RightJungle

I’m going to answer your argument first, Michael. One thing, though. If these answers indicate that I’ve misunderstood the direction of your argument, please say so. You said: I concede that bullying is one of many activities in which humans engage. First, let’s see if we could agree to the definition of Government. Since I don’t believe in re-inventing the wheel (and since I’m not all that creative left to my own devises) I will quote from Branden’s lecture series: “A government is an agency that is tasked with formulating and enforcing the laws of a country. A country is a geographical territory inhabited by men who observe a common code of laws administered by the government. A law in this context is a rule of action pertaining to the relationship with men inhabiting the same country.” I’m going to follow Ayn Rand’s lead by asking, “Do human beings need a government?” My answer is that where two or more men are gathered together, there is a need for government. “Why do men need a government?” Because even if every citizen living in that country was fully rational, none of them would be omniscient or omnipotent and, therefore, disagreements can arise. You said: Who will enforce the conclusions of arbitration? Will the “anarchist’s dream of competing police forces” take care of that? An analogy is called for. Mary the seamstress has agreed to hem Michael’s new trousers. She neglects to take good measurements and returns the trousers to Michael, but they are three inches too short. Michael heads over to Mary’s place of business and demands that she reimburse him for the loss. Mary refuses saying their contract made no mention of finished length. Michael declares that his police force will collect what Mary owes him. Mary declares that the only police force whose authority she recognizes is her own – she has a right to make that decision on the basis of the existence of “the free market of competing police forces.” What do you think will happen next? You said: Michael, you just gave your own answer to “Do human beings need a government?” Dan, you said: There’s a Jefferson quote about men who fear the government and governments that fear their citizens. The thrust of Objectivism’s political philosophy is that a country needs to be defined as a Constitutional Republic based on this short definition of a proper government taken from Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged: “The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman acting as an agency of man’s self defense and as such may resort to force only against those that start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police to protect you from criminals, the army to protect you from foreign invaders and the courts to protect your property and contracts from breech or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules according to objective law.” It is those rational rules according to objective law that make the matter complex (but not impossible). Our country needs to close the constitutional loop holes through which the statists started changing the nature of America’s government. In addition, we need to replace the non-objective garbage pile of legislation and regulation with a complex system of laws that will keep us free by applying this well known principle of Objectivism: “The government can make no laws which initiate the use of physical force against anyone.” Dan, have I responded well enough to your statement that “The argument is more about whether government is the only or best way of doing these things -- and the anarchist would here, as expected, believe government is neither the only nor the best way of doing these things.”? Can there be any doubt that a government instituted among men by the consent of the governed is the only objective way?

Floating abstraction is not the problem with Corruption and Crime. These concepts do refer to existents in reality. Having slept since my last post, I can see that my argument is with the definition of the problem, not with these concepts themselves. Corruption does exist within the many levels of government. This concept does describe the ultimate effect of what Collectivism + Altruism will achieve. I just don't think that this concept describes the fundamental conflict between the current form of the U.S. government and the form that was sought by the Founding Fathers. Crime also exists. If Beck's goal is to demonstrate that the action of the players on his "Crime Inc." diagram could be prosecuted under the high crime of treason, I will stop whining about that diagram. The fact is that investing in Petrobras is not criminal. Getting rich is not criminal. Even trying to influence the use of Presidential or Congressional power is not criminal. I appreciate Beck's exposure of all of these relationships between America's internal enemies and the executive orders, laws and regulations created by our government because we need to know and understand the ends being achieved. If Beck hired me to help design his show, I would hang up a poster with the basic problem definition (Capitalism + Egoism vs. Collectivism + Altruism) and then insure that evey day, before the show ends, he relates what he has exposed to that basic problem definition until that definition has been fully fleshed out. Then, we would have the foundation for refounding America. So, as far as my opening to this thread is concerned, I quote Gilda Radner: "Never mind."

