Dennis Hardin

I would love to be able to post a white flag. Or maybe one of these: Then maybe I could get some sleep. My scenario was simply intended to explain why central planning is, on a practical level, absolutely mandatory for the objective control of force but totally unnecessary for the prevention of villainy by businesses operating in a free market. I used the extreme example of Sharia law to underscore the fact that, in any society with cultural diversity, there will be large segments of the population eager to impose their warped view of justice on those who do not share their viewpoint. You asked the question: “Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that rational people could not condemn these and similar agencies as bogus and illegal without the "objective law" supposedly decreed by your government?” Your question seemed to assume that “rational people” will somehow stamp out agencies who wield force unjustly without the need for a single monopoly government. Using the example of an agency adhering to Sharia law emphasizes the fact that there will always be plenty of people who think they are being “rational” no matter how egregious the conduct of their “private defense agency,” and stopping them will not be as simple as you implied. In any realistic projection of a rational society, the vast majority of people would condemn the actions of the Sharia agency. That’s why we need the “central planning” of a single government agency with a monopoly on the legitimate use of objectively limited force subject to democratic control. There would be no such regulatory democratic control mechanism on the use of coercion under anarcho-capitalism. Now you argue that I “have conceded, if only implicitly, that we can determine objective law without government, for we clearly know that the Sharia agency is acting unjustly.” It’s certainly true that the majority of people will know that the Sharia agency is acting unjustly, but this does not mean that we can determine objective law without government. Again, I was stressing the fact that private agencies could get away with perpetrating ungodly mayhem in the name of “justice,” and the only way other defense agencies could stop them is with additional mayhem. A single government operating within the confines of objective law would prevent such mayhem. But the fact that a majority of people condemn obvious instances of “legitimized” injustice is not a sufficient condition for establishing a code of objective law. Procedural safeguards, jurisprudence, constitutions, legislatures, and courts are all necessary for the definition of objective law, and it is only through such a single, established code that we can clarify the limits within which a legitimate government can operate. To make this clear, let’s examine less extreme examples of rogue private agencies that compete with other such defense agencies. One agency may sanction the use of “retaliatory force” to kill “murderous” abortion doctors. Another agency approves the use of deadly force against bullies who threaten to start fights in beer halls. Another agency announces that henceforth it will arrest anyone using incendiary language in public places where there is the potential for inciting deadly riots. Another agency—opposed to intellectual property--sends in its police to recover money “stolen” from its clients via lawsuits for copyright infringement When those agencies clash, the outcome will not be that much different from the Sharia Agency scenario. These are just some obvious examples where there is a potential for rampant disagreement about the meaning of objectively defined retaliatory force. There are numerous other areas where “rational people” can potentially disagree. The only way to maintain any semblance of civilization is for there to be one democratically controlled agency charged with defining an objective code under which everyone agrees to co-exist, even while advocating for changes in laws with which they disagree. So, I’m sorry, but I cannot agree that everyone can somehow reach a rational consensus on objective law without government. I know you posted some other questions apparently directed at me, but I’m going to have to call it a night.

Dennis, To be honest, maybe only a flash in the pan. I'm stil trying to get my head around the anarchist position. I mean - dammit - anarchists are rational individualists, too, aren't they! That's what counts first, in my book. Which makes the min/an divide appear less consequential to me. I wonder if there is (above all) a deeply visceral distaste for entrenched and arrogant authority that underpins the ideology of anarchism. Now THAT I can understand, and will never stop feeling. Pre-Rand, and CUI, I was almost certainly heading into a vague anarchism, myself - in retrospect. Well, Tony, I believe The Good Intentions Paving Company has an opening for a licensed contractor, if you're interested. Once their rationalist superhighway is completed, however, I would strongly caution you about following that road to its final destination.

