toll may be required to convince today’s religious militants to abandon their goal of global domination. I am inclined to think that lesser measures may be utterly unconvincing. Amahdinijad—like all those who support him throughout the Muslim world--is unlikely to share our concerns about the human faces incinerated by the bombs he is preparing to send our way. Dennis

Michael, I’m sorry. I do not see the contradiction in Rand’s pronouncements that you and Robert seem to. Did you notice that my prior post specifically distinguished between moral responsibility for specific laws and moral culpability for allowing the government to become cannibalistic and threaten other (free) nations? Most of your quotations from Rand ignore that crucial difference. No doubt passivity is the chosen course for the majority, as Rand implies. However, I fail to see any implication in the quotes cited by you that she would exonerate the passive majority for responsibility. However, you do exonerate this passivity with the following quote: But their refusal to “get involved” in no way excuses them from responsibility. You apparently think it does. We could not possibly disagree on a more fundamental level. Those who conduct their lives as “business as usual” when their government has become a carnivorous, territorial war machine deserve the consequences. As far as I am concerned, the issue is that simple. Incidentally, your use of the word “nuking” to caricature the ARI position tends to imply that you have failed to make a serious effort to grasp their specific arguments. It is reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson’s smear campaign against Barry Goldwater, and I think that, as Objectivists, we can do better than that. For the most part, the ARI writers choose their words very carefully, and you would do well not to confuse their reasoning with the eye-poking shenanigans of the preconceptual stooges. Dragonfly, You are obviously free to make whatever accusations you wish against Ayn Rand and Objectivism, but if you make them here, you might want to invest some independent thought into what you say. I can assure you that your vicious attacks on her ideas will not go unchallenged. To begin with, you are ignoring the context in which the opponents of military action use the concept of “rights” to protect the citizens of a dictatorship. People cannot legitimately claim the “right” to live, work and support an aggressive war machine which threatens the freedom of others. This does not mean that, as human beings, those who oppose the government do not deserve to have their “rights” protected. It means that the social context—created by their government—has rendered such protection out of the question. When Rand states that the citizens of a dictatorship have relinquished their rights, she means the moral claim to their rights as a political sanction prohibiting intervention from the nations under attack. On the existential level, morality—including respect for rights—ends where a gun begins. When guns are drawn, those who are threatened have the right of self-defense, and are under no obligation to respect the rights of anyone in the line of fire. Nobody can legitimately claim a right which requires that someone else sacrifice their own life. But it is the person who has drawn the gun who has abrogated the rights of the innocent, not the person acting in self-defense. Rights are moral principles that define and sanction a person’s freedom of action within a social context.. They derive from our nature as rational beings, and in that sense they are inalienable. However, the elimination of force from social relationships is a precondition of the respect for rights. That is the proper role of a government. Those who introduce force into the social equation have made respect for rights an impossibility. Your characterization of Rand’s position suggests that the person who pulled the gun, having abrogated the rights of all those endangered, is then morally free to kill those whose rights he has abrogated. Hopefully you can see the absurdity of such a conclusion. Placing someone’s life in jeopardy does not give you the privilege of killing that person.. There is a comparable distinction between any crime where hostages are taken and the perpetrators decision to kill any or all of them. The fact that the hostages’ rights have been (temporarily) countermanded does not excuse all subsequent misconduct by the hostage-taker. One heinous crime does not legitimate another. Politically, the disenfranchised victims of a criminal regime can claim total moral innocence, precisely because they have no say whatever in the actions of that state—whether we are talking about the slaves in the antebellum South, the political prisoners in a Soviet Gulag, or the Jews in Nazi Germany. Their status is comparable to that of employees and customers in a bank heist who are used as human shields in a shoot-out with police. Despite their innocence, the bank robber’s gun has effectively marginalized their rights until such time as he has been disarmed and the threat of force has been eliminated. Dennis