My reference to "The Overton Window" as the source of my question about corruption as a floating abstraction was motivated by its being the latest in his book series and by its continuation of his T.V. show's blackboard lessons on corruption. Background in his presentations wouldn't hurt, but I don't think the background is required to talk about the concept of "corruption" and its use when discussing the dangerous trends in our politics and economy. The reason his recent emphasis on "corruption", "Hope, faith and Charity" is giving me the floating abstraction willies is that "corruption" is not a term that points to the causes of what we see in our political and cultural melieu these days. It carries an emotional meaning of "it's bad", but then we need to ask what specifically are we talking about. What specifically is Beck talking about? A foggy definition of what we are fighting is going to make the fight harder. Also, the Hope Faith and Charity phrase that he is using is a phrase that will sound good to his viewers, but fails to communicate a specific guide to the action needed to refound this nation. In fact, "Crime Inc" is bothersome for similar reasons. His blackboard diagram of that is more complex than most of his diagrams have seen and I think that is because he is trying to lump too much under that heading. In fact, a lot of what he has on that blackboard don't look like actual crimes. Bad stuff, yeah, but not crimes. Given the evidence that the US is about to walk off a cliff and time is of the essence, I'm way more comfortable when he talks to the particulars of Progressivism and the other isms, the ideologies of the various groups and individuals who have the presidents ear, and the fact that some of the people wrapped up in what is happening actually do think that they are "doing good" for the American people. Corruption seems slippery and small. Net, net, I expect that Objectivists will be inclined to grasp the floating abstraction worry if it fits. If it doesn't, then maybe a quick reason as to why it doesn't would be helpful. You're right about the book being a little yawny. I get a lot of useful information from his show and had promised myself after "Aruging with Idiots" to spend no more money on Beck Books, but I couldn't resist. However, I did like the psychology in those passages when old man Gardner states his case to his son.

Dan, This may be true for some people, but I assure you that for others who recognize the need for a government, this is not the case. You cannot eliminate bullying from human nature. So you put checks and balances on it. That's the principle and the reason for it. Not power-lust (as you imply). Once we can figure out how to get rid of bullying, then I see no reason to continue with government. Until then, I want bullies with limitations on their possibilities of action. Real limitations, not pipedreams. The will to bully is the root of power-lust. Michael Michael, I like so much of your thinking that I hate to come in on this thread with a nit pick, but....I have learned from Objectivism that government is always necessary for three reasons: The need to assign the right to use force against external enemies,the need to use it in deployment of a police force and the need for courts to settle disputes between rational men. I would recommend that you refresh yourself on the Government oriented lectures in "The Vision of Ayn Rand" by NB as a reminder of why government is required if men are to live without fear of other men.

Phillip, this is very helpful to those of us who are relatively new to actively "selling Objectivism". I hope that you will keep doing this sort of educational writing. I suspect that some of us will have more questions in the future, but right now, I just want to say thank you for your efforts.

Glad to see that you have bought the series. I trust that we can count on you for an answer to my original question on this thread pretty soon. Good for you. Thank you Steve Wolfer. What you wrote about Branden's work was very gratifying to me - enough to make me cry, too.

Robert, I have to agree with Robert. My immediate reaction to your post was to plead with you to choose another topic within the branch of philosophy that covers politics and economics. Our popular talk show hosts have only recently cottoned to what is wrong with "social justice" and I would like to see the definition left intact - forever. Maybe you could put your focus on Egoism or Individuality or simply Justice itself with no modifiers. Remember Rand's admonition to avoid changing definitions for no good reason.

Read "The Overton Window". Of course there is orchestration. The only thing is that at least for the immediate split second, they still have to use the laws to achieve the goals they've stated in plain hearing. Don't know how much longer that will last, though. I have very mixed emotions about what is happening in the world. On the one hand I feel terrified by the stories coming at us everyday, but on the other hand, I feel a powerful sense of peace by virtue of knowing the underlying reasons,causes, and history; and now it is just a matter of finding and implementing solutions. The founding fathers did it and they didn't even have central air, iphones, or the web. Surely we can do it again.

Keeping in mind that I admire Glenn Beck for his contribution to our understanding of Progressivism - his emphasis on and definition of corruption in "The Overton Window" suddenly took on the characteristics of a Floating Abstraction. Anyone else seeing that?