I cannot understand why you persist in your egregious misrepresentation of the Rothbardian position. You might as well say that strict governmental regulation of candy is necessary, because without a free-market "plan" to prevent the distribution of candy laced with arsenic, any bogus company could enter the market and sell all the poisoned candy it likes. We would also need strict governmental regulation of all schools, because without it any child-molester could set up a bogus school in order to entice children. The list is endless. This is absolutely nuts. Poison is not candy, just because someone calls it that. Child abuse is not education, just because someone calls it that. And the initiation of force is not retaliatory force, just because someone calls it that. Consider two hypothetical agencies. The Lipton Agency determines the guilt or innocence of a defendant by reading tea leaves, and the Geller Agency determines guilt or innocence by using psychics. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that rational people could not condemn these and similar agencies as bogus and illegal without the "objective law" supposedly decreed by your government? Ghs Let’s descend from the clouds for a moment and concretize your examples. The Acme Candy Company enters the market and sells arsenic-laced candy to compete with M & M’s and Snickers. As soon as one person dies from eating Acme’s candy, what happens? Publicity about their deadly product promptly puts Acme out of business, Acme’s executives are arrested for endangering the public, and the victim’s heirs recover millions via civil lawsuits. Sodomite Schools begins offering elementary level classes to young children, but the kids’ parents soon observe alarming signs of abuse on Johnny and Susie’s private parts. They bring this to the attention of other parents, and, overnight, students stop showing up for Sodomite classes. Not only does Sodomite Schools go bankrupt within nano-seconds, but the government puts Sodomite’s teachers and administrators behind bars, and massive civil lawsuits quickly divest those same teachers and administrators of every last dime in their respective bank accounts. Pray tell, what possible incentive would Acme and Sodomite have to ever start such companies, knowing the dire consequences? The market and the government—limited to its role of protecting individual rights-- work together to totally destroy the perpetrators. People would have to be insane to even think of starting such enterprises. But now suppose there is no government operating under the constraints of objective law, and private agencies are allowed to start “businesses” consisting of police and court systems which can use physical force to enforce their own versions of “objective law.” The Muslim Brotherhood Protection Agency opens its doors. They don’t use tea leaves or psychics to determine their “laws,” but standards which are totally contrary to that of their competitors. Sharia law, for instance, which a great many muslims in the population consider to represent “justice.” A substantial segment of the muslim population supports the stoning of wives suspected of infidelity. A newlywed bride of one of MBPA's subscribers smiles at another man, and suddenly finds herself buried in the ground up to her neck. Her head is bombarded with rocks until her skull is fractured and her face is torn to shreds. She had previously subscribed to a different agency but Muslim Brotherhood’s “laws” automatically extend to the wives of their members. Her previous “Protection Agency” sends its police to her home in an effort to protect her, but they are immediately confronted by the Muslim Brotherhood police, ready to defend their “laws” and their view of "justice" to the death. What do you suppose happens next? Acme and Sodomite do not have guns to protect their economic “turf.” The Muslim Brotherhood has AK47 rifles, bombs and thousands of supporters cheering them on. When a society allows private businesses to use force to protect their share of the “market,” there is no more market. There is just rampant bloodshed, chaos and destruction.

In Ayn Rand Nation, Gary Weiss provides some significant new material relevant to the efforts of ARI’s “powers-that-be” to censor and rewrite Objectivist history. Two brief examples. Iris Bell, a former graphic designer for NBI, was asked to contribute to 100 Voices, the anthology of commentaries by those who knew Ayn Rand. Weiss also describes some interesting correspondence between Ayn Rand and former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. He obtained Rand’s FBI file, and discovered a letter Rand had written to Hoover in 1966 following the publication of some comments he made in The Saturday Evening Post. Hoover was quoting as saying that “he disavows the ultra-conservative political label” and terms himself an “objectivist.” In her letter to him, Rand had asked if he agreed with her philosophy and requested a meeting with him to discuss a “personal-political problem.” Hoover scribbled on the bottom of her letter “I never said I was an ‘objectivist,’ whatever that is.” He declined to meet with her, citing his busy schedule. Weiss states:

Doesn't this imply a central planning perspective? How do libertarians and Objectivists respond when asked for a blueprint explaining how health care or education would work? In short, they can make broad, general predictions based on the spontaneous order of the market, But a "plan" is something mapped out in advance by someone independant of the system in question, which misunderstands the position of the anarchist. Tim On the contrary, Peter seems to understand the position of the anarchist very well. Central planning is exactly what is needed where the use of force is concerned--a clear, well-defined plan (i.e., the administration of objective law) which, to the maximum extent possible, eliminates force from the marketplace and human relationships. The anarchist, by definition, can have no such plan, since any entrepreneurial thug can enter the game at any time and start selling his own personal brand of "retaliatory force." It is a "system" tailor-made for the Mafia. The Cosa Nostra is the original "private defense agency."

