Nicholas Dykes
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Nicholas Dykes
-
-
As far as The Ominous Parallels is concerned, I think this review by David Gordon, while a bit harsh, is basically correct:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon13.html
When it comes to Peikoff's sources, the ones I've checked don't inspire confidence. And take for example his sneer against Cassirer -- he was Jewish and left Nazi Germany soon after the Nazis took power.
-NEIL
____
Thanks for the ref. to the D.Gordon review, Neil. I'd not read it. Nicholas.
-
**Ominous Parallels**
> "The Ominous Parallels" is in many respects a brilliant book, full of lots of insights - about the history of ideas and how they spread, about how dictatorships are sustained and spread, about intellectual trends in many countries.
I'm currently going through the first few chapters. Here are some excerpts -- some are inspiring (about America - as the nation of the Englightenment), some are insightful about how thinkers influence a culture and which ones have been important.
[page references are from the mentor paperback, isbn 0-451-62210-3]
<> [free will vs. historical determinism #1] "In the face of military ruin, economic strangulation, or governmental collapse, men may choose to investigate the disaster's causes and to discover a more rational course of action for the future, i.e, they may choose to think. Or they may choose to hate, or to pray, or to beg, or to kill. On such matters, the crisis itself is silent." [p.20]
<> [free will vs. historical determinism #2 - in regard to America's choices] "Our future, as far as one can judge, is still indeterminate."
<> "If we view the West's philosophic development in terms of essentials, three fateful turning points stand out, three major philosophers who, above all others, are responsible for generating the disease of collectivism and transwmitting it to the dictators of our century. The three are: Plato - Kant - Hegel .... Plato is the father of collectivism in the West...." [p. 26]
Peikoff's claim above is very essentialized. He does not deny the existence of other factors and other thinkers, but he goes on to explain throughout the book in point after point, issue after issue...why these three are the "big guns".
How they were widely read in German schools, were quoted by the Nazis and/or by those whom the Nazis admired. And so on.
He builds a pretty detailed case. And adduces very relevant evidence - lots of quotes, etc.
Phillip
I don't have a copy of Ominous Parallels, but it would be interesting to know if Peikoff cites Popper at all. For, in The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper names Plato as the first enemy, Hegel and Marx as the others. He doesn't accuse Kant, naturally enough, Kantianism being one of the twin supporting pillars of Popper's own philosophy, Critical Rationalism. Peikoff would have found a real arsenal of ammo against Plato, tho, in OSE.
BTW, this is an incredibly erudite website!
Nicholas Dykes
-
Ted,
The section of OPAR on arbitrary assertions is more developed than any other discussion of "the arbitrary" in print. More developed isn't the same as better developed.
If you compare Leonard Peikoff's treatment with Nathaniel Branden's 1963 article on agnosticism, which was the first published treatment of arbitrary assertions, you'll discover a lot more detail in OPAR, and claims far more extreme than Branden was making. You'll also find Dr. Peikoff contradicting himself. At one point, he contradicts himself within a single paragraph.
The doctrine of the arbitrary assertion is peculiar because Ayn Rand never mentioned it in any article published while she was alive, and has been quoted on the subject only once in any posthumous publication (the appendix to ITOE). Yet she approved Nathaniel Branden's 1963 article, and later gave endorsement to Leonard Peikoff's 1976 lectures (which were close to OPAR in their account of "the arbitrary," just missing a couple of baroque details).
Paul,
One should read OPAR in order to understand Leonard Peikoff. For instance, his Parmenidean tendencies are starkly on display in parts of it. But Ayn Rand doesn't seem to have been nearly so Parmenidean herself.
The book is the only published source for some of the good ideas in Dr. Peikoff's lectures. But many others failed to make it in. I really wonder whether he didn't slash his treatment of perception so no one would be reminded of David Kelley's work. Or whether his old reminder that human beings aren't "Aquinas's angels" was deemed likely to impede the swift rationalistic currents in OPAR.
But if you want to understand the world, and how we human beings function in it, there are lots better sources than OPAR. You can't get an adequate epistemology out of Peikovian Parmenideanism.
Nick,
I thought your review was on target in many respects (including Dr. Peikoff's unwillingness to come to grips with anarchism), but too easy on the book overall.