Dear A7A, What you might be thinking about with the first point is the simple fact that we assume that a person's past choices and behavior can be used to predict their future choices and behaviour, especially if we are looking at their recent history. In Atlas Shrugged this assumption is dramatized through Reardon's judgment that his wife, Lydia, his mother and his brother will not change their way of thinking about him, and therefore they will continue to behave in ways that could hurt him. With that assumption in place, he divorces his wife and abandons his family and business to join the rest of the strikers. That assumption also worked for Reardon's family. It came as quite a surprise to them that he was suddenly no longer willing to play the patsy in order to assuage his guilt about loving his factory and not being particularly interested in the silly pasttimes of his family. They had counted on his purity of character to hold him prisoner to their helplessness. Ignoring one's own values in deference to the immoral values of others is also an irrational act. As to your second point: The best dramatization of a person loving someone for her weakness is James Taggart who sees Cheryl Taggart as ignorant, low-class and yet of good character. He begs her to love him for himself, not for his actions, or thoughts, or values, or character, but for himself. See how ludicrous that is? It backfired for him because Cheryl sought to live up to the man that she thought she had married and became a graceful, sophisticated woman. Still, she could not bear the evil that slapped her in the face and she ran to her death. In AS, we never actually see any of Dagny's bosses except for her brother, James Taggart who is president of the Railroad. Dagny rose quickly up the corporate ladder because there was no one else standing on the rungs.

It was no trouble. But thank you for telling me about your post. I will read it. I didn't think to look for it.

To clarify: I refer to audio books, even lectures, as "books" because I spend a lot of time with "a book on my head" (ear phones). Nathaniel Branden and Barbara and others are the heroes of Objectivism as they immersed themselves in Ayn Rand's thinking and came out with remarkably creative applications of the philosophy to their own areas of expertise. They are "the original Objectivists" and I would just like to see their contributions acknowledged. Maybe it isn't all that important to those who were capable of those accomplishments "way back then". But, it was important to me as I read them "way back then" largely because I was not able to produce them, but was able to recognize their worth and was willing and able to consume and use them. The reason I have not looked into this horse's mouth myself yet is that I have a finite amount of time and intellectual energy available this summer and had hoped to get a quick answer from someone who had listened to the book. Once I bring my other projects to closure, I will give it a looksee and report back. Thank you all for your histories on the presentations of psychological visibility. I appreciate your wide knowledge of the subject. My first major acquaintance with it was "The Psychology of Romantic Love" so that is the work that I referenced for this topic. Rand's use of the concepts therein are structured within the context of her works of fiction and not as fully clarified as in Branden's work. You are a lively group of thinkers and I'm glad you are here and are willing to speak your minds so clearly and so comprehensively. Mary Lee The basic definition of the problem: Captitalism + Egoism versus Collectivism + Altruism

Is anyone familiar with a new book from the Ayn Rand Bookstore? It is Exploring the Psychological Visibility Principle Description at the Bookstore's site: By Ellen Kenner Full title: Exploring the Psychological Visibility Principle as Illustrated in Atlas Shrugged Why is it sometimes difficult to express heartfelt sentiments to those we value? While some do so naturally, others repress their true feelings or offer insincere praise that is driven by duty rather than by values. Throughout Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand provides us with memorable examples of tenderness and admiration. Such visibility, expressed in subtle and eloquent words and actions, nourishes relationships and is an act of justice. In contrast, feeling invisible or misunderstood by those who matter (a spouse, a child, a friend, an employer) can cause agony. Resentments escalate and good relationships deteriorate. Using illustrative examples from Atlas Shrugged and exercises, this course explores: Why giving and receiving proper visibility is essential for your happiness Altruism's devastating effect on visibility Self-visibility: egoistic premises and breaking the habit of humility How to effectively express admiration to those you value Genuine forgiveness vs. false forgiveness How to deal with the "looters-in-spirit": how to deal with phony visibility or unjust invisibility Pseudo-visibility (e.g., "God understands me")(Audio CD; 6-CD set; 4 hrs., 16 min., with Q & A) If you are familiar with the book - do you know if she gives Nathaniel's The Psychology of Romantic Love et al credit for his analysis of psychological visibility?

