zantonavitch

Michael -- Is Asperger's Syndrome a real thing or just trendy psycho-babble? In what sense can Bob, you, and I be described as aspie? Seems pretty loose and rather an insult. I might be willing to accept the term misanthrope. I'm also curious as to what other Objectivists (or celebrities) you consider to be aspie, such as Rand, Branden, Kelley, and Peikoff.

Michael -- Well, I don't know what aspie means or who Bob is.

Michael -- What are the arguments for and against me being a toady? I'm very curious!

For anyone curious about my possibly catastrophically mistaken mini-essay on Kant, here it is: (from Pure Liberal Fire )

Wolf and Brant -- If you want to understand the best of neoliberal theory -- of the epistemology of reason, the ethics of individualism, and the politics of freedom, all cranked to infinity -- then those familiar books are the best ones I know. I still claim, however, that new neoliberal philosophies will eventually emerge, separate from Rand.

Stephen -- What a list! Stunning. I'll try to get back to you in a day or two in some fashion.

A bibliography, or recommended reading list, might indeed be a good idea. Altho' I probably can't come up with one for each short essay. A quick one from me now would be: For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand, The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand, The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden, My Years with Ayn Rand by Nathaniel Branden, Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller, and Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns.

The cosmos is consistent with itself, and doesn't contradict or attack itself. Thus it's a type of friend to itself, poetically speaking, and humans are entirely and naturally a part of this cosmos. Humans evolved to function very well inside the current universe, so the cosmos can be fairly said to be generally friendly and benevolent towards us.

Mikee -- Thanks for the compliments, and for checking out my radical new book! In philosophical terms, people today are virtually all right-wing conservatives or left-wing progressives or some combination of these two. Or else they reject philosophy altogether as empty doubletalk and/or pernicious nonsense, both of which will make you less happy if you follow it -- not more. So they just guide their life with a handful of related aphorisms. Still...even these guys are secretly right-wing or left-wing, in my opinion. What's sad is that the up-wing isn't known to them. They aren't aware that there's a third option. The Right says believe in god, and self-sacrifice to it, and have a welfare state to coerce this. The Left says believe in the collective, and self-sacrifice to it, and have a welfare state to coerce this. But pretty much no-one says believe in yourself, and live for your own greatness and happiness, and have a liberal state to allow this. Ayn Rand considerably improved upon the liberal Greco-Romans, Renaissance/Enlightenment intellectuals, and the Austrian economic thinkers. Objectivism is a massively well-worked-out philosophy which is the most liberal thought-system to date!

What are the two or three things which are most false about it? I know the subject of Kant is enormously complex. Perhaps you can also provide some internet links where a better analysis of his thought is found.

We can never have too many Objectivist catfights!

Don't miss out on the fun, folks! Order today!

Have no fear: Good is stronger than evil. Truth is stronger than ignorance and lies. Even the Zarathustrans of the 500s BC knew this. Optimism and confidence about mankind and the future, along these lines, isn't pollyanna -- it's fact.

Stephen -- Many thanks for the various compliments! The title and cover is based on "truth in advertising." I certainly don't feel it much when I write, but most people tell me I have a firebrand style when it comes to discussing/debating/elucidating the issues. I think "forewarned is forearmed," so hopefully no-one is too shocked when they read thru Pure Liberal Fire. My only real sense of being a ferocious and fiery discussant is the recognition that I usually have the most fun reading and listening to radicals, polemicists, and my presumably-fellow firebrands. I enjoy Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens on the Left, as well as Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan on the Right -- arguably a Murderer's Row of the rude, crude, obnoxious, and offensively self-indulgent! ;-) It may be the case that "pure liberalism" is long-term, devastatingly powerful when uninflected and uncapitalized. This soft-spoken concept may ravish and destroy right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism, in culture and politics, as is my goal. Of course, you have a point, and my usage makes the idea harder to follow and perhaps even trust. I see the philosophy, and derivative culture, of liberalism as having existed for almost 2600 years, with conservativism and progressivism as being failures and deviations from truth and Aristotle's Golden Mean. Unlike Rand, I have a mostly extremely low opinion of the mass-man. Still, I think pure evil doesn't really exist -- especially not in humans. The hoi polloi can always be controlled and manipulated. Later in the book I create a Paradise out of nothing but Hitlers, Stalins, Maos, Khomeinis, and Osamas! Profound truth seems to sometimes be paradoxical, and to contradict common sense. Nothing like what is claimed by Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel -- still, it sometimes happens. Truly aggressive and unjustified killers do exist and need to be summarily destroyed. Indeed, truly malicious, aggressive, and unjustified intellectual killers exist as well, and need to be summarily intellectually destroyed. The facts that tragically disappear forever into the mist of time and chaos might be recovered if there was a recording device functioning then, as from a superior space alien. Just some partial answers to your comments, Stephen! Philosophy has many hard, cold, clear truths in it; but many times it's a rich subject full of many interpretations and speculations.