Bingo. The only logical solution to rule by objective law is having a single agency entrusted with that power, subject to democratic control. Anything else is a fairy tale.

An excellent common sense analysis, Tony. "Individuals and their rights are not a 'product'. . ." An eloquent way of saying that a "market in force" (including 'objectively justifiable force') is a contradiction in terms.

You still haven't made a case as to why concern with preserving the union annuls the influence of the slavery issue. I'm talking fundamentals. You say it's only one. I say it's both (and some other things like how to conduct the Western expansion, but that's beside the point here). Apropos, you lay the "butchery of a savage conflict" at Lincoln's feet, yet there were an awful lot of people doing the butchering. Both sides. Do you exempt those people? [snip] I am getting very annoyed, You have presented absolutely no historical facts, only musings about this and that. By all means read more, much more, than what I have said -- but, please, read something. I have not been presenting some kind of eccentric or crackpot point of view. Even those historians who engage in something akin to Lincoln-worship would not disagree with much, if anything, I have said. As for my supposedly annulling the slavery issue, I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. After his election and at the outset of the war, Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves. He was as clear about this as clear can be, e.g.: How could Lincoln have been any more clear than this (and these are just a few samples)? Was Lincoln lying? Do you have special insight into the inner recesses of his mind that has taught you that Lincoln really fought the war to liberate slaves, even though he explicitly denied this? History can be complex, but some historical investigations are more complex than others. This issue falls on the very low end of the compex-o-meter scale. So what historical facts am I supposedly ignoring? Please mention a few of them. Even one would be nice. But remember that I am talking about verifiable facts, not about vague hopes and unfounded speculations. Lincoln was a typical Whig of his day -- a strong believer in nationalism, internal improvements, a strong central government, etc. Secession, he said, is "the essence of anarchy" -- and Lincoln was not about to tolerate "anarchy." He made his point at the expense of 620,000 American lives and a devasted South. I don't view Lincoln as a warmonger per se. Rather, I view him as a largely incompetent president who got in way over his head. I doubt if he had an inkling of the devastation that the Civil War would bring about -- and when it did get underway, he proved an even more incompetent commander-in-chief, appointing one ineffective general after other. The Civil War ended up being a war of attrition. If not for the superior industrial capabilities of the North and its greater supply of human cannon fodder, the South would probably have won that extremely brutal and destructive war. Ghs Here are some historical facts which seem to present a slightly more balanced view. ABRAHAM LINCOLN QUOTES ABOUT SLAVERY "I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440. "Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226. "I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 255. There are roughly 30 or more similar, documented quotes from Lincoln cited here. Historian Eugene Eugene H. Berwanger says about Lincoln: Perhaps one could make the case that Berwanger is a Lincoln apologist. I don't claim to have enough knowledge about the facts to give his account of Lincoln's actions an unqualified endorsement. On the other hand, there is obviously plenty of evidence from Lincoln's own statements to show that he despised slavery and very much wanted to end it, and that this was a very significant factor in his decision to prosecute the war.