Robert Campbell
Robert,
I agree with your latter comment, and appreciate the former. Thanks. As to the latter, I wrote that review over a dozen years ago. I've read and learned a lot more since, so would probably be more critical nowadays. I do find our Lennie a most exasperating fellow. He obviously has ability, but seems to lack sound judgement, prudence, practical wisdom and common sense! Anyhow, ainsi soit-il. Nowt I can do 'bout it. Nick
-
My objection to Ominous Parallels is its philosophical determinism and its hysterical predictions of an impending Christian dictatorship. That is why the "parallels" are so "ominous." The book was published at a time when Rand was judging Ronald Reagan as a threat to liberty based entirely on his stated position on abortion. She literally claimed that all one needed to know about him was his abortion stance in order to pronounce a full and final judgment on him. Peikoff still retains this paranoia, look at his support for a straight democrat ticket and his "reasons" for it.
This thread started with my review of Peikoff's O:TPOAR. I never did review The Ominous Parallels, but I think I would have come to similar conclusions about it: a bit of a curate's egg; iffy, but with some excellent parts. If I recall correctly, there was a good review in a Chicago paper, calling it a curious mix of scholarship and Objectivist rant. One excellent bit I remember was the analysis of concentration camp policy, the goal being to destroy the minds of prisoners so that they became truly robotic slave labor.
The basic problem with our Lennie seems to be lack of consistent judgement. He is capable of very good work, but then a 'red mist' descends and he goes off all over the place like a firework rocket without its stick. I have a certain sympathy. Being Ayn Rand's 'best student and chosen heir' must be an incredible burden. One can't blame him for being who he is. It's just a tragedy that Rand didn't cast her net a little wider, or perhaps spread the load. I can think of others with broader intellectual shoulders who would have born the burden better. Nicholas Dykes
-
Nicholas, I had to remember Donne's poem in my senior high school Enlish class. We memorized a poem a week, including my favorites, Ozymandias and Caedmon's Hymn. I hated Donne then, but am much more sympathetic now.
Ozymandias
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart....Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
Caedmon's Hymn: West Saxon Version
Nu sculon herigean heofonrices weard,
meotodes meahte and his modgeþanc,
weorc wuldorfæder, swa he wundra gehwæs,
ece drihten, or onstealde.
He ærest sceop eorðan bearnum
heofon to hrofe, halig scyppend;
þa middangeard moncynnes weard,
ece drihten, æfter teode
firum foldan, frea ælmihtig.
I love Ozymandias too, Ted, but Caedmon? Yeah for scholarship, but what's it ~mean~?!
Nicholas
-
First, the quote is Terence: "I am a man. I hold nothing human to be alien to me." Here at wikipedia. (FYI, the easiest way to find a quick translation for such quotes is to Google them.)
Second, argument is being used in a special logical-linguistic sense. An argument of a verb or a predicate is any phrase (implicit or explicit) that modifies it. To die has a necessary one-term argument, the subject. To give has a necessary three term argument, the subject and direct and indirect objects. One does not simply "give." Somebody gives something to someone. Likewise, one does not simply lie, just as one does simply die. Someone lies to someone about something.
According to ItOE, (sorry, no citation, it's in storage) the analytic-synthetic dichotomy is denied because all concepts have an infinite number of arguments that apply to them. Man is not just the rational animal. He is the rational animal who Xsub1, Xsub2, Xsub3,. These arguments are implicit and perhaps not yet even known. Most fallacies and "Big Lies" rely on keeping silent any inconvenient arguments. The "Bush lied" statement becomes banal when one makes it fully explicit. To whom did he lie? About what? And, one must ask, did not his audience know exactly the same facts he did? Rand used the method of making arguments explicit all the time: "For what?" "By whom" "By what right?" "For whose benefit?" "At what cost?" "They oughta..." - "Who oughta?" "Why?"
Some languages allow arguments to be left implicit. Russian and Latin allow commands without objects - "give!" - while English in the same case requires the verb's objects to be stated: "give it to me." (Some languages require that verbs always be marked to show their subject, object, and direct object. These langaues make evasion difficult!) Only in colloquialisms and child talk do we hear "gimme!" Political speech with suppressed arguments is the preferred method of smuggling in premises that would be unacceptable if they were explicit. Orwell's Newspeak was designed to expose the nature of such so-called thought.