If I quote Ayn Rand, it is only because I think she has eloquently summarized an issue better than I could possibly hope to do so. Obviously her arguments may have been flawed at times. I have my share of disagreements with her on specific issues. But whatever her mistakes, I do not think we can accuse her psycho-epistemology of reflecting “rationalism” or “floating abstractions.” We can certainly fault her for the use of hyperbole at times, but those labels simply do not apply when we are talking about her thinking processes. There may be a few exceptions, but I do not personally know of any. So when you are attacking viewpoints that she explicitly clarified, you are simply going to have to do better than that. In the case of Soviet Russia, she obviously did not regard the fact that people were prevented from leaving as in any way relevant to the issue of their rights when their government threatens a free nation. If the citizens of any nation allow their government to descend to that level of barbarism, they have lost all legitimate claim to their rights. That is the moral-political principle involved. The suggestion that her view of Soviet Russia constituted a “floating abstraction” is ridiculous. Incidentally, I disagree with Barbara that this same principle of responsibility could logically be extended to apply to specific laws. There is a fundamental difference between conducting your life as ‘business as usual’ when your government does something of which you disapprove and continuing to do so when it becomes openly cannibalistic. Michael, The Ford Hall Forum quote from Ayn Rand that I posted was taken from my own archives, and I am sorry that I did not note the original source. However, as I recall, this was the pre-Mayhew version posted on the ARI website. It does appear that some liberties were taken, but what specifically and by whom we cannot say without actually seeing the verbatim quote. Please accept my apology for not answering any other recent (respectful) responses to my previous comments. The truth is, as much as I might like to, there is simply no way I can devote the amount of time to this discussion that I might like. I generally ignore anything that reflects a tone of disrespect, but I would like to answer those people who ask sincere questions, and I regret that my present schedule and other commitments simply do not allow me to do so. For the record, I want to say that I take a viewpoint in radical opposition to that expressed by most participants on this thread, who contend that the “insanity” advocated by Biddle and others at ARI must be repudiated in order for Objectivism to be taken seriously as a rational philosophy. There is no doubt in my own mind that Ayn Rand would adopt a position similar to that of ARI. Her prior statements, often quoted on this thread, clearly point to such a conclusion. And while this obviously does not mean that such a position is necessarily correct, I think it does mean that such a position is thoroughly consistent with Objectivism. And, further, a watered-down, “moderate” version of Objectivism, which does not spell out clearly the moral-political implications of egoism—that a nation which upholds terrorism can legitimately be threatened with annihilation until it renounces such a position, that we must reject any suggestion that American lives can be sacrificed to save “innocents” who stand by while their dictatorial governments threaten our freedom—will not serve to sustain this great nation in a time of crisis, when it needs a rational philosophy more than ever. Dennis

How about a magic wand that magically transports people across the time barrier to the Ford Hall Forum, 1976... No country put more obstacles in the path of those who wanted to leave than Soviet Russia. I can't wait to see Ayn Rand attacked for using "floating abstractions." Dennis

Roger, Please note that the preconceptual stooges are not the only ones cheering. Excellent job! Well done! And, I should add, thanks for restoring my confidence in free thinking Objectivists and for giving me hope for America’s survival. Dennis

