Dennis Hardin

I know the actual person of whom you are speculating, and you are mistaken about that.She did appear on the same stage with Anne Heller and Mimi Gladstein, this suggests she’s above the kinds of ARIan cultist behavior we've so often witnessed and disparaged. http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=102147 She exhibited "ARIan cultish behavior" in the way she misrepresented The Objectivist Newsletter as Ayn Rand's independent undertaking. Her course description is totally dishonest and false from start to finish. She could not possibly be ignorant of the equally important role Nathaniel Branden played in launching TON. Without him, it is doubtful there would have been an Objectivist Newsletter.

Catholics United is exactly right. I applaud the stand they have taken. It is critical that we draw attention to the fact that America faces a choice between two antithetical philosophical viewpoints, and that the alternative is Ayn Rand or Jesus Christ. And they correctly identify the fact that Ryan's proposal contradicts his self-proclaimed Catholicism. "Social Darwinism"--i.e., survival of the fittest--is obviously not an accurate description of Rand's position, but you would expect such a leftist group to characterize Rand's position as malevolent. The most important thing is that they are drawing attention to the fact that it is the moral code of altruism that is destroying this country. I find it surprising that a leftist Catholic group would explicitly identify Ayn Rand as their enemy, considering how popular Rand is at this particular time and how well she articulated her opposition. Perhaps that will inspire more people to take a more careful look at what Rand actually said.

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan made the following comment about his budget proposal: “It is rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract.” We are faced with “the choice of two futures,” he said. Catholics United agrees. A choice between Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ.

I know the actual person of whom you are speculating, and you are mistaken about that. Tell me how honest this sounds to you: “In January 1962, Nathaniel Branden launched The Objectivist Newsletter, building on the success of his lecture courses at The Nathaniel Branden Institute.” Would any honest Objectivist historian say that? Clearly not. The course content is obviously agenda driven. If she does mention Branden, you can be sure he will not be given the credit he deserves. No, the authentic value of the book has nothing to do with that opportunity. Its value is far larger and more lasting than that. Oh good grief. How utterly obtuse can you be? Where did I suggest that this had anything to do with the true value of the book? I resent the implication of even suggesting that my intent was to say any such thing.

The issue of "consent of the governed" was hashed and rehashed here, as recently as January, 2012. (I didn't look any further than that.) It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]." I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area. It's equally clear that defenders of anarchy would not accept anything less than that. So it's a lost cause. The role of being a philosophical Don Quixote has never appealed to me. We all recognize that the real world is going to fall significantly short of the ideal here. That happens sometimes. The difference is that minarchists remain focused on reality, and anarchists remain focused on their ideal. In an ideal world, we should be able to design planes that never fall from the sky. But no matter how much effort we invest in the design and maintenance of airplanes, a few of them still fall from the sky. Conscientious police officers should be so well-trained that they never shoot innocent people. But innocent people still get shot by conscientious policemen. Conscientious doctors should never prescribe medications that kill their patients. But the patients of the most conscientious doctors still die from the side effects of medications. Vaccines shoud never cause the diseases they are designed to prevent. But patients still get sick from the most arduously researched vaccines. Children who grow up in wonderfully rational and healthy homes should never turn out to be irresponsible derelicts. But adults from the very best homes often turn out to be miserable human beings. Reality, alas, often fails to conform to our best made plans and intentions and theories, no matter how hard we work to eliminate certain problems. Our task as human beings remains that of recognizing the facts of reality and dealing with them the best way that we can. We would like to insist that reality conform to our most carefully orchestrated theories, but we cannot wipe out those cases when it doesn't. It never works to worship our theories while we wipe out reality. When we do, as Branden used to say in his lectures, reality simply wipes out the wiper.