Thanks Ted. The Terence quote reminds me of Donne's "any man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind." One doesn't have to agree with Donne's sentiments to love his eloquence.
On the other stuff, cogito! Nicholas
-
If you say that all judgments are subjective you could simply mean that they are the judgments of some person, and hence are personal. This is not what those who say that all judgments are subjective mean. They want to smuggle in the notion that because all judgments are personal, they are like "opinions," not "true for everyone." It may be true for "you" but it's not true for me. This has many problems. Opinions are not truly universal statements, but this lack of universality is not a lack of objective truth. "Vanilla tastes better than chocolate" is sloppy shorthand for "vanilla tastes better than chocolate to me." This fuller statement is indeed either objectively true or false. The person who claims that all judgments are subjective is simply a sloppy thinker who leaves unstated arguments of the verb unstated.
An argument of a verb is any portion of a predicate, such as the subject, direct object, indirect object, and any adverbial phrases which are true, whether implicit or explicit. Every verb has an infinite number of true but implicit arguments. But we only make certain ones explicit. Usually this is a matter of economy. But consider the vicious phrase "Bush lied." To whom? About what? Why? When? If one makes the accusation more fully explicit, Bush "lied" to a congress that had the same knowledge as he... then the banality of the phrase becomes apparent. If one thinks clearly and makes the necessary arguments of the verb explicit, every statement becomes objectively true or false. (Statements where the arguments are not (possibly) made explicit are, for the most part, arbitrary.)
One can only steal concepts when one ignores the true but implicit arguments of the verb.
Sorry Ted, but this went over my head. Verbs convey actions to me, passive or active, they don't convey arguments. I'm afraid my Latin's not much cop either. Homo sum, etc, what does it mean? I am a man ...??
-
Nicholas,
You said:
However, I think Rand deserves the credit for identifying the fallacy and naming it, and NB for making it public. It is a very valuable tool to have in one's kit. E.g., the common assertion that all ethical judgements are subjective falls flat because it is not possible to identify something as subjective without the prior concept of the objective.Even if we've only identified examples of the stolen concept before Rand, I find it hard to imagine that she was the first to idetify it. It's really just a version of begging the question.
-NEIL
____
Neil,
Re 'subjective', see my responses to Dragonfly below.
I believe, without being 100% certain, that the Rand/Branden article in The O'ist Newsletter back in January 1963 was the first time that the fallacy of employing a concept while simultaneously denying the conditions which make that concept possible was specifically identified as such. The fallacy was also named 'stolen concept' in that article. That other philosophers may have anticipated Rand on this issue, i.e. Stirner, doesn't diminish the originality of the Rand/Branden contribution. As far as I know, other philosophers did not spell the fallacy out, identify it clearly, and give it a name.
Begging the question -- assuming in a first premise what you set out to prove, as in the famous Ontological Argument for the existence of God -- is surely not the same issue. Or, more precisely, if it is, I can't see it!
How are things in New England? I lived in Montreal for a while and later in Ottawa, and the thing I loved most was visiting Vermont, Maine and upper NY state on the weekends.
Nicholas
-
Sorry, I don't understand you. Your implication does not seem to follow from what I said. The statement 'all ethical judgements are subjective' doesn't assert or deny the existence of objective judgments elsewhere.
Well, in that case there is nothing wrong with that statement. There is a prior concept of the objective. It just doesn't apply to some areas, such as ethics or artistic taste.
Yeah, sorry, I made a mistake, foggy brained with sleepiness! I shouldn't have put 'ethical'. It should have read 'all judgements are subjective' which does involve a stolen concept. However, is the assertion 'all ~ethical~ judgements are subjective' -- as an universal affirmative proposition -- an ~objective~ judgement, hence self-contradictory? But leave that, my main reason for contributing was to point out Stirner's astute observation.
-
However, I think Rand deserves the credit for identifying the fallacy and naming it, and NB for making it public. It is a very valuable tool to have in one's kit. E.g., the common assertion that all ethical judgements are subjective falls flat because it is not possible to identify something as subjective without the prior concept of the objective.