Paul, I’m delighted that you found the quotations from Pipes (and the little Iranian pipsqueak) valuable. Not much has changed in the last 1000 years. I keep hearing the refrain from a Bob Dylan song about the insanity of war: “With God on their side…” Roger, I completely agree with you and that other person whose eloquent words were quoted in the last several posts. (I think her name was Rand or something like that.) She seemed to be arguing that we have the right to do whatever is necessary to keep our nation safe, and that it is immoral (i.e., altruistic) to try to minimize civilian deaths in aggressor nations if doing so could lead to the deaths of our own citizenry. (Jeez! What a wild-eyed radical!!) NOTE to all of you eagerly sharpening your knives to carve me up for that last sentence: there is a difference—a major difference of emphasis—between minimizing (reducing to a minimum) and doing no more than what is deemed necessary to assure our national security. Michael, Thank you for your nice comment about my status as an “honored” friend. I sincerely appreciate that. You continue to do a commendable job of keeping this Objectivist forum respectable. It is wonderful to have a place to post my comments and not have to hold my nose while doing so. At the moment, however, my choice is between answering all of your points or getting a decent amount of sleep. In the selfish interest of my health, I will have to limit my response to the following: Biddle consistently refers to Islamists and Islamism in his various statements about the proper actions to take against Iran. It is quite clear whom he wants to target. And, for the record, he did not explicitly advocate “nuking” anyone. On the other hand, I am sure he would not be opposed to using nukes if that were the most efficient means of obliterating the Islamists. I completely concur with the content of the ARI editorials you have cited. I honestly do not see evidence of tribalism or genocide. (Do you seriously believe that a so-called Palestinian state would be used for anything else but a base of operations for a sustained attack on Israel?) As I have often said elsewhere, I genuinely wish that TAS possessed the moral self-confidence to speak with a similarly strong voice. I think the articles speak for themselves. They do not need a defense from me. I would simply recommend that people read the articles if they have not done so already. (You assail Epstein for using “the tribal collectivist phrase ‘superiority of Americanism’." Wow! Tribal collectivist? Really? I honestly cannot bring myself to believe that you said that. Have you given out your password to any multiculturalist-libertarian nihilist-postmodernist pedagogues lately?) There is an appropriate context for “doing business with” dictators and other countries that are considerably less than free. The private oil companies who provided their own technology to develop the oil in Arab countries did so to benefit western nations, including the United States. They have a legitimate property claim to the money, equipment and scientific ability they invested. We often have to deal with corrupt or despicable governments--compensating them financially for use of their land, getting approval to use their air space, etc.--because we have no practical choice. The key point here is that we were the main beneficiary of such transactions. I agree that it would be morally wrong for a private company to give financial support to a slave state simply to expand its global reach or enhance its profit margin. In the case of oil, though, we are talking about the lifeblood of our industrial economy. The principle involved is that of our national self-interest. (Of course, Biddle proposed using force to take back the oil fields which were previously stolen--"nationalized"--from private industry, not buying them.) In a prior post, you invited me to join with you in “a war of ideas to change the world” as the best solution to world terrorism. My first post noted that fully half of Muslims world-wide openly support Osama bin laden. Of the rest, how many do you suppose sympathize with him, to some degree? Persuading even moderate Muslims to our point of view will require that they do a philosophical U-turn on a Rial and suddenly discover that life is more valuable than death. Lots of luck with that ambitious project, my friend. You say that you are ready to advocate hard-line military strategy, but you appear to want to postpone that until all of our noble efforts to persuade the good Muslims have failed. In other words, until you and I have long since perished from the face of the earth. If it’s all the same to you, Michael, I would sorta like to do something now. Dennis

Thank you, Barbara, for your thoughtful and respectful response to my previous post. I am pleased to know that you do not consider me a leper (at least not yet!). Obviously, there are others here who disagree. Inasmuch as they have deemed me "unclean," they may want to skip the rest of this post. I want to warn everyone at the outset that I remain unremittingly diseased. In answer to your question, Michael: No, I most certainly do not care to enter into a dialogue with those who think they have a right to enslave and/or kill me if I disagree. With respect to the meaning of “Islamism” (the specific target which Biddle advocated), here is a quote from Daniel Pipes, a recognized authority on the subject: Here is a further clarification by Daniel Pipes: It is Islamism, not the Muslim religion as such, which Biddle seeks to eradicate. And I think he has good basis for the argument that the only solution to world terrorism is to stomp it out of existence in Iran, where it has attained virtual control of a theocratic government whose pipsqueak dictator, after publicly calling for Israel's destruction, went on to add the United States' demise to his wish list when he said: The specific strategy advocated by Biddle is obviously open to debate. Perhaps the same goal can be achieved with less massive destruction and loss of civilian life. I do not claim to be an expert in this area. But I can say without hesitation that we are not taking sufficient action to protect ourselves at this point. And I fully agree with Biddle that we are totally justified in taking whatever actions are deemed necessary. The Islamists and the Islamists alone are to blame for the loss of life. Given a choice between his plan and the suicidal strategy being pursued by the Bush administration, I would not hesitate to endorse the tactics proposed by Biddle. We are rapidly running out of time for this academic debate. In the absence of very, very serious military measures in the name of our self-defense, a lot of truly innocent people are going to die. Dennis

