Elizabeth Warren and the Social Contract...

[George H. Smith]

Moreover, you misunderstand Warren's point. She believes that "we" paid taxes for roads, etc., so we are the collective owners of public property. Each of us is therefore an owner, if a very minor capacity, of the roads; and "we" decide how our property should be used through a political process. Hence, if "we" decide that a factory owner owes us more for the use of our roads than he is currently paying in taxes, then "we" have a right to tax the factory owner more that we tax others.

This is standard progressive/socialist claptrap.

Ghs

As if this contradicts anything I've said. Your nonsense is really weak George, as per usual.

Shayne

I was responding to this:

You're leaving out obvious implications of her statements, ones that would be perceived by those on her side of the argument, e.g. that you GHS uses the roads, that the roads (and other government services) are not YOUR property, and that you therefore owe something.

This is incorrect. According to Warren's approach, I am part owner of the roads, etc., along with every other American citizen. You might say that the government owns the roads, and if so I would agree with you, but Warren would not. She would say that we are the goverment.

I never thought I would say this, but you are too intelligent to fully appreciate Warren's "argument." You insist on searching for reasonable points that don't exist. You need to dumb down for a while, and imagine what it is like to have a mind crammed full of vague ideas and random associations, to understand how these people think.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

A brief comment.....

Over the years I have read a shitload -- an appropriate noun, in this context -- of books and articles by and about American progressives, especially in regard to John Dewey and his contemporaries. And as reluctant as I am to agree with Beck-like conservatives I will say outright, and with no qualification: These people are evil. I have more contempt for progressives than I do for many outright socialists (as evidenced by my critique of Randolph Bourne on another thread). Socialists tend to be straightforward and honest about their political agenda, but progressives are ideological shape-shifters, depending on what is needed at the moment.

A modern form of progressivism is frequently called "communitarianism." This has become a popular approach among intellectual historians, and they have distorted a good deal of the history of libertarian thought almost beyond recognition. I can barely stomach reading those political hacks masquerading as objective historians, and communitarian political theory is just as bad. Virtually every idea they profess is so soft and malleable that reading them is like being beaten senseless by a fresh loaf of Wonder Bread.

Ghs

[Roger Bissell]

A brief comment.....

Over the years I have read a shitload -- an appropriate noun, in this context -- of books and articles by and about American progressives, especially in regard to John Dewey and his contemporaries. And as reluctant as I am to agree with Beck-like conservatives I will say outright, and with no qualification: These people are evil. I have more contempt for progressives than I do for many outright socialists (as evidenced by my critique of Randolph Bourne on another thread). Socialists tend to be straightforward and honest about their political agenda, but progressives are ideological shape-shifters, depending on what is needed at the moment.

A modern form of progressivism is frequently called "communitarianism." This has become a popular approach among intellectual historians, and they have distorted a good deal of the history of libertarian thought almost beyond recognition. I can barely stomach reading those political hacks masquerading as objective historians, and communitarian political theory is just as bad. Virtually every idea they profess is so soft and malleable that reading them is like being beaten senseless by a fresh loaf of Wonder Bread.

Ghs

Right on, George. Whether or not you believe that Bill Clinton "moved to the center" after the 1994 mid-term elections, he was indeed a lot more willing to actually be a "pragmatic problem-solver" than Obama ever was or will be. Obama has doubled down on virtually everything he criticized Bush Jr. for--an eerie echo of FDR in relation to the half-hearted fascist and later ersatz champion on liberty, Herbert Hoover. But this phony "pragmatic centrist" routine has been around at least since the 1930s (has anyone compared Obama's speeches to see if he's lifted any passages out of FDR's speeches).

If it weren't for how really awful and fragile the economy is right now, speeches like Warren's and Obama's would seem like little more than a boring recycling of the same old bankrupt progressive-liberal mantras we've been hearing for the past 50 years. Unfortunately, we are nearing the cliff's edge, and they are trying to do their damnedest to get us to drive off. If they weren't so damned dangerous, they'd be merely pathetic and despicable.