Sometimes it isn't so much about my favorite movies as my favorite movie moments: Captain Jack Sparrow complaining that his compass doesn't work and the beautiful voodoo priestess explains that the compass won't work because he doesn't know what he truly wants. John Wayne's "How I feel when I hear the word Republic" speech in "Alamo" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epkwz7YM40A&feature=related The moment when John Nash realizes that his closest friends never change and that is how he knows that they aren't real. Woody Allen as a sperm cell. The downhill plunge in "The Man from Snowy River" (On the way out of the theatre I said to my date, "Boy, do you think there is still scenery like that in the world?" I lived in Houston at the time.) The boy's first ride on the Black Stallion. (a book brought perfectly to the screen) The second that you understand how the old man is going to put the bad guys behind bars in "Grand Torino". Woody Allen using a cello in a marching band. "It's springtime for Hitler and Germany" in "The Producers" Paul M'audib's first face-to-face with a Sand Worm in "Dune" (I think of Frank Herbert's Dune series every once in while when the news is about Jihad) "Snakes! Why did it have to be snakes?" in "Indiana Jones" Nicholas Cage in "National Treasure" explaining that the constitution made it possible for men to live together without fear of other men. John Belushi, torn and tattered by the mountain lion, "How was your day?" (Continental Divide) "What knockers!" "Thank you." (Young Frankenstein) "Testament" - the movie about the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust, when the mother carries her last child to the burning center and then goes down on her knees demanding to know, "Who did this to us?" The scene in "A Thousand Clowns" when Jason Robards has decided to join the working class, or rat race, and is running in his suit and tie with his briefcase to catch a bus. Anthony Quinn in "Zorba" - "Am I not a man? Is a man not a fool?" "Blazing Saddles" - when the new black sheriff takes himself hostage. Oh, and the saloon scene when she sings "I'm tired" and gets a rousing round of applause. George C. Scott describing how he loves to watch those B52s coming in for a landing in "Dr. Stangelove" Peter O'Toole in "My Favorite Year" - "I'm not an actor! I'm a movie star!" Peter O'Toole in "Beckett" - "I'm surrounded by fools!" Cleopatra's (Elizabeth Taylor) entrance into Rome. Tim Allen's triumphant roll, rise and shoot the alien (after the ship has landed back at the theatre). Galaxy Quest. Gregory Peck in "Mirage": "If your're not willing to committ, you're just taking up space." The final scene in "Seven Pounds".