I will admit to being thoroughly discouraged by almost all of the posts on this thread (with the exception of those by Roger Bissell). Contrary to all the wild accusations being hurled his way, Biddle has never advocated targeting innocents. He has advocated targeting Islamists—militant jihadists who have sworn their dedication to America’s destruction. He advocates targeting their breeding grounds, including not only terrorist training camps but mosques and madrassahs. Osama bin laden was recently given “permission” to kill ten million “Yankee infidels” (ie, American citizens) by an Islamic cleric. Will those now self-righteously denouncing Biddle and ARI as lunatics and lepers still be wagging their moralistic fingers when he succeeds? The issue is not whether the average Iranian citizen “implicitly supports” their theocratic regime, but whether they must bear responsibility for it and take the consequences if their government is seen to pose a serious threat to an innocent country which simply wants to live in freedom. A recent (September, 2006) Al-Jazeera poll found that 49.9% of Muslims still support bin Laden. Are these the “innocents” you advocates of “peace” are so concerned about? The issue is not one of tribalistic concern for our rights over their rights. When an enemy is holding the threat of imminent destruction over our heads, it is a moral outrage for anyone to suggest that we should be concerned with their “rights.” I am not prepared to defend the exact approach recommended by Biddle at this time. But he is being totally consistent with Objectivism to say that we have every moral right to take such action if it can be demonstrated that this is the best way to insure our own protection. And he has ample basis for that argument. With all due respect, Barbara, I could not disagree with you more. It saddens me greatly to say this, but if this be leprosy, let those of us who love freedom make the most of it. Dennis

No doubt Branden’s detractors would claim that he’s just an “actor” impersonating a brilliant therapist, skilled at fooling his audience into believing he has transformed their lives, much as he mesmerized Ayn Rand out of her debilitating depression and tricked her into launching Objectivism as a philosophical movement. We can thank the perpetrators of that palpable nonsense for the juvenile moralizing that continues to erode the same movement he founded. Dennis

Applause seems in order for the strong pro-Branden defense being mounted by OL member Robert Campbell over on the preconceptual metaphysics website. He is doing an excellent job of pointing out the flagrant hypocrisy of those who attack Nathaniel Branden while completely dropping the context of his invaluable contributions to Objectivism, even to the point of posturing as “holier than thou” defenders of Objectivist morality as they plagiarize his work Great job, Robert! I only wish I had your patience! Dennis

Fantastic piece of writing, Barbara. Your article should be mandatory reading for anyone new to Objectivism. It is the perfect antidote to Peikoff’s “Fact and Value.” Your examination of the notion of “evil ideas” and the psychology of evasion is very incisive, and provided me with confirmation of some of my own thinking in this area. A long time ago, I came to the realization that most people are simply not independent thinkers. Even Leonard Peikoff, despite some of his valuable contributions to Objectivist thought, is just following in the footsteps of his mentor. When I read Ayn Rand’s angry denunciations of various people for their irrational beliefs, I often wondered how she could be nice to anyone, from storekeepers to waitresses to cabdrivers. The only difference between them and the people she was condemning was that she was ignorant of their specific ideas. Given the radical nature of Objectivism, the chance that such people were not equally worthy of her venom for some of their evil premises was pretty close to zero. Why not just attack them as soon as they say ‘hello’? After all, we know they probably deserve it just as much as any professor or presidential candidate. To live in this world, Objectivists have to appreciate the fact that most of the people they encounter every day hold core beliefs totally opposite to ours. If we have any chance of influencing others, we must first accept where they are coming from. We must deal with their intellectual context. Nathaniel Branden once addressed this issue in one of his “Seminar” recordings. When we disagree with another person, we may well be threatening them on a much deeper level than we realize. We may well be challenging the underlying philosophical premises that have guided them for a lifetime. If we want to communicate with those who see things differently, we have to appreciate that fact. We have to help them consciously see that the real difference is on a much deeper level than this concrete issue, and then show them that there is a rational alternative. Very often, as Ayn Rand recognized with respect to writers such as Victor Hugo and O. Henry, a person’s sense of life may be much better than their conscious premises. In other words, their implicit philosophy is much more rational than their explicit beliefs. The “American sense of life” that tends to be shared by people born in the U.S. is much more consistent with Objectivism than Judeo-Christian values and principles, and makes it much easier to get along with such people. If we approach most people from this perspective—without dwelling on explicit beliefs--we can live well in today’s world. But whether we have any hope of changing those underlying beliefs, paving the way for a far better future, depends totally on how we deal with those differences. A local radio talk host often says that he prefers clarity to agreement. I think that is how Objectivists must approach their profound disagreements with others, rather than through moralizing or anger. Instead of condemning those who differ with us, if we can show them where their underlying premises take them to different conclusions (e.g., God’s commandments vs. man’s life as the standard of ethics), we can meet them on common ground, and give them the choice to continue living by an irrational standard of value, or adopt a new standard that will promote their life and happiness. Deliberately destructive behavior—whether self-directed or intended to hurt others--deserves condemnation. Immature, irresponsible behavior may or may not, depending on the specifics of a given situation. A therapeutic approach may be more appropriate. But irrational beliefs, per se, without knowledge of the individual context—NEVER! Not if our goal is to make this a better world, and—as far as ultimate, social goals are concerned-- that is the only rational one I can imagine. Kudos to Barbara for expressing these important insights so beautifully, and to TAS for providing her with a forum to insure that her voice rings out loud and clear to anyone who was ever captivated by the words and ideas of Ayn Rand. Dennis