REB

[Selene]

A brief comment.....

Over the years I have read a shitload -- an appropriate noun, in this context -- of books and articles by and about American progressives, especially in regard to John Dewey and his contemporaries. And as reluctant as I am to agree with Beck-like conservatives I will say outright, and with no qualification: These people are evil. I have more contempt for progressives than I do for many outright socialists (as evidenced by my critique of Randolph Bourne on another thread). Socialists tend to be straightforward and honest about their political agenda, but progressives are ideological shape-shifters, depending on what is needed at the moment.

A modern form of progressivism is frequently called "communitarianism." This has become a popular approach among intellectual historians, and they have distorted a good deal of the history of libertarian thought almost beyond recognition. I can barely stomach reading those political hacks masquerading as objective historians, and communitarian political theory is just as bad. Virtually every idea they profess is so soft and malleable that reading them is like being beaten senseless by a fresh loaf of Wonder Bread.

Ghs

Bravo!

Well put George!

I used to start our public school board meetings when I was the Vice President with a Dewey quote and the public audience was stunned by what a tyrannical piece of excrement that he was.

Adam

Post script: Correct Reb. Today O'biwan, with no Constitutional authority, merely eliminated the "No child left behind" mandates to the States because Congress will not act. As it turns out, to be part of the waiver, the individual state will have to adopt the Arnie Duncan national standards which will. of course, federalize all education in the US.

Remember right around the debt ceiling/government shutdown dog and pony show that the official spokes Goebbels Carney for O'biwan the boy fascist prince warned that the incredible shrinking president would take action if Congress did not...well here he goes.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Selene

[Roger Bissell]

A brief comment.....

Over the years I have read a shitload -- an appropriate noun, in this context -- of books and articles by and about American progressives, especially in regard to John Dewey and his contemporaries. And as reluctant as I am to agree with Beck-like conservatives I will say outright, and with no qualification: These people are evil. I have more contempt for progressives than I do for many outright socialists (as evidenced by my critique of Randolph Bourne on another thread). Socialists tend to be straightforward and honest about their political agenda, but progressives are ideological shape-shifters, depending on what is needed at the moment.

A modern form of progressivism is frequently called "communitarianism." This has become a popular approach among intellectual historians, and they have distorted a good deal of the history of libertarian thought almost beyond recognition. I can barely stomach reading those political hacks masquerading as objective historians, and communitarian political theory is just as bad. Virtually every idea they profess is so soft and malleable that reading them is like being beaten senseless by a fresh loaf of Wonder Bread.

Ghs

Bravo!

Well put George!

I used to start our public school board meetings when I was the Vice President with a Dewey quote and the public audience was stunned by what a tyrannical piece of excrement that he was.

Adam

Like all tyrannical pieces of excrement, Dewey deserved to be flushed, not revered. Thank you for highlighting his noxious side.

REB

[George H. Smith]

I used to start our public school board meetings when I was the Vice President with a Dewey quote and the public audience was stunned by what a tyrannical piece of excrement that he was.

John Dewey, whose "progressive" ideas about state education are still very influential, was possibly the most repulsive intellectual in American history. His extensive arguments for a "corporate" society (his term) are right out of the fascistic playbook. Dewey, like his modern counterparts, did not dislike the corporate model at all. On the contrary, he loved it so much that he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines, which means (Ghs wrote, like a good Randian): a society run by experts at the top who tell everyone else what is good for them.

The book to read on this topic is Dewey's Individualism, Old and New. Old individualism is -- well, you know, all that outdated stuff about individual rights and freedom. The new individualism -- and who wants anything old when they can have something new? -- is based on the understanding that no individual is an island unto himself, that we are what we are because of society, and that we therefore owe a lot to society that the old individualism never recognized. People can easily fill in the blanks from there.