That's a non sequitur. The statement that all ethical judgements are subjective does not imply that there are no objective statements.
Sorry, I don't understand you. Your implication does not seem to follow from what I said. The statement 'all ethical judgements are subjective' doesn't assert or deny the existence of objective judgments elsewhere. But perhaps I'm not thinking clearly. It's past midnight here and I'm off to bed. 'Night. Nicholas
-
I think you're at least partly right Neil, because although Proudhon was a communist anarchist he was not entirely opposed to private property. I think he was referring to landed property, which in Europe was intitially acquired by conquest, hence stolen. As you say, though, I think he was mostly aiming to be controversial with a view to making people think. Nicholas.
-
Ba'al,
That all sounds very Kantian.
I prefer David Kelley's view, presented in The Evidence of the Senses, that we directly perceive entities. Our machines, telescopes and microscopes, merely enable us to see farther or deeper, but what we observe are still objective entities.
If we were only aware of our own sense impressions, as you seem to suggest, we would be condemned to solipsism, as Antony Flew pointed out a long time ago.
For the record. I discuss this matter in my recent book.
Nicholas Dykes
-
With reference to the 'stolen concept', another who anticipated Rand was the German Max Stirner, in his book The Ego and Its Own. He wrote that if all property is theft -- the Proudhon example used by Nathaniel Branden in his TON article -- then no well-founded objection could be made against theft.
However, I think Rand deserves the credit for identifying the fallacy and naming it, and NB for making it public. It is a very valuable tool to have in one's kit. E.g., the common assertion that all ethical judgements are subjective falls flat because it is not possible to identify something as subjective without the prior concept of the objective.
Nicholas Dykes
-
As a recently joined member, I'm not sure what the etiquette is on OL, but I'd just like to point out to Darrell that I'm usually Nicholas or Nick among friends.
I also think one should in general be a bit more cautious about accusations of biased writing or prejudice. My review of Peikoff's book was one of the early things I wrote after a long absence from O'ism. I would probably write it very differently today. However, I think my criticisms were fair. If you'll excuse the name-dropping, David Kelley certainly thought so, he wrote to me on the matter at the time. I also think I was fair to Peikoff. His book is an excellent summary of Rand's thought and a very useful reference book. I would recommend it to Paul and to anybody else.
As to anarchism, calling it a form of statism popularised by Karl Marx, as Peikoff did, is remarkably silly. I said so then and think so now. My judgement had nothing to do with any convictions of my own. When I wrote the Peikoff review I had not long started to read about anarchism and had no convictions about it, merely that sense of excitement which comes to all explorers when they come across something new. As it was, at the time, I was too busy exploring the work of Karl Popper -- about whom I published a major study in 1996 -- to think about anarchism.
If Darrell or anybody else would like a debate, I've been waiting ten years for an O'ist to tell me what is wrong with my essay 'Mrs Logic and the Law'. I love Ayn Rand, and have done since 1963. But love and admiration should not stop one from thinking.
One last point, I suffer from chronic pain due to a medical mistake. Managing the pain absorbs a lot of energy. I mention this merely to apologise for the over-critical tone, or sharpness, which sometimes creeps into my writing unawares.
Nicholas (Dykes)
-
Hi Ellen,
Thanks for your sympathetic comment. But the pain clinic in Wales really did help enormously, and basically I've gotten so good at not thinking about the pain -- by focussing outside -- that it is nowhere near as dominating as it used to be.
Skip the 'old' that was just a reference to my book, Old Nick's Guide to Happiness.
As for John Ridpath -- and acknowledging the interesting comments made by others -- I can only repeat what John told me in 1969-70 (or perhaps it was the winter of 1970-71): that AR had had an affair with NB. John was absolutely blunt, even adamant: I can still see him standing in front of me. It was one of those moments you never forget. I was so shocked. I was still in my 20s and shockable. But it was the way he told the story, and the detail, which made it so convincing. It also explained NB's mysterious comment at the end of 'response to AR'. And of course it was all revealed in TPOAR in 1986, pretty much exactly the way John described it. ~How~ he knew, I've no idea. What I do know is that his revelation led me to buy NB's books. I've got them here with me as I write: The P. of S-E, Nash, LA, with 'Nicholas Dykes, Dec. 1970' written on the flyleaf (so perhaps it was 70-71); as well as Breaking Free and The Disowned Self, both from Nash, the latter dated as bought in 1972.