Here is the current plot-summary posted on the Baldwin Entertainment website (http://www.baldwinent.com/prod_atlasshrugged.html). This answers both of my questions.

Victor, This is an important issue, and I thank you for raising it. It definitely merits discussion. I certainly agree that Objectivists need to be very cautious about applying the term “evil” to other people, especially other Objectivists. At the same time, a certain context has been established, and a key element of Objectivism is a strong regard for context. Another important element of Objectivism is an allegiance to one’s values. Something that has disturbed me about other so-called Objectivist forums is that participants typically indulge in prolonged, civilized debate with all comers, even when their past behavior (e.g., James Valliant) reflects contempt for certain values. You are obviously a highly intelligent person with a lot to offer. However, your reluctance to address the issues raised elsewhere on OL suggests that you continue to stand by statements of yours reflecting profound disrespect for Barbara Branden. To engage in dialogue with you now, while you refuse to distance yourself from those past statements, would constitute context-dropping. It would amount to sanctioning that disrespect and—because of my allegiance to my own values--I am not willing to do that. I suspect I am not alone. Dennis

Michael and Kat, Thank you very much for the updates on the progress toward bringing Atlas Shrugged to the silver screen. The news sounds almost too good to be true. I personally think that Jennifer Garner would be perfect as Dagny Taggart, but I have no complaints if Angelina Jolie gets the part. One question: When I saw the early plans for the movie on the Baldwin Entertainment website last year, the summary described two major departures from the novel: Dagny as an airline executive and international terrorism as a major factor in the plot. Did the producers mention whether such drastic changes were a part of Jim Hart's script? To what extent, if any, did they plan to "update" the story to make it more "topical"? (I hope not at all, but that's probably unrealistic.) Dennis

It is clear from the timing, location and setting of this particular tirade that the whole purpose of Perigo’s talk was not to defend the virtue of rational passion but to perpetuate his vicious assault on Barbara Branden. Michael expressed his own brand of “Objectivist Rage,” and, with the possible exception of the health-related references, his comments are completely justified. I might have chosen a less satirical tone, but no admirer of Barbara—myself included--could possibly want to remain silent on this. Much like Valliant’s book, Perigo’s speech appears to be a cruel personal attack masquerading as an analytical exercise. It is despicable, pathetic and immature and deserves to be publicly labeled as such in no uncertain terms. An Objectivist forum such as OL, which is doing a commendable job of establishing itself as a sane and civilized alternative to SOLO PASSION, is the proper place to do so. Dennis

Michael said: Count me among those who disagrees that TAS/TOC is “doing a good job.” If the primary goal of TAS/TOC was the production of successful seminars, then I suppose your point would be valid. However, my understanding is that TAS/TOC’s purpose is that of transforming our irrational culture into a rational one. To accomplish this, it would need to consistently show through its various teachings how Ayn Rand’s ideas can improve the world we live in. To take one very crucial example, it would need to proclaim in as loud a voice as possible how an ethics of rational self-interest would have prevented the sacrifice of innocent American lives in a futile effort to create a viable democracy in Iraq. With all its faults, ARI is doing just that, by publishing article after article showing how our policy of “compassionate war” and the application of “just war theory” leads to the tragic waste of our valiant soldiers’ lives in that mid-Eastern hell-hole. ARI’s essays reveal how bad philosophical ideas are not merely academic analytical exercises but substantive ideological frameworks with life and death consequences. What does TAS/TOC have to say? At the same time, TAS/TOC comes out in defense of “just war theory,” ( http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--353-The_Justice_War.aspx ://http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct...tice_War.aspx ://http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct...tice_War.aspx ) thereby lending its tacit sanction to all the horrible, senseless carnage this fundamentally altruistic viewpoint has caused. With respect to this one critical issue, the approach of TAS/TOC reduces Objectivism to the status of a worthless ivory tower enterprise whose announced “principles” give a cavalier stamp of approval to one of the ugliest, most destructive policies ever adopted by our nation’s misguided leadership. The fact that so many of TAS/TOC’s commentaries tend to be virtually value-free, avoiding controversial ethical positions in favor of broad-based cultural or economic analysis, is further evidence of the same problem. ( http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0559.shtml ) But, hey, they put on a really fun seminar. Well, not that anyone asked, but now you know why I wasn’t there. I am sorry if my words in any way dampen or detract from anyone’s experience. The spiritual vitality that such events can provide is enormous and invaluable, while the opportunities for Objectivists to refuel are precious and few. I am not criticizing those who chose to attend, nor do I mean to imply that many of the presentations were not important or worthwhile. (In particular, I would love to have heard Barbara’s lecture. And witnessing Barbara and Nathaniel together again would have been a memory to treasure.) On the other hand, I have to honor my own conscience. If you want to suggest that I have a personal stake in talking bad about the good, so be it. I am the one who has to face me in the mirror tomorrow morning. Dennis