Ghs

[Roger Bissell]

John Dewey, whose "progressive" ideas about state education are still very influential, was possibly the most repulsive intellectual in American history. His extensive arguments for a "corporate" society (his term) are right out of the fascistic playbook. Dewey, like his modern counterparts, did not dislike the corporate model at all. On the contrary, he loved it so much that he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines, which means (Ghs wrote, like a good Randian): a society run by experts at the top who tell everyone else what is good for them...

George, glad to see you still have good "colon health." :-)

REB

[George H. Smith]

John Dewey, whose "progressive" ideas about state education are still very influential, was possibly the most repulsive intellectual in American history. His extensive arguments for a "corporate" society (his term) are right out of the fascistic playbook. Dewey, like his modern counterparts, did not dislike the corporate model at all. On the contrary, he loved it so much that he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines, which means (Ghs wrote, like a good Randian): a society run by experts at the top who tell everyone else what is good for them...

George, glad to see you still have good "colon health." :-) REB

I'm not sure, but shouldn't I have written: "...he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines -- which means: a society...."?

I originally used a comma instead of a dash before "which means." I haven't reverted to my old Randian style for a long time, so I'm rusty, but I think the dash may be mandatory for the super-emphasis needed when writing about things that are super-evil. 8-)

Ghs

[Roger Bissell]

John Dewey, whose "progressive" ideas about state education are still very influential, was possibly the most repulsive intellectual in American history. His extensive arguments for a "corporate" society (his term) are right out of the fascistic playbook. Dewey, like his modern counterparts, did not dislike the corporate model at all. On the contrary, he loved it so much that he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines, which means (Ghs wrote, like a good Randian): a society run by experts at the top who tell everyone else what is good for them...

George, glad to see you still have good "colon health." :-) REB

I'm not sure, but shouldn't I have written: "...he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines -- which means: a society...."?

I originally used a comma instead of a dash before "which means." I haven't reverted to my old Randian style for a long time, so I'm rusty, but I think the dash may be mandatory for the super-emphasis needed when writing about things that are super-evil. 8-)

Ghs

You're on the right track, George, but I think it's more general than that. I think the dash is mandatory to set off saying "which means: ...[whatever]." I've seen it used for "the supremacy of reason--which means: man's rational self-interest--which means: laissez-faire capitalism." Then, of course, you turn it around for the false doctrines: "statist-collectivism--which means: altruism--which means: irrationality." It's really a cool method of visually highlighting a chain of implications, whether of ultimate good or super-evil. :-D

REB

[Selene]

That's why I like pictures for super evil...http://www.time.com/...,731843,00.html <<<this is the cover story article

You get wonderful 1928 insights like:

"Of him a sportive and popular Teuton savant, Count Hermann Keyserling,* has said: 'The two contributions of America to world culture are Professor Dewey and Negro jazz.'"

Edited September 24, 2011 by Selene

[George H. Smith]

John Dewey, whose "progressive" ideas about state education are still very influential, was possibly the most repulsive intellectual in American history. His extensive arguments for a "corporate" society (his term) are right out of the fascistic playbook. Dewey, like his modern counterparts, did not dislike the corporate model at all. On the contrary, he loved it so much that he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines, which means (Ghs wrote, like a good Randian): a society run by experts at the top who tell everyone else what is good for them...

George, glad to see you still have good "colon health." :-) REB

I'm not sure, but shouldn't I have written: "...he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines -- which means: a society...."? I originally used a comma instead of a dash before "which means." I haven't reverted to my old Randian style for a long time, so I'm rusty, but I think the dash may be mandatory for the super-emphasis needed when writing about things that are super-evil. 8-) Ghs

You're on the right track, George, but I think it's more general than that. I think the dash is mandatory to set off saying "which means: ...[whatever]." I've seen it used for "the supremacy of reason--which means: man's rational self-interest--which means: laissez-faire capitalism." Then, of course, you turn it around for the false doctrines: "statist-collectivism--which means: altruism--which means: irrationality." It's really a cool method of visually highlighting a chain of implications, whether of ultimate good or super-evil. :-D REB

