tobarstep

The best edition of the Wealth of Nations is the one available from Liberty Fund for a very reasonable price in quality softcovers. This is a reprint of the definitive Glasgow University Press edition; the lengthy introduction is excellent, as are the explanatory footnotes. Also excellent is the edition edited by the economic historian Edwin Cannan (first published in 1904), but that is more difficult to find. Ghs Liberty Fund.. I seem to find a new web site to peruse every time I check this board The copy I got from Amazon was not expensive really, but I now wish I had known about the LF site. Live and learn, apparently.

You’ll find a lot of the history here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6539&view=findpost&p=63531 The conversation gets pretty salty, but it’s in the “Rants” forum, so there’s fair warning. Ed Hudgins posts here, and on the home page you’ll find a forum titled David Kelley Corner, subtitled “Friendly discussions of…”, I think you can infer from there. I check out RoR periodically, but it has very little activity. A big problem there is that when someone disagrees with something in Objectivism they get restricted to the Dissent forum, that’s just no way to have a discussion. Tibor Machan posts there, his articles are pretty much the only draw. RoR and SOLOP are the result of a split some 5 years ago. Yes, that does explain a lot. And thank you for responding to this. I realize that it might have seemed like I was baiting or attempting to troll. I assure you that was not my intention. I guess I should explain more of where I'm coming from. For a long time, my only exposure to objectivism was from "The Fountainhead" (movie) and various excerpts of "Atlas Shrugged". I mostly just tried to apply such individualist principles to my world. Of course, I also equated libertarianism with it. It was not until much more recently that I came across the objectivist sub-community on the WWW (and also embarked on a mission to read the books in their entirety). I was immediately taken aback by the orthodoxy of it all. From my admittedly limited understanding of it at the time, I could not reconcile what I was reading from Objectivists with what I considered to be a philosophy of independent, rational, critical thought. It seemed that everyone was less interested in applying objectivist principles to the questions at hand than in applying Rand's own personal views on specific topics. I later came across the TAS site and found them to be - what I considered - more objective in their stances than the "true believers" were. I even started reading quite a bit from the CATO folks, though I have to admit their essays can be a little too "out there" for me sometimes. As for SOLOP, I was initially led to the that site by a link from their archives. This article in the SOLO archives came to me from a Google search using "Objectivism", "dogma", and I think "Randian" as search terms. It seemed to me to be in-line with what I was thinking and so I went to the new site on the assumption I'd find like-minded individuals. Boy, was I wrong on that one. Anyway, to make a long story even longer, I find the discussion on this site to be much more in keeping with my general mindset. Not that I need to seek validation necessarily, but I don't find it an enjoyable experience to be surrounded by those who oppose my viewpoints (sometimes with threats of violence even). I enjoy the writings of many here that I would not have gotten elsewhere, like George H. Smith, and I've already purchased a copy of N. Branden's "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" so that I might explore how psychology could possibly be the "practice" of the philosophical "theory". -Todd

Well, I think a number of my questions could be answered by this unlikely post right here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8503&st=20&p=96533entry96533 Can't say that I understand the shark entirely, though I do "get it".

BINGO, nailed that on the head if I ever saw it!!!! That is a great point. But isn't this true of so many thinkers in history: a checklist of their positions gets recorded and their followers (and many of their critics) latch on to the list overlooking the method. I finally get an enthusiastic response from a woman on OL, and you have to go and spoil it! Seriously, you are right of course. The thinker I admire most in this respect is Adam Smith, a genius of the highest caliber who had one of the most complex and fascinating minds in the history of western thought. I have read Smith's Wealth of Nations many times -- I even wrote a 180 page manuscript about it for Knowledge Products back in the 1980s -- and I never fail to be amazed by the intricate texture of its arguments. Over the years, I have drawn up various top-10 lists of the greatest books on liberty ever written; and despite some variations here and there, the Wealth of Nations has always occupied the top position. Ghs I wholeheartedly agree with every quoted level of this post I have a copy of Wealth of Nations that I am about to begin. It's daunting to be sure, but worth it I think. Though, I have to admit the title has me concerned from the beginning as to whether Smith was really more of a statist.

I've only been looking around here for a week or so. My previous experience with such communities was with Objectivism Online and SOLO Passion. The latter not being one I actually joined because a few days worth of reading had me running for the hills. The former being just too heavy on dogma and idolatry for my tastes. Not really knowing the history of the various splits and whatnot in the objectivist community, I wonder what most folks here (I realize certainly not all) feel towards certain people/groups. What about TAS/David Kelley? I see plenty of mention around here of Austrian school and libertarianism. The "L" word of course being the target of vitriolic hate speech from the "true believers". From what I've seen here, I really like the tone and I think I found a community of true individualist thinkers (and more importantly, doers). Just wanted to put it out there as I didn't see anything explicitly about it. Unlike on the OLists where she says up front if you associate with any false prophets including Kelley or Mises you can't be there. Edit: Forgot to ask about RoR. I've seen it mentioned a few times here, but I can't suss that one out. What is the relationship between RoR and SOLOP?

Thanks for the link. That's a very impressive offering - they even have it in downloadable mp3 format. I can put it on the ipod and listen in the car during my commute.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see that Edit follows: I've had a chance to look around some here. I've read a few of the articles and I enjoy the general tone. I'm especially pleased to read both Barbara and Nathaniel Branden's thoughts here (Barbara's as posted by herself, even). I've already paid visits to both of their own personal web sites and am impressed with their ideas.

I am a fan of Rand's theories, but I've been rather put off by the (dare I say dogmatic?) approach taken on most mainstream Objectivism sites. So much so that I took to calling myself an Individualist rather than an Objectivist for some period of time. Most of those sites also focus on philosophical debate, to the near exclusion of any other topic, especially how Objectivism actually applies to our daily lives. As I'm not a philosopher by trade, this latter aspect is what I am most interested in. I read in another introductory thread that the Brandens' works focus on this. I'm keen to find out more. In reference to that other thread, I'm a former Army Sigint/Linguist guy. I had occasion to work with some PsyOps (37F?) guys and it was always a good time. As for my current situation, I'm 35, single/divorced, 10 year old daughter. Currently I'm a computer programmer, though not by training. It's just something I fell into. I'm about to return to school after a 7 year hiatus to finish my BS in Accounting. I'm toying with the idea of going to law school after. I'd like to get my CPA, but I live in Florida - one of the few remaining holdouts of the two-tiered system which requires one to not only pass the CPA exam but to essentially apprentice oneself to another CPA for a number of years before being able to acquire the actual designation. Anyway, I hope to learn here and I look forward to reading what you all have to say.