I think calling Peikoff, Schwartz, Binswanger, Brook, etc. "orthodox" surrenders the argument and philosophy to these deviants. I find them immensely unorthodox -- mere Nazi and Talibani perverts in their "philosophic" approach. And "unpleasant" hardly describes the phenomenon. They can't or won't converse at all. I'm unfailingly courteous, respectful, and friendly to them, yet they flee. I'm perfectly willing to let them win all the arguments, and agree with them on everything, if only they won't run away. But no such luck. All I ever "do" to them is modestly decline to self-censor or veer off-topic. But that seems to be enough. For all my soft, hesitant, genial conversation, and encouragement of them to continue on, they seem to regard me as a relentless destroyer who slowly but surely picks them and their arguments to pieces until there's nothing left of them, intellectually or spiritually. What the hell?

Neil -- You write that: But when do the religious "Objectivists" ever discuss the issues, or answer various questions, from knowledgeable interlocutors? It seems rare or non-existent. They avoid and evade competent disputants like vampires fear the sun and cockroaches flee the light. There seem to be zero cultists and ARIan-types on Objectivist Living, Rebirth of Reason, and Solo Passion. They seem to find the relative lack of censorship intolerable, and personally unbearable. I recently posted comments on the blogs of the pathetic religiosos Peter Schwartz, Robert Tracinski, and Ron Pisaturo. All were deleted. These vermin censor ("moderate") to an extreme. When have you ever had a proper or legitimate discussion with them, Neil? I never have. And I've tried to infinity, employing faultless courtesy, respect, and friendliness (none of which they actually merit). I'd be interested in hearing if you, or anyone else, has ever had any success with any of the cultists discussing anything.

For the most part, cultboy vermin Harry Binswanger is too foolish and depraved to argue with. That's why he never discusses the issues with real Objectivists, or with persons who are at least partially well-informed about libertarianism and Objectivism. He always hides inside his weirdo cult compound and behind his mommy's filthy bathrobe -- where he belongs. He only "debates" with fellow zombies and hapless, defenseless, ultra-ignorant, conservo-progressive dolts. But even in a purely libertarian world, Binswanger would be wrong about immigration. It's far worse now that America and the Western nations are all democratic and welfare statist. Gov'ts are private organizations based upon a social compact or joint contract. State founders and on-going citizens have the right to create a nation with few or no immigrants. It's their country. Anyone who doesn't like it shouldn't live there. Foreigners have no right to abrogate their constitution or laws relevant to immigration. Freedom of association forbids it. Moreover, political rights aren't civil liberties. Foreigners have no right of trespass or invasion. Once a foreigner visits he necessarily comes under the monitoring, protection, and authority of the local gov't, whose laws he must obey, and whose functioning he must fund. He has no freedom or right to decline either. And by Binswanger's open-immigration logic, how is keeping out "criminals" not a violation of their rights, since they presumably already paid for their crime? And having a disease isn't a crime for which people should be made to suffer or lose rights protection. And would-be jihadis haven't done anything wrong yet and shouldn't be convicted of "thought crime." So why does he advocate violating the individual rights of these three groups? Binswanger would flood America with socialists, altruists, religiosos, and third-world barbarians. He favors virtually limitless trespass and invasion by merciless and powerful enemies -- by hordes of freedom-haters, America-haters, and ruthless destroyers of civilization. Nice!