Do you expect me to believe that the same Randian syntactical structure can be used to express either the ultimate good or the super-evil? I don't know about that. Sounds like a variant of whim-worship to me. 8-)

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Isn't the extant legal corporation inherently fascistic?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

John Dewey, whose "progressive" ideas about state education are still very influential, was possibly the most repulsive intellectual in American history. His extensive arguments for a "corporate" society (his term) are right out of the fascistic playbook. Dewey, like his modern counterparts, did not dislike the corporate model at all. On the contrary, he loved it so much that he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines, which means (Ghs wrote, like a good Randian): a society run by experts at the top who tell everyone else what is good for them...

George, glad to see you still have good "colon health." :-) REB

I'm not sure, but shouldn't I have written: "...he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines -- which means: a society...."?

I originally used a comma instead of a dash before "which means." I haven't reverted to my old Randian style for a long time, so I'm rusty, but I think the dash may be mandatory for the super-emphasis needed when writing about things that are super-evil. 8-)

Ghs

So, he's evil. What's the BF Deal? It's all the evil of public education sanctioned by Jefferson with his University of Virginia. It's the same river of souls for the state. Of this, I assume and think J. was an innoicent. If Dewey never lived, WTF would be different? The world wants to know.

--Brant

we have to respect cultural and intellectual inertia: you'd and we'd and me'd be loved and surprised by the world of 2-300 yrs from now for it's just progress these last thousand years--to be continued (with much blood, but I suspect much less than before, but with many oil wars until that motor run on static electricity)*

*x that asteroid or coment

[George H. Smith]

So, he's evil. What's the BF Deal? It's all the evil of public education sanctioned by Jefferson with his University of Virginia. It's the same river of souls for the state. Of this, I assume and think J. was an Innocent. If Dewey never lived, WTF would be different? The world wants to know.

I don't know how you can possibly compare Jefferson's support of public universities with Dewey's views on education. Jefferson also defended three years of elementary public schooling, but his modest proposal bears as much resemblance to Dewey's educational agenda as a Randian limited government bears to the former Soviet government.

As an anarchist, I suppose I could put Rand's ideal government and various totalitarian governments in the same camp -- it's all "evil" government, after all, so what is the difference? Well, there are many fundamental differences, so any such bundling would be absurd.

Ghs

[Roger Bissell]

John Dewey, whose &quot;progressive&quot; ideas about state education are still very influential, was possibly the most repulsive intellectual in American history. His extensive arguments for a &quot;corporate&quot; society (his term) are right out of the fascistic playbook. Dewey, like his modern counterparts, did not dislike the corporate model at all. On the contrary, he loved it so much that he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines, which means (Ghs wrote, like a good Randian): a society run by experts at the top who tell everyone else what is good for them...

George, glad to see you still have good &quot;colon health.&quot; :-) REB

I'm not sure, but shouldn't I have written: &quot;...he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines -- which means: a society....&quot;? I originally used a comma instead of a dash before &quot;which means.&quot; I haven't reverted to my old Randian style for a long time, so I'm rusty, but I think the dash may be mandatory for the super-emphasis needed when writing about things that are super-evil. 8-) Ghs

You're on the right track, George, but I think it's more general than that. I think the dash is mandatory to set off saying "which means: ...[whatever]." I've seen it used for "the supremacy of reason--which means: man's rational self-interest--which means: laissez-faire capitalism." Then, of course, you turn it around for the false doctrines: "statist-collectivism--which means: altruism--which means: irrationality." It's really a cool method of visually highlighting a chain of implications, whether of ultimate good or super-evil. :-D REB

Do you expect me to believe that the same Randian syntactical structure can be used to express either the ultimate good or the super-evil? I don't know about that. Sounds like a variant of whim-worship to me. 8-)

Ghs

Smart-ass reply 1: We are all Randians now. (I will find an example of such unprincipled "whim-worship" from each of the principals.)