This is hopelessly detached from the real world, George, both with respect to the nature of the institutional structure required for government and the notion that two or more agencies would have identical systems of laws. It is, as I said before, using your words, "absurd on its face." I read some of Rothbard's various writings on this issue many years ago and found his arguments sorely lacking with respect to the world we live in. More recently, I read Chris Sciabarra's extensive examination of Rothbard's utopian theories in Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism. I thought Chris did a fantastic job of analyzing the pro's and con's of Rothbard's utopian fantasies. If you haven't read it, you should. He presents a very thorough, detailed, objective analysis. I have read nothing that suggests to me that Rand was wrong with respect to her position that ruling force out of human relationships is a precondition of free market capitalism, and that minarchy is the only viable and reaiistic means to that end. Concurrent jurisdiction exists today, of course, not only between state and federal courts but between different levels of state courts and other governmental agencies. But the reason these courts can function in harmony is because there is a single governmental authority overseeing them. In feudal times,.from what I know, when church and state divisions created a situation where there was no single governmental authority, things did not go nearly as smoothly as you suggest. Concurrent jurisdiction worked fairly well in France during the reign of the House of Capet, for example, just as it does in the United States today. Ecclesiastical courts, courts of feudal lords, mercantile courts, et al—operated under customary laws and were largely subordinate to the crown. When there were significant disputes between royal jurisdiction and papal supremacy, however, there was also significant civil unrest. After the Norman Conquest of 1066, William the Conqueror successfully centralized ecclesiastical authority for the king and secured the authority to decree canon law. But a century later, under the reign of Stephen (1135-1154), the papal authority made significant gains in prestige and power, leading to what was called “the anarchy of Stephen,” a period characterized by significant civil unrest. In the minarchy-anarchy debates, the primary discussion revolves around the question of internal chaos created by civil unrest, not wars between nation-states.

As usual, you speak in generalties without drawing crucial distinctions. The relevant distinction here is that between fundamental laws and the application of those laws to particular cases. So now the debate has come around to the issue of which one of us is proselytizing from his perch in the clouds. I certainly agree with you that concretizing how minarchy vs anarchy translates to actual practice in the real world constitutes the crucial step in resolving the debate. That’s why I gave numerous instances of the kinds of criminal and civil disputes that would arise under a system of anarchy in post #4. Actually, in the kind of ideal, "fully rational" situation you project here, there would be no need for any government or defense agencies at all, since everyone would be so beautifully rational that all disputes could be settled nonviolently, by simple arbitration. There was no 'government' in Galt's Gulch. The reason that limited government is necessary is precisely because, no matter how rational the world becomes, there will always be people who want to use force to get their way, or to obtain something for nothing. In your anarchic society, undoubtedly some of those people, seeing the door left wide open for their whims to prevail, will decide to start their own private defense agencies. And there will be nothing to hold them in check but another defense agency, guns at the ready. The majority of people in a rational society will simply want to live their lives free of force, which is why they will choose a single government agency which can much more easily be held in check by democratic vote. In your system, no such check exists for those citizens outside the jurisdiction of a given agency. The potential for disagreements, even among rational agencies who agree on fundamentals, remains massive. In post #4, I reviewed just a few of the kind of disagreements that could arise. This just scratches the surface. Arbiters would be overwhelmed by such a huge complexity of disagreements, that pretty soon the citizens would be calling for the establishment of a single governmental agency with a single set of rules to minimize the chaos. That is after people had to live with such turmoil on a daily basis that the normal conduct of their business and personal lives became impossible. There is a crucial difference between how real governments interact today as opposed to how defense agencies would interact. Under anarchy, the ‘private governments’ have contested jurisdiction over the same population and their conflicting laws directly impact that population every day in thousands of ways. In the international context, the conflicts (territorial disputes, import/export rules, treaties, laws of the sea, customs, travel restrictions, corporate & business law conflicts, state recognition issues, et. al.) do not have the same degree of impact on everyone’s daily life. For the most part, the governments have time to think over their respective positions and map out a strategy to deal with the conflicts. Part of the reason for that is the geographical distance which separates them. If you eliminate that one factor, not only the number of disputes but their intensity level—i.e., their impact on daily life-- increases not only exponentially but with dramatic emotional and personal intensity. You can wait months or years to decide questions of how a treaty should be interpreted. But if one “government” in a single geographic area wants to arrest a man for murder or rape and the other says he must be allowed to remain free, chaos can break out within days, as the Trayvon Martin case demonstrates. If one government says business A cannot take such and such an action because it violates the contractual rights of another business B, but next door there is another “competing” government that says it can proceed, company A’s survival depends on obtaining immediate clarity about the objective terms of the law. Multiply those two examples by a factor of several thousand similar unresolved criminal and civil cases arising every day and you have total, unmitigated chaos. The time pressures placed on a geographic population whose citizens want to get on with their lives will lead to one agency pressuring another—and, eventually, the guns will come out, even in the most rational of ideal worlds So now we find ourselves back to square one again. This type of context-dropping remark is what makes these debates seem ultimately pointless. Two words: Objective law. Everything I have said in my prior posts explains why objective law requires a single agency entrusted with that purpose, strictly delimited to the protection of rights and subject to democratic control by majority vote.