I came across this debate, http://www.solopassion.com/node/1227, on the proper use of force during war on SOLO Passion. Despite my dislike for that particular Objectivist forum, I found much of it to be of exceptionally high quality, primarily because of the contributions of George H. Smith (in defending a position very different from my own). I knew George personally at one time, and have always considered him to have one of the best minds I have ever encountered. I do not care to post on SOLOP, because I have nothing but contempt for any forum that sanctions and promotes insults, disrespect and vicious personal attacks as appropriate decorum for intellectual debate. However, I feel the above discussion of this issue would be incomplete without the full context that George provides. Although it is clear that George and I disagree on fundamental points, I should mention that I thoroughly agree with his strong rejection of any suggestion that he or anyone else “should serve as sacrificial animals (or support the sacrifice of other Americans) to bring ‘democracy’ to a thoroughly f__ked-up culture…” Regardless of any particular advocate’s interpretation of “Just War Theory,” the fact that such “theory” can be used to justify Bush’s openly altruistic prosecution of the war in Iraq is sufficient reason to question the extent to which it can accurately be called “just.” Parenthetically, I wonder if George is aware that Brooks & Epstein, the authors of the referenced article criticizing “Just War Theory,” would also agree with his assessment of the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, time prevents me from addressing his other arguments--particularly with respect to the ethical requirement to minimize enemy civilian casualties during war--at this time. However, many of my prior comments on this thread deal directly with that issue. Dennis

I heard radio talk host Larry Elder recite this quote a few days ago, then found it on the internet. The author is Marianne Williamson. I have been so inspired by it that I could not resist posting it here. When you read it, I think you will see why I chose to post it here in the Branden corner. (I modified it slightly to remove two references to God which were utterly gratuitous.) "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We are born to make manifest the glory of the best within us. It's not just in some of us, it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

Barbara, About two months ago, I picked up an item from my mailbox that turned my whole world upside down. I won’t bore you with the details, but I went through enough anxiety, misery, sleeplessness and confusion since then to last me for many years to come. Although OL has provided a welcome distraction at times, I have had very little time for abstract analysis, reading and study since that bomb exploded (metaphorically speaking). Life is only now starting to get back to something resembling normalcy, although my emotions are still passing through various phases of post-traumatic shock. All of which underscores the difficulty of devoting extensive time to philosophical writing in this stress-filled, mind-numbing, exasperating and often insane world we live in. Please take whatever time you need and let go of any pressures you might feel. I am just thrilled that you were impressed enough with my article to give it such serious review. I will be even more thrilled once you do find the time to put your conclusions in final form here on OL. Dennis

Michael, Thanks for the clarification regarding George Reisman's reproduction policy. Perhaps I owe him an apology. If so, I will gladly offer it. Regarding Objectivist Living, I have never read anything here that involves a disrespectful, obscene, abusive tone. OL demonstrates that criticism and disagreement--even when it involves strong moral implications--can be done with civility, courtesy and a regard for dignity. To suggest that "passion" requires invective, insults or spat-wad contests is to confess that whim-worship--not Objectivism--is your fundamental approach to life.