Can anyone confirm that this is the complete article? It was posted in Freeman in November, 1959 archive issue. If this breaks copyright laws, please tell me and I will remove this post. The Moral Antagonism Of Capitalism and Socialism Posted By Barbara Branden • November 1959 • Vol. 9/Issue 11 This article is reprinted by perrmission of Nathaniel Branden Lectures. It is part of a lecture in a series being offered in New York City on the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Barbara Branden is an Associate Lecturer. Capitalism and socialism have, traditionally, been considered ex­clusively as opposing economic political systems. It is therefore in terms of economic and political tenets that the battle between them has been fought. Certainly each system does embody a mutually exclusive theory of the proper function of government and the legitimate operation of an economy - but if one examines their tenets, one will discover at the root of their specific and practical doctrines, a more basic and divisive clash between them. It is in their opposing concepts of the nature of man and of his proper relationship to other men - in that which each side holds to be the good, the right, the moral - that the heart of the conflict be­tween capitalism and socialism exists. What is capitalism? Economically, it is a system in which the instruments of production are owned by private individuals who operate them for their personal profit. Goods and services are exchanged by free trade on a free market, a market which is regulated, not by bureaucratic edict, not by what those who claim to represent the majority decide is good for the people, but by the law of supply and demand - which means: by each man’s voluntary decision as to what products he is willing to produce, to buy, and to sell, and at what price, within the context of the market with which he deals. The motive power of capitalism, the propelling force which makes it work, is men’s desire and effort to use their productive capacity for the purpose of creating wealth. The end which capitalism serves is the achievement of profit – a private, personal, selfish profit - by every man from a captain of industry to a shopkeeper to a coal-miner, each to the limit of his ability, his effort, his attainment. Capitalism is not aimed at what its opponents call "the service of the public good." It is concerned exclusively with the private good of individual citizens, and holds that the good is to be achieved by those citizens as individuals. It expects each man to achieve whatever heights he is able, in whatever work he has chosen, by his own intelligence, his own will, his own virtue and his own work. Capitalism expects, and, by its nature, demands, that every man act in the name of his own rational self-interest. Just as it does not expect a consumer to pay more for any product than the lowest price at which that product can be obtained - just as it does not expect a worker to accept a lower wage for his effort than the market will bear - so it does not expect a factory owner to sell his products at a price lower than the public is willing to pay. The twin motors of capitalism are profit and achievement, with one a function of the other; profit is proportionate, not to a man’s intentions, wishes, needs or desires, but proportionate to that which he in fact accomplishes. The political system logically implied and necessitated by capitalism is one which limits the function of government to the protection of its citizens from the violation of their rights by force or fraud, and from foreign invasion. Just as its economic principles are not aimed at "the public good," neither are its political principles; it does not recognize the validity of the concept; it does not grant that anyone’s good can be achieved by having some men decide what to do with other men’s lives, energy and profit. It recognizes that all good inheres only in individual men, and that there is no moral reason why one man should be forced to accept, as the goal of his work and his life, the achievement of the good of another man. What is socialism? Economically, it is a system in which the means of production are owned by the State, not by private individuals, and are operated for the profit of the collective, not for the private gain of the producers. The State, not the free market, decrees how and by whom goods and services are to be produced, how and to whom they are to be distributed. The State purports to be the voice and the expression of the majority of its citizens; it equates state good with public good, and, insofar as individual good is regarded as of concern, it holds that the good of the individual is to be achieved by his service to the good of the public - which, in practical terms, means: by service to the State - which, in concrete terms, means: by service to the particular group of men in power at any given moment. Socialism rests on the premise that man, by his nature, is unfit for freedom, that he cannot be trusted independently to pursue and to achieve that which is necessary for his life, that he cannot be trusted to own and freely to exchange that which he produces, that, if left free, men will live as wild beasts. Therefore, socialists decree, men must produce at the order of a higher authority called the public, or society, or the State, and must permit this higher authority to utilize the products of men’s efforts as it sees fit. Under socialism, men are to produce not for profit, but "for use" - the use of the public, without regard for the profit of the men who created that which is being used. Each Life an End in Itself What opposing moral premises are implicit in the doctrines of capitalism and socialism? - of in­dividualism and collectivism? It was Ayn Rand, in her novels advocating individualism, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, who defined the basic antagonism between individualism and collectivism, and stated that their opposing moral concepts are to be found in their answer to this single question: Does man have the right to exist for his own sake? The individualist answers: Yes. The collectivist answers: No - and asserts that man exists, not by right, but by virtue of a permission granted him by society, a permission contingent upon the service he renders to society. Individualism holds that a human life is an end in itself. Collectivism holds that man’s life is a means to an end to be designated by society. Individualism holds that man possesses, by his nature, the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Collectivism holds that man possesses, by his nature, the duty to sacrifice his life, his liberty and his happiness whenever and wherever the collective may demand it. Collectivism regards man as property, signed, sealed and delivered up to those who claim to represent his fellow men; he must exist for their sake, in their service, and by their command. No matter how vehemently collectivists may insist that the individual does in fact profit under their system, no other premise can underlie the coercion of the individual by the will of the mass but the premise that man does not possess the right to exist for his own sake - the premise that self-interest and profit are evil. Every insult and every criticism ever hurled at a free economy has been based on the assumption that it is not moral for men to pursue their profit, and that morality consists of sacrificing their self-interest to the welfare of others. The questions which every man who preaches collectivism must ask himself are these: Do I have the right to force other men to work for my benefit? Are their lives mine? If I do not have this right, if they are not my chattel, do I have the right to force them to work for the benefit of others? And if I do not have this right, do I acquire it by virtue of the fact that other men like myself, who call themselves "the public," wish to join me in the activity of forcing men to work for ends other than those they have voluntarily chosen? Is it not man’s right to exist that makes me brand as evil the actions of a hold-up man who coerces and robs? Why is this reason canceled when the coercion and robbery are committed, not by an individual thug, but by the State? *** Article printed from The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty: http://www.thefreemanonline.org URL to article: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-moral-antagonism-of-capitalism-and-socialism/ Copyright © 2008 The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty. All rights reserved.