Dennis, I agree. The fact that Basic Principles was given several times (and circulated in different taped editions) with some changes to the lecturer lineup, is of historical significance, but Ayn Rand blessed every version. And the Academic Associates recordings (except for one or two salvaged from the wrack of NBI) were remakes, in any empty studio, from the same scripts that Nathaniel Branden used for his NBI work. Besides, Roger, Jerry, and I produced transcriptions to a much higher standard of accuracy than prevails in the ARI orbit Of course, the real problem with "official Objectivism" as defined by Ayn Rand is that it's not her definition any more. Leonar Peikoff merely pretends to follow her definition, while imposing one of his own and expecting his disciples to overlook the contradictions. Robert Campbell — Robert, You're exactly right about that, of course. Part of my motivation in creating this thread was to draw further attention to that glaring fact. As I said in a prior post, the publication of The Vision of Ayn Rand affords those of us who care about facts and truth with a unique opportunity to hoist the curmudgeon on his own petard. In "To Whom It May Concern," Rand wrote: "I must state, for the record, that Mr. and Mrs. Branden's writings and lectures up to this time were valid and consonant with Objectivism. I cannot sanction or endorse their future work, ideas or ideological trends." As bitterly vindictive as she was in the years following their break, I cannot believe that Rand would have sanctioned Peikoff's campaign to erase every trace of Branden from Objectivist history. Despite everything that transpired, she retained a healthy respect for reality that Peikoff clearly does not share.

OCON 2012 "What can we learn, fifty years later, from the history of The Objectivist Newsletter?" Well, let's see. One thing we might learn is that followers of the orthodox wing of "official Objectivism" have no respect for historical accuracy when discussing Objectivist history. I'm looking at a copy of The Objectivist Newsletter of January, 1962, and the masthead clearly states: "Edited and Published by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden." On the last page, there is is also a blurb which states: "Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden, Editors and Publishers." Ayn Rand did not launch The Objectivist Newsletter. Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden launched The Objectivist Newsletter. In My Years with Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden states: "That August, I proposed to Ayn that together we create an intellectual newsletter. It would be an outlet for articles we would write on a variety of subjects, as well as a means for maintaining contact with students and admirers of her work. "My intention was that Ayn and I would be the chief writers for the newsletter and that the other members of the Collective would also contribute. We worked on developing the concept all through the fall, and the first issue of TON was planned for January, 1962. Ayn became progressively more enthusiastic about the undertaking as the months passed. . ." (p. 255) Not only was the newsletter Branden's idea, but I would venture to say that it never would have happened without his entrepreneurial energy and drive. To suggest that she inaugurated the project on her own is an unmitigated lie. The wording of this course description would be an embarassment to any honest Objectivist historian. It will be interesting to see how MIlgram will tap dance her way around these facts in her presentation. I would wager that she will make occasional disparaging references to Rand's "co-editor" at various points in her "talk," without ever mentioning Branden by name or giving him any credit whatever. "How did she ensure quality control?" Another brazen, outright lie. IN MYWAR, Branden explains that Rand's attorney advised her to take precautions in the event that she and Branden had a parting of the ways. "Let's agree that nothing is published that the other opposes," [Rand said]. "Each of us will have absolute veto power. . ." Rand clearly shared the responsibility for quality control with Branden. This kind of flagrant, shameful rewriting of history to suit the Peikovian agenda makes me want to puke.