Smart-ass reply 2: I refuse to be one-sided and indulge in hated of the evil for being evil.

Smart-ass reply 3: Whatsamatter, GHS, your search function not work on "which means"?

REB

Smart-ass reply 3:

[sjw]

George, she may be just as stupid as you say, but I think the best policy is to argue against the strongest possible form an opponents argument might possibly be, rather than just assume they are stupid and thus dismiss them. In any case I have no interest in a debate that centers around whether she meant this or meant that.

Shayne

[sjw]

Isn't the extant legal corporation inherently fascistic? --Brant

Willing or otherwise in any particular case, yes. E.g. the "corporate veil", which is a blatantly fascistic legal construct (which I don't necessarily advocate abolishing without abolishing some other rotten things first). In a true free market, business partners act as people, they don't get to act with impunity to the consequences, laying their guilt down at the feet to this fictional pseudo-personage in the corporation. Note the similarity here between the corporation and the government -- government employees also enjoy this kind of protection based on a legal fiction (but on top of that they enjoy "sovereign immunity.") Only when actions are particularly egregious is the "corporate veil" or "government veil" pierced, but what actually defines "egregious" is completely subjective.

All of this is just a sign that we are living under some variant of fascism/feudalism.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

So, he's evil. What's the BF Deal? It's all the evil of public education sanctioned by Jefferson with his University of Virginia. It's the same river of souls for the state. Of this, I assume and think J. was an Innocent. If Dewey never lived, WTF would be different? The world wants to know.

I don't know how you can possibly compare Jefferson's support of public universities with Dewey's views on education. Jefferson also defended three years of elementary public schooling, but his modest proposal bears as much resemblance to Dewey's educational agenda as a Randian limited government bears to the former Soviet government.

As an anarchist, I suppose I could put Rand's ideal government and various totalitarian governments in the same camp -- it's all "evil" government, after all, so what is the difference? Well, there are many fundamental differences, so any such bundling would be absurd.

Ghs

No, no, no. I'm not comparing views. It's simply the idea of the state providing education. It seems to have become a snowball rolling down the proverbial hill. My question still is what would be so different today if Dewey hadn't lived? More than philosophy is involved in government getting bigger and bigger. I should have worded my remarks differently for even when you put in the slave ownership, Jefferson wasn't evil, obviously, nor were his education ideas, but they did sanction public education. He seriously helped get that ball rolling.

--Brant

Edited September 24, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Roger Bissell]

John Dewey, whose &amp;quot;progressive&amp;quot; ideas about state education are still very influential, was possibly the most repulsive intellectual in American history. His extensive arguments for a &amp;quot;corporate&amp;quot; society (his term) are right out of the fascistic playbook. Dewey, like his modern counterparts, did not dislike the corporate model at all. On the contrary, he loved it so much that he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines, which means (Ghs wrote, like a good Randian): a society run by experts at the top who tell everyone else what is good for them...

George, glad to see you still have good &amp;quot;colon health.&amp;quot; :-) REB

I'm not sure, but shouldn't I have written: &amp;quot;...he wanted the entire U.S. remodeled along corporate lines -- which means: a society....&amp;quot;? I originally used a comma instead of a dash before &amp;quot;which means.&amp;quot; I haven't reverted to my old Randian style for a long time, so I'm rusty, but I think the dash may be mandatory for the super-emphasis needed when writing about things that are super-evil. 8-) Ghs

You're on the right track, George, but I think it's more general than that. I think the dash is mandatory to set off saying &quot;which means: ...[whatever].&quot; I've seen it used for &quot;the supremacy of reason--which means: man's rational self-interest--which means: laissez-faire capitalism.&quot; Then, of course, you turn it around for the false doctrines: &quot;statist-collectivism--which means: altruism--which means: irrationality.&quot; It's really a cool method of visually highlighting a chain of implications, whether of ultimate good or super-evil. :-D REB

Do you expect me to believe that the same Randian syntactical structure can be used to express either the ultimate good or the super-evil? I don't know about that. Sounds like a variant of whim-worship to me. 8-)

Ghs

Smart-ass reply 1: We are all Randians now. (I will find an example of such unprincipled "whim-worship" from each of the principals.)