Need I say more? Not a single original thought in that whole diatribe. Look at it: she uses a few sources - the same sources that every one of Beck's followers use - because he provided them for them. Can't you see that supporting Beck IS supporting the status quo? You let yourself be manipulated into following "great men." How can you be a libertarian or for small government when you want and think you need great leaders just as much as those on the left? You just want leaders you agree with - and will fight for them as hard as the left fights for their own great men. The only way around this is to educate people to see through the rhetoric which these men use to manipulate them - to teach them to become great men and women themselves. The best part is you don't need a great man to teach you these things - you need to use your own rational mind. It's not that I disagree with the points Beck is trying to make - it's that he's using manipulation to get people to believe him. If he can do it, you'd be naive to think that he's the only one who can. Doesn't it worry you when everybody is reading the same books and will rabidly defend their profit? If we can see through the rhetoric and get to the message, we will revolt against people like Beck, Obama, Olbermann who wish to manipulate us with appeals to irrational fears and emotions. The fancy rhetoric accompanying the message will become superfluous and extraneous - as it is to anyone who knows how to think now. I don't need my emotions jolted to know what's right. Wake up!!! So it's not on the basis of political ideology that I dislike Beck (although I don't always agree with him) - I find it disheartening that smart people want leaders who use manipulation. The truth doesn't need embellishment. Ian I got to thinking over what you said in this response to my response to Michael Stewart Kelley and I'm puzzled by a lot of it. 1) I can't see the "diatribe" in my response - it felt calm and reasonable to me. Why does it feel like a diatribe to you? 2) You point out that my response contains "not a single original thought." I agree with that. I'm not an innovator - not in my career in IT, not in my philosophical thinking, not in my understanding of human psychology. Everything that I know, I learned from the innovators who made their thinking available to the world. I do consider myself to be pretty darned good at using and applying what I've learned from others. That describes the great majority of people. Great men and women appear in history less often that average men and women. 3) You suggest that I use only sources that Beck has presented. I met Ayn Rand and her early Objectivists in 1965. Beck would have been in diapers if he had even been born by then. Also, I've never heard Beck recommend that we all listen to Barbara Branden's "Principles of Efficient Thinking" or Nathaniel Branden's "Basic Principles of Objectivism". He never held up David Kelley or Tara Smith or Ed Yourdin, or Ludwig von Mises. Not that I used those last four sources in this thread, but you could watch for them on the Beck show. 4) I am not trying to be a libertarian (small or capital L) - I'm trying to be an Objectivist. I am not for "small government" - I am for government that is of a size that allows it be a proper government for the free men of a given country. That might include a large complex body of laws and a large court system that help keep us free. 5) I don't "let myself be manipulated into following "great men"". I look to great men and women, and even not so great but innovative men and women, to enrich my understanding of my human existence in the universe. What's wrong with that? 6) I won't live long enough to become a great woman on my own, using nothing but my own rational mind. When I discovered Ayn Rand, for instance, I discovered issues that I had not even known were issues. I know that the earth orbits the sun because Galileo et al figured it out. I don't have the skills to build a telescope, let alone make the judgments that they made. 7) I don't rabidly defend my "profit". I don't even consider Beck to be prophet. He is someone who is getting the message out loud and clear with supporting details. When he wanders off into the world of faith, hope and charity, I turn the radio or TV off, or just do some dusting until he gets past it. The big thing is that his researchers have saved us a lot of time and effort that those of us who are working long hours would not have to devote to the study of the "here's what happened." 8) You've joined two ideas together that puzzle me - that "we want leaders who manipulate", and "the truth doesn't need embellishment". I gather that you think that Beck is embellishing the truth through manipulation. I can't seem to pull up a concrete example of that to help me grasp your juxtaposition of these concepts. Can you provide one? 9) Given the nature of this site, why do you avoid acknowledging my mention of Ayn Rand or Objectivism in your discussion of Beck?

Michael, I just love it when the "experienced" Objectivists enter the fray. Go get 'im. Mary Lee

Well put. I wish I had said that.