George, Thanks for your response. I regret that I simply don't have the time for a detailed analysis of all your points. Due to the limits of time, I have to choose between giving a brief (and admittedly incomplete) reply or giving no reply at all. So this will have to do for now. Many of your points go back to the anarchist vs. minarchist debates--i.e., if each and every individual does not agree to delegate his right of self-defense, is government legitimate? I simply can't rehash those arguments here, beyond asking the question: can civilization exist if we fail to bring the use of force under objective control? I say it cannot. In the real world in which we live, limited government--with all its imperfections--is the only viable option if we want to live in a free society. I grant you that this is a more precise phrasing of what it means to "delegate the right of self-defense to government." Once again, this goes back to the question: What is a right? A "right" refers to a general principle, not a concrete means of implementing that right. A government does not acquire any special rights that individuals do not have. The "right" is the principle of self-defense, but the concrete means of implementing that principle depend on the context. Because the government is acting on behalf of thousands of citizens, the concrete means of enforcement are totally different. Weapons of mass destruction can only be defended by weapons of mass destruction. I would extend that principle to contexts where torture may be unavoidable. If a terrorist has knowledge that would enable the government to protect the lives of its citizens, it has the right (in the name of the principle of self-defense) to do whatever is necessary to obtain that knowledge from the terrorist, which would include specific means of interrogation that no individual would ever likely need to use for his own private defense. By delegating the right of self-defense, we have delegated the right to use whatever means are neccessary for our protection. If the government had good reason to believe that the city of Bloomington, Illinois was about to be reduced to rubble by a nuclear weapon, and the only way to prevent this was to obtain knowledge of the whereabouts of the nuclear weapon by torturing a terrorist, would you want the government to refrain from using torture to protect your life? It has the right to do so in accordance with its authority to act on behalf of the citizens' right of self-defense. If the government does not do so, and thousands of people die, it failed to fulfill its moral obligation to the citizens it is supposed to be protecting.

Recall the definition of a right: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. The specific right involved is the general principle of self-defense. It is the right of self-defense that the individual delegates to the government, not the right to use any specific weapon. In addition--although I realize an anarchist does not accept government as legitimate--recall the definition of government: A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to exercise the legitimate use of physical force in a given geographical area. The purpose of government is to insure that the use of physical force is kept under objective control—i.e., under the control of objective law. The kind of weapon needed to defend an entire nation is obviously going to be a lot more powerful than what an individual needs to defend his life and property. But the right of self-defense is still the fundamental right being exercised. It’s true that either a government or an individual (e.g., a rogue terrorist) could potentially kill large numbers of people with a WMD. But in the first case possessing such a weapon would be legitimate and the second it would not be. If an individual possessed such a weapon, the mere threat it represented would amount to a de facto use of force against his neighbors. Imagine the WMD owner rotating his M-16 rocket launcher from house to house according to who didn’t wave at him on a given day. Since it’s the government’s role to restrict the use of force, it can legitimately prohibit such weapons. On the other hand, if another world power like China has nuclear weapons, the only way we can possibly defend ourselves, as a nation, would be for us to have such a weapon. The context of the self-defense dictates the appropriateness of the weapon. The issue of which arms a private individual could legitimately possess in a free society is very complex, but the above explanation more or less sketches in the extremes and why the issue is vitally important. The details just underscore the crucial importance of objective law.

I am now officially a devoted, die-hard Denver Broncos' fan. As they say in Tennessee Vol country, Go Big Orange!

I thought you were arguing against the view that Objectivists have to buy everything Ayn Rand said as if it were absolute truth. Now I confess I have no idea what you are arguing.

Michael, Is there no way to block her using her IP address? I thought that was the standard protocol, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. Obviously you would know a lot more about it than I do. Perhaps she is using multiple computers.

No, it was not Peyton Manning.

Guess who said this: That's an excellent statement about what it does and does not mean to be an Objectivist or an admirer of Ayn Rand. The full quote--and the surprising identity of its author--can be found in this post..

Nathaniel Branden was the one and true entrepreneur of Objectivism. --Brant Thank you.

Atlas Shrugged Part 2 finally has its first cast member: Mel Fair, who plays Luke Stone. So, you ask, who the blazes is Luke Stone? Search me. The only Luke in the novel is a Comet fireman, Luke Beal, “the sole survivor” of the Taggart Tunnel catastrophe in Colorado. (p. 621) So I guess that’s one clue that the new screenwriter, Duke Sandefur, is doing some significant reworking of the story line. Probably not a good sign, but I will keep an open mind. I liked Part One, so I’m willing to cut the producers some slack.. Hopefully more information will be available soon. We still have no clue as to who will be playing Dagny or Rearden or Galt, and filming was supposed to start in April.