In tone and content, SOLO is an embarrassment to Objectivism. It is sad that George Reisman has chosen to lend it the veneer of respectability. As with other malignant, vicious "objectivist" blogs, the less said about SOLO here, on Objectivist Living, the better.

Barbara, Thank you for submitting this list of questions. No doubt this will be an extremely important thread for analyzing where Objectivism went wrong. For now, I just want to offer some preliminary thoughts. It is easy enough to make the case for using moral condemnation as a means of (a) protecting one’s personal integrity and (b) safeguarding the purity of Objectivism. These two justifications have been the key ones used by the Objectivist hierarchy (primarily Rand and Peikoff) in all of the major purges. Of course, Objectivism is not unique in this regard. A great many ideological movements—from psychoanalysis to Hegelianism to all major religions—have made it a practice to dispel infidels for similar offenses against officialdom. But few secular belief systems have made it so convenient to combine accusations of ideological deviance with charges of personal and moral misconduct, thereby justifying exile from the official ‘movement’ (whatever that is) as well as the total dismissal of a human being from one’s life. An important issue here is whether or not this is ever a legitimate course of action when the “perpetrator” is clearly acting out of a rational, conscientious concern for truth. It is as though there were some inherent contradiction between the principle that “Every is implies an ought” and an assumption of innocence in such matters. We must always be ready to cite the underlying villainy. In the eyes of the public, outright dismissal of an individual for deviating from orthodoxy implies some very uncomplimentary things about that philosophy, alienating those who might be making an honest effort to comprehend a radically new belief system. In the Objectivist ethics, immorality is considered evil and anti-life. Theoretically, one can make a case for cutting immoral (i.e., irrational) people out of one’s life because their refusal to act in accordance with reason could potentially threaten the rational well-being of innocent people with whom they come in contact. In the history of Objectivism, such “repudiations” have been far too numerous to fall within the parameters of common sense. Of course, the accusers always maintain that the transgressions surpass the category of “errors of knowledge” and reflect overt dishonesty, revealing psychological “corruption” which makes simple re-education inconsistent with basic ethical principles. A prolonged phase of contrite rehabilitation is then required before they can be deemed trustworthy again. The actual term of their sentence is typically whatever enables the executioner to effectively dismiss that individual from further consideration during the balance of his lifetime, but this is not always the case. It is amusing to note that today’s Grand Inquisitor, Leonard Peikoff, was himself often temporarily exiled by Miss Rand for conduct unbecoming, but was always allowed back into the fold with his contrite tail tucked opprobriously between his legs. Of course, once the personal condemnation has been pronounced, an orthodox Objectivist will invariably add that his action is required in the name of maintaining ideological purity. They will contend that other philosophical movements have failed because their adherents did not insist upon a thoroughgoing internal theoretical consistency among their adherents. The ‘repudiation’ will then be advocated as mandatory on the macro as well as the micro level. We shall not prevail if we do not provide a rational example and demonstrate the clarity of consistency to the public at large. In reality, of course, as already noted, outsiders tend to perceive such apparent dogmatism as symptomatic of an intellectual position that is weak and ultimately indefensible. The first excommunication I knew about was that of journalist Edith Efron. Shortly thereafter came the Great Schism—the break with Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. Long before that, there was Isabel Paterson, Henry Hazlitt, Bennett Cerf and John Hospers. No doubt the list is much, much longer. In the post-Branden era, there were Erika and Henry Holzer, Robert Hessen and Kay Nolte Smith. Following Ayn’s death, Peikoff honored the tradition by purging David Kelley, George Reisman and Edith Packer. Aristotelian scholar Allan Gotthelf and economist Richard Sanford also appear to have earned the status of persona non grata, although I do not know for a fact that they were officially “repudiated.” It is simply not reasonable to justify such an extensive record of emotional carnage in the name of a moral crusade. It should be blatantly obvious that the more this practice continues to be defended by its leadership, the more it tarnishes Objectivism as a viable philosophical viewpoint. The case of David Kelley is somewhat unique in that it explicitly involves a philosophical disagreement with respect to moral judgment. In many of these cases, needless to say, the only crime committed by the individual was that of insufficient idolatry of the philosophy’s founder. In other words, the individual did something to offend Ayn Rand, and her response was to find some way to demonstrate that such behavior represented deliberate irrationality and immorality. If the fundamental issue were philosophical rather than personal, why would it be necessary to banish that individual’s past contributions to the philosophy’s literature? If their