Smart-ass reply 2: I refuse to be one-sided and indulge in hated of the evil for being evil.

Smart-ass reply 3: Whatsamatter, GHS, your search function not work on "which means"?

REB

Smart-ass reply 3:

OK, George, here are some examples of "--which means:" used to express the good, rather than the evil.

Barbara Branden, in "Efficient Thinking" (chapter 5 of The Vision of Ayn Rand): "Now, once that purpose is chosen and is clearly defined, the means of holding to it and never deviating from it is to set oneself sub-purposes--which means: to raise and to answer relevant questions."

Nathaniel Branden, in "The Objectivist Ethics" (chapter 9 of The Vision of Ayn Rand): "To remain alive, man must think--which means: he must exercise the faculty which he alone, of all living species, possesses, the faculty of abstraction, of conceptualizing."

And last, but not quite (as I like to say), Ayn Rand, in "Man's Rights" (chapter 12 of The Virtue of Selfishness: "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life."

REB

P.S. -- A preliminary search turned up ~no~ instances of Leonard Peikoff using this syntactical structure for expressing the good, let alone mere facts, as opposed to the evil. I'm afraid that this could mean that LP is not a true Randian. The alternative, that he ~alone~ might be the true Randian of the four of them--and that BB, NB, and AR are mere poseurs--is unthinkable, though quite amusing.

[George H. Smith]

So, he's evil. What's the BF Deal? It's all the evil of public education sanctioned by Jefferson with his University of Virginia. It's the same river of souls for the state. Of this, I assume and think J. was an Innocent. If Dewey never lived, WTF would be different? The world wants to know.

I don't know how you can possibly compare Jefferson's support of public universities with Dewey's views on education. Jefferson also defended three years of elementary public schooling, but his modest proposal bears as much resemblance to Dewey's educational agenda as a Randian limited government bears to the former Soviet government. As an anarchist, I suppose I could put Rand's ideal government and various totalitarian governments in the same camp -- it's all "evil" government, after all, so what is the difference? Well, there are many fundamental differences, so any such bundling would be absurd. Ghs

No, no, no. I'm not comparing views. It's simply the idea of the state providing education. It seems to have become a snowball rolling down the proverbial hill. My question still is what would be so different today if Dewey hadn't lived? More than philosophy is involved in government getting bigger and bigger. --Brant

If John Dewey had never lived, we would not be having this conversation. That much, but little else, is certain.

More seriously, you have indirectly raised the famous historical problem of "Cleopatra's Nose." If Cleopatra had been born with a large or deformed nose that made her unattractive to Marc Antony, then such-and-such would not have happened, in which case other things would not have happened, and so on indefinitely, until we possibly end up with a world different from the one we know today. .

So who knows what would be different if Dewey had never lived? There is no way to say for sure. We can say, however, that he was very influential.

Ghs

Addendum: Let me ask you this question: How would the world be different today if Ayn Rand had never lived?

[Jonathan]

Addendum: Let me ask you this question: How would the world be different today if Ayn Rand had never lived?

Peikoff would be a nurse at a clinic in Winnipeg.