As usual, you speak in generalties without drawing crucial distinctions. The relevant distinction here is that between fundamental laws and the application of those laws to particular cases. If you wish to descend from the clouds of theory and talk about what real governments are actually like, then I would be more than happy to discuss that issue with you. But in the current debate you cannot eat your cake and have it, too. You may not assume that your ideal government will be rational but that justice agencies will be irrational. Or if you want to assume this, then I will compare an irrational and tyrannical government against private agencies that are rational and just. Ghs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3GnWTy8Ebg

Well, of course, she also said that “force and mind [i.e., reason] are opposites,” and that “morality ends where a gun begins.” She regarded a proper government doing its strictly delimited task of eliminating force from human relationships as a precondition of civilization where men are free to make their own private ethical choices. She regarded “a market in force” as a contradiction in terms. Her defense of limited government was as much epistemological as it was ethical. So how do those in government determine the proper use of force, if not by the use of their reason? Do they have a monopoly on reason, as well as on force? No. Since force and mind are opposites, then obviously government can wield force whimsically in any way it sees fit, pretty much killing, maiming and imprisoning people in wanton fashion. If that doesn’t sound like I took your response seriously—well, now you know how it feels. Force and reason are opposites in terms of human motivation. Obviously that does not mean you cannot reason about force. I know how terribly appreciative you must be that I took the time to clarify that for you. You're welcome. It isn't the least bit absurd to say, as Rand does, that government must retain a monopoly if the use of force is to be strictly restrained under objective law, because “its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed,” with “no touch of whim or caprice permitted in its performance.” And “a market in the objectively justifiable use of force” is still a market in force, because when agencies differ with each other on what “objectively justifiable” means, one agency will eventually have to impose its view on those who disagree. The notion that the enforcement agencies will never disagree on that issue is, as you say, “absurd on its face.” Dennis, Regurgitater-in-Chief

Oooh... you think I should have gone for that ugly metallic grey? Well, marriage is compromise... I really feel I am making progress here.... Gratefully, Lili Mmmmmm. . . “compromise.” Let's see. I pay for the house, the maid, the cook, your Mercedes and your Jaguar, your Pekinese, your caviar, your diamond jewelry, your bi-monthly trips to Paris with your hairdresser, your sequined dresses, your elaborate parties, your spa membership, your interior designer, your exterior designer, your masseur and your coiffeur. In return, you lay still while I boink you once a month. And you promise not to call me Henry on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Sounds like true love to me, sweetie.

Well, I guess Peikoff voted against intuition before he voted for it. Nineteen years later. . . Podcast: What about intuition? (3-15-10)

The first time I read this, even as a Randroid way back when, I thought, "I don't recall delegaing my 'right of physical self-defense' to anyone." I have yet to hear any argument by an Objectivist (or anyone else for that matter) that convinces me that I can existentially delegate a right without knowing when or how I did it. The plain fact is, I was not consulted. This led me to the idea that a charter document for a government was a lot different than a simple contract. And it is. Michael Michael--This, of course, is the basic anarchist position. See the second question posed to Branden in the post which began this thread. "Look. I wasn't consulted, I wasn't asked my opinion about this system of government..." I'm sure George will be delighted to welcome you to his side.