prior contributions were deemed legitimate and valuable, why do they suddenly become otherwise when the individual who wrote them mysteriously begins to stray from orthodoxy? Following their break, Ayn Rand announced that the prior contributions of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were consistent with Objectivism, but that she could not endorse their future works. From that day forward, however, any reference to their prior writings was effectively airbrushed from the literature. If it had been possible for Ayn Rand to remove their past articles from her published books and magazines, does anyone doubt that she would have done so? Such practices underscore the conclusion that the primary issue is personal. From the standpoint of the philosophy, their writings were no less valid after the break than they had been before—but Ayn Rand did not wish to give them further credit for those contributions, so they were treated as if they had never been written. The exact same pattern is true with respect to Leonard Peikoff’s condemnation of David Kelley. Shortly before bringing out his article condemning Kelley for the crime of speaking to a libertarian group, this writer overheard Peikoff recommend Kelley’s brilliant book, The Evidence of the Senses, to a member of his audience at an Objectivist conference in La Jolla, California. The individual had some questions about the validity of sense perception, and Peikoff referred him to Kelley’s wonderful book. Following the publication of “Fact and Value,” however, that particular work of Objectivism was no longer deemed an appropriate reference. And the same pattern held true, years later, with regard to George Reisman’s monumental work, Capitalism. So much for the importance of philosophical purity. There is a huge difference between the practice of not promoting an author’s works, and pretending they do not exist. To obliterate an author’s valid contributions to Objectivism’s literature is to elevate personal condemnation above the goal of ideological education. It might be reasonable to claim that certain individuals deserved to be permanently banished from the movement for conduct so heinous that any association of that individual with that ideology would hinder its growth. Needless to say, concealing a love affair or speaking to a libertarian group are scarcely in that category. In his autobiography, My Years With Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden spoke of his regret about the role he had once played in this madness. He described his motivation in this way: “I looked for alternative ways to reassure Ayn of my devotion. I became her ‘enforcer.’ “ Can anyone doubt the power of this woman to exert such control when, more than 20 years after her death, this practice continues within and without institutionalized Objectivism? The purges and condemnations which have decimated Objectivism from within are largely a reflection of the rather obvious psychological imperfections of the movement’s founder, Ayn Rand. The fact that her penchant for condemnation does not exactly set her apart from the leaders of other intellectual movements throughout history is interesting from a historical standpoint, but scarcely relevant to the legitimacy of this practice. Her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, could not be expected to depart from custom and exhibit any significant self-restraint in this area. His continuation of this self-destructive ideological charade was easily predictable as an expression of his own sycophantic devotion. It is tragic that so many of the brilliant minds surrounding him have extended the same blind deference to him that he has extended to Miss Rand. Objectivism deserves better. The general public will only embrace radical new ideas when those ideas are presented with a respect for their initial skepticism. If ever a philosophy did not require condemnation of dissension to insure its survival, it is Objectivism. Everything about Ayn Rand’s philosophy—quite apart from her own enigmatic psychological tendencies—suggests that her ideas can only flourish in the open market of rational debate. A clear understanding of its principles is all any serious advocate of Objectivism needs to demonstrate its superiority in the context of any reasonable discussion or debate. Religion and collectivism need authoritarianism and intimidation. We don’t. Let’s start acting like it.

The following is excerpted from “Memorial Day: What We Owe Our Soldiers” by Alex Epstein, which I saw on another website. I decided to add it here because it speaks so eloquently to the issues I raised in this thread. Contrast this with TOC’s “Position Statement” and their explicit support of so-called “Just War Theory.”

Charles, Upper classmen used to scream "Attila!" whenever they saw me in the hallway. That was well before I discovered Objectivism and Ayn Rand, so I doubt it had anything to do with any views I might have expressed. To this day, I have never understood why they did it. Perhaps I resembled some picture in a textbook. I remember one of them telling me: "You should read about Attila. It's really a compliment!" BTW, here is the definition of “goddess” offered by Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: Hopefully it is clear which of those meanings I meant to apply to Barbara. Since I do not wish to be accused of endorsing "mysticism," I thought perhaps I should add that bit of clarification. Dennis

Barbara is a goddess, and always will be. As for myself, Charles--guess what my nickname was in high school....Attila! I never could understood why until now.