Need I say more? Ian One of the more interesting books that Beck held up was American Progressivism edited by Ronald J. Pestritto and William J. Atto. In the introduction the editors tell us how those who brought the most pressure against the U.S. Constitution used Altruism (Rand's favorite bad to the bone idea) to denigrate the founding fathers and their motives. They made snide accusations about the selfish, power hungy founding fathers who just wanted to protect their own financial interests, rather than working selflessly for the good of the country as a whole. One of these, Charles Beard, writing in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, published in 1913 (does that year ring a bell?), asserted that (quoting the book's editors): "The delegates at Philadelphia, Beard contended, were motivated by personal economic concerns and determined to produce a document that strengthened their control of government and thus assured their continued financial success. While Beard's assertion was similar to J. Allen Smith's, his methodology, which seemed to substantiate the charge of avarice in a way that Smith's had not, combined with the charge that the framers should be condemned for reprehensible self-seeking, was a direct assault on the previously sacrosanct Constitution and its authors. Jefferson may have believed that the delegates assembled in Philadelphia were "demi-gods", but Beard thought otherwise. In Beard's analysis, even Madison, perhaps especially Madison, was charged with subscribing to "the theory of economic determinism in politics."" "The implications of Beard's thesis were clear and significant for advocates of progressive reform: there had been no popular control of government from the founding erneration to the present; a great people had been duped by the conniving of a relatively small interest group. It was, therefore, incumbent upon proponents of democracy to wrest control of government from the few and place it where, despite the rhetoric of earlier generations, it had neve been, in the hands of the poplulace. " Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how Ayn Rand would have used this analysis of how we lost our Republican form of government? Anyone still think that Glenn Beck has done no good for this country - for the people who used to read the sports pages and the Dear Abbey columns and are now reading American history with a passion? Seriously? To answer your question Panoptic - I think you have a whole lot more to say. Go to it. Mary Lee

How about a 2005 book, The Age of Rand: Imagining an Objectivist Future World by Frederick Cookinham. I just received it and have read the Introduction. I don't even remember why I ordered it. Has anyone else encountered this book?

Michael, Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work. Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer. Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009. Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists. As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect. One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people. A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends." The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs. I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner. Better that than to curse the darkness. Mary Lee

Welcome to Objectivism Land. Thank you for your story. I have one question though. You described your pre-Objectivism self as a "Muslim Extremist". Could you explain what that meant in terms of behaviour, ideas, feelings, etc.? Mary Lee

Yes, it is accurate. Here is a quote from Lecture 10: (italics mine) "Honesty does not mean that you owe an answer to any idle or impertinent question anyone chooses to ask you. You do not owe information to those who have no right, purpose, or business to question you about matters which do not affect them. In such cases, honesty consists of refusing to answer, not of lying. In such cases, you may point out, if you care to, that their question is improper, but you don't lower yourself to the status of a a liar for the sake of their impropriety. " Barbara Dear Barbara, Not to nag, but, do you think that it might be your turn to publish a transcription? Mary Lee Harsha

I can always count on the "Experienced Objectivists" to provide super-helpful information. Thank You. Mary Lee Harsha

The GOP, like any other organization, is not some immutable law of nature. It can, indeed, go away. There was, as you should know, a time before there was a GOP. There's likely to be a time after too. Or do you believe it's immortal? Regarding talking to people about legalizing drugs, I wouldn't limit this to people in the GOP. I would talk to anyone who will listen and who is likely to change their minds to the correct position on this issue: individuals should have the right to ingest whatever they please without outside interference and any group, including a government, that stops this should be considered a pariah and dealt with accordingly. (My guess is statists -- including those who happen to make up the GOP at present -- will not agree with that position. After all, it tramples underfoot their God, the state.) The cost case for elimination drug prohibition, while it may get your foot in the door, still leaves the moral case outside. It makes it sound as if, "Gee, if we could only afford to oppress people more, it'd be the right thing to do, but, sadly, we only have so much money, so we'll have to oppress them a little bit less." In other words, you're compromising core principles in hopes of gaining some political traction. Hasn't that been tried before? As for a third party, I don't know. A good point, however, is not all change happens at the ballot box or because of political parties. In fact, my guess is if most people in the world decided that drug prohibition was wrong and openly disobeyed the laws on this -- including disrupting an efforts to enforce drug prohibition -- then drug prohibition would fall regardless of whether the various political parties or elites wanted it. Of course, that kind of change usually takes longer, but it also usually lasts longer because it's not a gift of some politicians. Exactly Chris. And what men have made of the GOP can be remade by the Egoists and Capitalists who want to help Nathanel and Barbara Branden, Yaron Brook and Bidinotto "save this country." The original Republicans were the founding fathers who hated Democracy. So, it's the Republican party that I am hoping to change. I'm a delegate to the convention for the Iowa 3rd District convention coming up this Saturday. I may not be able to affect anything. But I'm going to try. And if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Here's the essence of the problem that is threatening our very lives: Capitalism + Egoism versus Collectivism + Altruism