Anyhow, it's only a minor historical detail. Nothing was changed by it except my life! Thank you John! BTW, I've had no contact with him since, that's nearly 40 years. My oh my. Best, Nicholas
-
I stumbled upon this webpage earlier today. The author is a professor in the Department of Philosophy, Los Angeles Valley College. An interesting aside is his uncle and father started and grew the Kelly Blue Book that gives information on used car prices.
I wasn't sure what category to put it in. The owner(s) can move it if desired.
This article contains so many half-truths and inaccuracies that I'd be inclined to dump it. The problem is, the other halves of the half-truths are issues that Objectivist philosophers seriously need to deal with. Objectivism -- in it's truly ~philosophical~ manifestation -- often seems to me like fragments from some Ancient Greek philosopher we know little about: tantalising glimpses of something great but not yet realised. The basics are sound, but to be truly persuasive at the ~philosophical level~ we need to be expounding our ideas with the rigour, clarity and detail of a Brand Blanshard. There is so much work to be done, but, as far as I am aware -- after long years of absence I admit -- there seem to be so few people doing it. Nicholas Dykes.
-
I'm really lost here. This blank space has suddenly opened up after repeated proddings, so I'll write a reply.
I've been trying to say thank you to Barbara, Paul, Don and others who responded to my Seismic Shock and book posts, but haven't seemed able to do so. Perhaps it's because I live out in the boonies in England and our 19th century copper wire telephone system is slow to respond.
Anyhow, John Ridpath, when young, was a very forthright fellow who warmly recommended (horror of horrors) Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy and State -- and, if memory serves correctly -- said it was better than Human Action. I can see his face in front of me now as he told my shocked self about Rand's affair with NB. He seemed completely unfazed about it, as if it was common knowledge.
As I recall, I didn't really discuss the issue with anybody else at the time, I left TO shortly thereafter, but what Ridpath's revelation did do was free me to read NB's books. Those around at the time will recall that Rand had said, 'if you have anything to do with NB, don't have anything to do with me.' But once I knew she was just as prone as the rest of us to make mistakes I said to myself 'I'll read what I like, thank you very much' and that was that.
I might add that I had many opportunities to go to NBI before the Break, but the stories I heard from friends who'd been there about Rand's tantrums during Question Time made me stay away. I was sure I'd be the one who'd ask the 'dumb' question that would set her off! I don't really regret not going, even after all these years. I prefered then, and still prefer now, my unstated, unacknowledged, unrequited affection for the writer behind those marvellous books.
Buenas noches amigos y amigas, Nicholas
-
Welcome, Nicholas!
You have joined a pretty friendly group here. Not that we're immune from squabbling, or that we never get into psychologizing to analyze the motivations and REAL MEANINGS of the postings of others. But I think you will find OL to overall be an extremely benevolent place.
Come on in, browse (there's lots of fascinating content in the old posts - check it out!) and post in areas of interest. It's always fun when someone posts on an interesting thread which has been dead for six months or longer and brings it back to our attention.
There are some seriously bright people here - I've been pleased at how much there is to learn.
Bill P (Alfonso)
-
Welcome, Nicholas!
You have joined a pretty friendly group here. Not that we're immune from squabbling, or that we never get into psychologizing to analyze the motivations and REAL MEANINGS of the postings of others. But I think you will find OL to overall be an extremely benevolent place.
Come on in, browse (there's lots of fascinating content in the old posts - check it out!) and post in areas of interest. It's always fun when someone posts on an interesting thread which has been dead for six months or longer and brings it back to our attention.
There are some seriously bright people here - I've been pleased at how much there is to learn.
Bill P (Alfonso)
-
Several people have asked if Old Nick's Guide to Happiness by Nicholas Dykes is available in the US of A.
I apologise for being slow to answer. A) we're having a lot of problems with email locally here in the UK; B) I haven't been on a website for many years and I'm having a bit of difficulty finding my way around.