J

[George H. Smith]

OK, George, here are some examples of "--which means:" used to express the good, rather than the evil. Barbara Branden, in "Efficient Thinking" (chapter 5 of The Vision of Ayn Rand): "Now, once that purpose is chosen and is clearly defined, the means of holding to it and never deviating from it is to set oneself sub-purposes--which means: to raise and to answer relevant questions." Nathaniel Branden, in "The Objectivist Ethics" (chapter 9 of The Vision of Ayn Rand): "To remain alive, man must think--which means: he must exercise the faculty which he alone, of all living species, possesses, the faculty of abstraction, of conceptualizing." And last, but not quite (as I like to say), Ayn Rand, in "Man's Rights" (chapter 12 of The Virtue of Selfishness: "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life." REB P.S. -- A preliminary search turned up ~no~ instances of Leonard Peikoff using this syntactical structure for expressing the good, let alone mere facts, as opposed to the evil. I'm afraid that this could mean that LP is not a true Randian. The alternative, that he ~alone~ might be the true Randian of the four of them--and that BB, NB, and AR are mere poseurs--is unthinkable, though quite amusing.

You have gone to considerable trouble to prove me wrong -- which means: You have a deeply flawed psycho-epistemology -- which means: You will never change my mind, no matter how much evidence you give -- which means: I am a superior person-- which means: Q.E.D.

Ghs

[Selene]

OK, George, here are some examples of "--which means:" used to express the good, rather than the evil. Barbara Branden, in "Efficient Thinking" (chapter 5 of The Vision of Ayn Rand): "Now, once that purpose is chosen and is clearly defined, the means of holding to it and never deviating from it is to set oneself sub-purposes--which means: to raise and to answer relevant questions." Nathaniel Branden, in "The Objectivist Ethics" (chapter 9 of The Vision of Ayn Rand): "To remain alive, man must think--which means: he must exercise the faculty which he alone, of all living species, possesses, the faculty of abstraction, of conceptualizing." And last, but not quite (as I like to say), Ayn Rand, in "Man's Rights" (chapter 12 of The Virtue of Selfishness: "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life." REB P.S. -- A preliminary search turned up ~no~ instances of Leonard Peikoff using this syntactical structure for expressing the good, let alone mere facts, as opposed to the evil. I'm afraid that this could mean that LP is not a true Randian. The alternative, that he ~alone~ might be the true Randian of the four of them--and that BB, NB, and AR are mere poseurs--is unthinkable, though quite amusing.

You have gone to considerable trouble to prove me wrong -- which means: You have a deeply flawed psycho-epistemology -- which means: You will never change my mind, no matter how much evidence you give -- which means: I am a superior person-- which means: Q.E.D.

Ghs

--Which means he ain't no Baruch Spinoza...

[sjw]

Addendum: Let me ask you this question: How would the world be different today if Ayn Rand had never lived?

Ayn Rand pointed out the truth; John Dewey did the opposite. So there is some reason to conclude that the power of influence would be of a completely different character, that perhaps Ayn Rand could genuinely create a positive influence, whereas Dewey can only preach to the choir. Concerning myself, I know that Ayn Rand definitely had a positive influence on me, whereas Dewey had no meaningful influence. I can't imagine that Dewey could influence anyone who had any concern for the truth, so he could only have influence by preaching what certain people already wanted to hear.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

George, she may be just as stupid as you say, but I think the best policy is to argue against the strongest possible form an opponents argument might possibly be, rather than just assume they are stupid and thus dismiss them. In any case I have no interest in a debate that centers around whether she meant this or meant that.

Shayne

I have no desire to argue against Warren (or her views) at all. Our exchange was precipitated by the question of whether she presents a coherent argument at all. The answer to this question is still No.

As I said before, Warren was using rhetorical devices to trigger emotional responses in her audience. She might have just as well said this: "The factory owner can take time off or come in late whenever he wants, but you cannot. The factory owner owns a big house, but you live in a small apartment and can barely pay the rent. The factory owner drives a fancy car, but you must take a bus to work," etc.

This is essentially what Warren was saying. All she added was a limp rationale for hating factory owners (i.e., capitalists) and getting revenge via the power of government. With progressive types, it is all about envy and revenge. These are the means by which they acquire and maintain political power in a democracy.

Ghs