Thanks, Jerry. I'm also reading Weiss' book, and much of it is quite fascinating. I posted some brief comments here.

Peikoff on being a good Objectivist (October 12, 2009) Q:I disagree with Ayn Rand on architecture as an art form and on the nature of masculinity and femininity, but I accept objective reality, reason, self-interest and capitalism. Am I still an Objectivist? Gee. I wonder why anyone would think that? Peikoff on the coming election (October 19, 2006) (This is a link to a prior post of the transcript. I don't think this podcast is still on Peikoff's website.) Q: In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents "for a change" is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall. I suppose being immoral and/or completely misunderstanding Objectivism are not exactly the same as "not being an Objectivist." In 2006, however, "bad" Peikoff was telling people that to vote one way was to be a "bad" Objectivist. In 2009, "good" Peikoff was saying to think for yourself, and if you're conscientious, no matter how you vote, you're still a "good" Objectivist (and not the least bit "immoral"). How to account for the difference? He got laid the night before in 2009? His doctor changed his medication? Who knows? It's just too bad Dr. Jekyll isn't running ARI.

Yeah, I heard Rand liked the sound of "The Spigot" better because of the engineering angle, but was dissuaded. And it would have made that poster look funny. Oliver Stone thought about using this for his remake. . . "Tell Them Johnny Wad is Here" (Hard to understand why the project got shelved.)

In Wallflower at the Orgy, Nora Ephron reportedly suggests that Rand intended the title to be a subliminal sexual metaphor. I'm sure there were plenty of people who saw this ad in the local paper and were decidedly disappointed to discover that the movie was about an upstart architect.

Ahem. Adam, fellow football fanatic that you are, you must be aware that, if Peyton (not Payton) goes to the 49ers, he and Eli will never meet in the Super Bowl. I won't insult your intelligence by explaining why. The truth is that he would undoubtedly prefer not to be in the same conference as his brother. As long as he remains in the AFC, Peyton will only be forced to embarrass and humiliate his dear sibling every 4 years. I suspect that's why he may end up signing with the Broncos.

An excerpt from Gary Weiss in Ayn Rand Nation: One more bit of evidence which underscores Branden's unprecedented success at spearheading a radically new ideological movement. Dennis (The Shameless Shill) Hardin

Jeez, even Rand didn't get that nasty in her attacks on Branden. Ghs LOL! Now that is an interesting take on the history of Objectivism since 'the break'.....

Where would Rand have published? Why would she have published? There are so many details of the history of Rand's post-Atlas writing which resulted from the existence of her relationship with Nathaniel and his founding an organization to teach her philosophy. Even prior to that, her choosing Random House as her publisher was significant to the subsequent history of Objectivism (not yet named that at the time) and might not have happened -- certainly the relationship with Bennett Cerf wouldn't have developed as it did -- if she hadn't moved to New York City (following Nathaniel there) before finishing Atlas. As to a "movement," she couldn't have spearheaded such a thing on her own, didn't have the temperament and skills for attempting to organize a "movement" -- and apparently, from her own report in "To Whom It May Concern," was ambivalent about the "movement" aspects. Ellen Excellent points, Ellen. In so many ways, Branden was the bridge from Rand's fiction to the real world. Since the break, Peikoff has been playing piggy-back. Without Branden, there would be no Peikoff.

You got Objectivism "through the Brandens." Which you came here first denigrating. Her "gift" to Nathaniel. Do you begin to understand how mixed up you are? Remember, Barbara's "35th" rate intellect? Do you begin to understand that you are insane? How can you make Rand any more than Rand made herself? Double nuts. --Brant She's going to do for Rand what Baudrillard did for Foucault. Making Rand more radical? I know. Let's change "existence exists" to "hyperreality simulates." That's our new axiom. Catchy, huh?