Yes: the book is available, but only via airmail from the UK as yet. We're working on a US publication, but...
In the meantime, the book is rather expensive due to the cost of airmail postage. If you can bear US$35 including postage and packaging please contact Nicholas on lbp2008@ereal.net with your details. (The first letter is an L, as in LBP, for Lathe Biosas Publishing.)
The good news is that my website is now up and running, though not though Google: one has to wait several weeks while they check everything. The site is still in the course of development and will have much more information soon. Click on
http://www.oldnicksguidetohappiness.co.uk to see how far we've gotten. If you can't get through, email me and I'll send it to you. I know it works when clicking from an email.
Best wishes, Nicholas Dykes
-
INTRODUCING MYSELF
BY NICHOLAS DYKES
I enjoyed reading Don Grimme’s introduction of his ‘semi-Objectivist’ self, so, as another newcomer to Objectivist Living, and as another hemi-semi-demi Objectivist, I thought I might emulate him.
I was born in England in 1942. Looking back now over my life, it seems to have consisted of a series of seismic events – that is, periods of relative normality interrupted by violent shocks which sent me shooting off in new directions.
Seismic Shock #1 (SS1) was being sent to a Roman Catholic boarding school at the age of seven. Ten years later I was set free, but the experience of those years left me, though not immediately, with a great positive – the desire to find truth – and a great negative: an abiding hatred of religion in general and of Roman Catholicism in particular.
SS2 occurred in Montreal, in 1963. After some restless years in various jobs in the UK, I had emigrated to Canada. One Sunday morning, I picked a little book off a friend’s bookshelf. It was called Anthem, by Ayn Rand. I’d never heard of either. That afternoon, in a state of huge excitement, I read it again. Next day, I got Atlas Shrugged out of the public library. You can presumably guess the rest of that story.
SS3 came in Toronto in the winter of 1969-70. I was at a meeting of a little group called Radicals for Capitalism. I was discussing The Break with an academic called John Ridpath. I told him how shocked I had been by what I thought was Nathaniel Branden’s insinuation – in his response to “To whom it may Concern” – that Rand had wanted to pursue a romantic relationship with someone 25 years her junior. Ridpath assured me that I was wrong, there had been an affair. He, who had been a minor member of The Collective, then proceeded to provide me with sufficient detail to make his case entirely convincing.
I was shattered. I felt betrayed and misled by Rand. The idol had feet of clay. I let my subscription to the Ayn Rand Letter lapse (I didn’t like it much anyway) and started to read Nathaniel’s books. I found them immensely helpful. So much so that I produced an Intensive for him in Toronto in 1979.
SS4 happened in Vancouver in 1982 when I got dumped by a girl (whom I’d met at the Intensive). Horrible experience. I decided to go cool my heels back in England for a while. Met another girl. She didn’t want to live in Canada, and before long I had everything I thought I’d never have: a wife, two kids, a red brick semi and a mortgage.
SS5 was illness, in 1992. Incurable spinal problems. Had to retire from my profession as a freelance business writer. Brilliant wife took over the family finances as I lay in a series of hospital beds. Started a business of her own, and – hallelujah – turned out to be infinitely better at making money than I ever was. Huge success. Me, I went back to philosophy.
SS6 was another book I’d never heard of: The Enterprise of Law by Bruce Benson, lent to me by a friend in 1993. A whole new world of ideas opened up.
SS7 was a month spent at a superb pain clinic in Wales in 1996 where they taught me how to walk again and how to manage the pain I was stuck with. I wrote a poem about it, if anybody likes poetry. It’s published on Peter St Andre’s online Monadnock Review. It’s called “On Mynydd Troed.”
SS8 was the destruction of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001. To me, at the time, it felt almost like the end of the world itself. I spent a week in hell, then decided to do something about it – an effort of my own to try and stop the madness. The end result is my book, Old Nick’s Guide to Happiness: A Philosophical Novel, published just a few days ago, on July 15 2008. Whether that turns out to be Seismic Shock # 9 remains to be seen.
Another view of Leonard Peikoff
in News
Posted
Ludwig von Mises wrote interestingly on this topic in ~Omnipotent Government~.
Nicholas