Of course, only it's not a "glaring, gaping hole" in anything, nor a "conundrum." The government only retains its legal monopoly as long as it restricts its function to that of administering retaliatory force. Once it begins to operate outside its legitimate functions, the citizens have every right to take up arms against it. And Rand never questioned anyone's right to use retaliatory force in emergency situations. She would have been appalled at the suggestion that anyone should not act in self-defense when necessary.

A couple of books by Dr. Peter Breggin (a libertarian) on this topic: Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-Altering Medications “There are over 200 million psychiatric drug prescriptions written annually—Most Do More Harm than Good” Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the “New Psychiatry”

Exactly, Doctor. If that corporate trollop thinks she can get my husband away from Me, she had better stop thinking outside the box. Lilian Rearden (Mrs.) Lillian, my dear, "thinking outside the box" was what got you and hubby in trouble in the first place. Scene: The Rearden bedroom Hank (passionately, looking down at Lillian): "OMIGOD! OMIGOD! Lil! You are so freakin' gorgeous! I can't hold back any longer!" Lillian: "Pink! I think I want to redo the ceiling in pink."

Apropos Ayn Rand and the Tea Parties, here's a link to a post about a letter from David Kelley defending Rand in this month's PLAYBOY.

In the Rand Playboy interview issue there was a fake centerfold in the Girls of Russia section. It was of a tractor in a field. Hefner always got it basically wrong*. You want to see women with some clothes on so your imagination can go to work about what's underneath and how you're going to get there. --Brant *not with Marilyn Monroe Jedem das seine. I also subscribe to MAXIM, a GP-rated version of PLAYBOY which features celebrities in lingerie instead of au naturale. It's sort of like the Victoria's Secret Catalog. They recently did a photo spread on Jennifer Love Hewitt. Just made me impatient for the day she feels the need to revive her career.

Well, of course, she also said that “force and mind [i.e., reason] are opposites,” and that “morality ends where a gun begins.” And then she said this: She regarded a proper government doing its strictly delimited task of eliminating force from human relationships as a precondition of civilization where men are free to make their own private ethical choices. She regarded “a market in force” as a contradiction in terms. Her defense of limited government was as much epistemological as it was ethical.

This month's issue of PLAYBOY (April, 2012) has a letter from David Kelley defending Ayn Rand in the "Forum Reader Response" section. (p. 42) Sorry, you'll have to visit your local newstand to read the rest of it. (You might also find some of the pictures interesting.)

By the time I--Hank--show her the door, she'll be a high mileage vehicle. --Brant theatrical improvisation method acting whatever Correction: The role of Hank Rearden will be played by Brant Gaede. He wasn't the producers' first choice, but when he said he would do the part pro bono, it was an offer they couldn't refuse. And there is only one rational choice for his leading lady, Angela X, whose acting experience is limited but is outweighed by her deep individualistic interpretation of the Dagny character. Also, she could probably get along with her leading man Brant which not everybody could do. I'm not sure Dagny and Hank will be getting along all that well when she finds out how much time he's spending in Lillian's trailer.

By the time I--Hank--show her the door, she'll be a high mileage vehicle. --Brant theatrical improvisation method acting whatever Correction: The role of Hank Rearden will be played by Brant Gaede. He wasn't the producers' first choice, but when he said he would do the part pro bono, it was an offer they couldn't refuse.

Taking Tea with Ayn Rand An engaging analysis of the new book by Gary Weiss, Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America’s Soul, from The Columbia Journalism Review. The author, Daniel Luzer, compliments Weiss as a movement historian but questions his assessment of Rand’s influence. He calls Ayn Rand “the GOP’s crotchety, misanthropic little immigrant grandmother.” (Yes, he calls the writer who devoted her career to the worship of man’s greatness misanthropic. For that bit of obtuse, dim-witted vitriol, I think we can reasonably tag him Daniel Loser.) Despite his obviously miniscule understanding of Objectivism, Luzer demonstrates some level of insight by correcting Weiss’ with regard to any connection between Rand’s ideas and the policies of Alan Greenspan. Despite his antipathy to Rand, Weiss’ book (and reviews like this one) cannot help but stir increased interest in Rand’s books and ideas, and that has to be a good thing for Objectivism.