I find this story shocking and wholly unexpected. Who knew the fascist Thought Police of America had this much power? And how soon before America has an Iranian-style Morality Police as well? Where is freedom of speech in all of this? And property rights? Aren't the Redskins a business worth well over $500 million? I think paying that high a price gives the owners the right to name their business anything they want. And when will the real bigotry of "affirmative action" finally be stopped? To see this issue clearly people need to realize that not only do all individuals have the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and Privacy, but also to, so to speak, Bigotry, Stupidity, and Depravity. Such behavior may be profoundly socially immoral, but your life is your own, to do with as you wish, so long as you don't attack people and property. Under freedom you're allowed to be "anti-social," and a "hater," and to "hurt people's feelings" all day long! The purpose of gov't is to protect life, liberty, property, and privacy -- not to make us morally good.

This is an irrational, illiberal Dark Age. So Americans and Westerners are intellectual primitives too. And that may include you, since you probably don't know Austrian, libertarian, and Objectivist theory as well as you should. The point is: people aren't monkeys. Or at least not permanent ones. They can learn. In many respects, one can teach the Non-Initiation of Force Principle in less than 5 minutes. Even to Iraqis! Of course...teaching it to welfare-state brain-washed, and thus permanently purblind, right-wing conservatives and left-wing progressives may be another matter.

Most educated and historically-aware people would have said the same of the fascist and tyranny-loving Germans and Japanese after WW II. But however philosophically and culturally debased current Muslims are -- and no-one has a lower opinion of them and their dominant ideology than me -- they're still human beings. They still have a powerful natural affinity for liberty and justice, as well as for the financial and spiritual riches these two yield. If America had set up an early 1800s-style capitalist state in Iraq and Afghanistan (but with equal rights for all races, sexes, creeds, etc.), and then enforced it for a decade or so, these guys today would be more libertarian than Americans! Naive and Libertarian-influenced Objectivists frequently say "you can't force freedom down people's throats," and "you can't force people to be free." Yes, you can.

The fundamental problem here is that after America conquered Afghanistan in 2002, and Iraq in 2003, the American gov't failed to set up some sort of quasi-libertarian or Western-type state, as it did with Germany and Japan in 1945. Rather, the U.S. set up a socialist, shariaist, anti-American, monster state hated and rejected by the locals. America chose the side of tyranny -- and now loudly blames the current disaster on "sectarianism," and quietly blames it on their poor Muslim culture. But when it comes to foreign policy, America is largely a scumbag, pro-slavery nation. That's the problem.

What will it be based on?

Nah. I'm a clear-eyed, hard-bitten, ultra-cynical realist. But man ascends. And I know how and why.

That is patently false and does not address what the founders addressed in terms of the nature of man and citizens. No, it's entirely true. The Founding Fathers were grossly wrong about the nature of man and citizen, and many other political things. Especially Thomas Jefferson who supposedly said: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." And James Madison [Federalist Papers #51] who said: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." But being forever agitated isn't the solution. And men's moral imperfection isn't the problem. The answer to everything is correct political theory. This isn't "naive utopianism" at all. For the record: No-one has a lower opinion of the mass-man than myself. I agree with Horace who said: "I loathe the ignorant masses, and I keep them away from me." But even they defer to truth if it is the truth. America's constitutional framers lacked it. Rand possessed it. Anyway, the masses don't rule -- not even in a democracy. The intellectual elite do. Once they figure out the non-initiation of force principle, that will terminate the discussion and problem. Yes, forever. Read it and weep. Good is stronger than evil. Truth is more powerful than ignorance and lies. Humans progress. None of this is naive or utopian. It's the nature of reality.

Once liberty and justice are established for real -- based on the childishly-obvious non-initiation of force principle -- it will last. Forever. Mankind won't be intellectually or morally perfect then; but the governmental and legal system will be. Politics will be a problem solved, never to trouble us again.