Paul Ryan's Objective Virtues

[Robert Campbell]

Mostly for entertainment value, here's a take on Rand and Ryan from a theologian:

http://joeljmiller.com/ayn-rand-antichrist/

Robert Campbell

[PDS]

So, um, what's my point? I forget.

Alrightee, I've recovered from the brain freeze, brought about by a Magnum ice cream thingee. Real good, mint with chocolate, first time I've had it. Better than the Haagen Daz equivalent, y'know, ice cream on a stick, whatever you call that.

So, let's say there are college students who want to have a weekly booth at the student union, and hand out Ayn Rand pamphlets. Been there, done that (good way to meet lots of weird people and have weirder conversations). How would they ever make a profit doing that? You, moneybags, want to finance that activity. Are you going to maybe set up a partnership with your like minded fellows, everyone chip in a hundred bucks, and then pass back a tax loss to each "investor" every year? Or give the money to a "non-profit" that does it. You might think the result is the same, but I got news for you: the IRS could deny the deduction if you do it the partnership way. You didn't do it for a business purpose. It may as well have been a political contribution, which is never tax deductible.

You want to make your money go farther? There's a thing called the Tax Code, and those are the rules you're choosing to play by.

I think most people are aware that there are tax benefits to being a not for profit, but that really isn't my point. My point is that this is the "Ayn Rand Institute" we are talking about, and it is ironic that such an institute would be run without an eye toward profit. The fact that there are tax benefits to a certain kind of corporte structure is not the end of the analysis.

We are all familiar with the notion of "green investing" which promotes a goal in exchange for lower profits, or less attractive returns on one's money. I guess I am suggesting something similar--almost the converse--seems more in order among Objectivists.

Was Galt's Gulch set up as a 501©3 so that the titans of industry could maximize their tax write offs? I don't recall that being mentioned anywhere.

[9thdoctor]

My point is that this is the "Ayn Rand Institute" we are talking about, and it is ironic that such an institute would be run without an eye toward profit.

When I was running a campus club, it was ARI sending me free pamphlets, meeting materials (e.g. videotapes) and chipping in big time to bring speakers. When I would call, the deal was we'd immediately hang up and they'd call me, so as not to run up my long-distance bill. They didn't make a cent off me, and supporting what I was doing is their mission. It's what their "investors" are paying for.

So anyway, ironic? Ok, sure, it's ironic.

[PDS]

The article looks like it was written by Casper Milk Toast himself, but in fairness to ARI on this one, here is what Don Watkins says in the comments: "Just so we’re all on the same page: the Ayn Rand Institute is a 501c(3) nonprofit, ...

It is rather ironic that an organization devoted to the philosophy of Ayn Rand--and presumably backed by the wealth of her royalties?--is not being run with an eye toward making a profit.

It is Caspar Milquetoast (Wikipedia here).

Do not make he common error of ascribing moral status to a 501 c 3. It is only a bookkeeping choice. Among the "non-profit" organizations are the National Football League and Mastercard. It is only that there is no owner's equity in the books: the four entries are assets, liabilities, incomes, and expenses.

I am not familiar with the nuances of NFP law, but an educational institution can publish any information it wishes, but it cannot actively support a candidate or a ballot proposal.

As for whether "most" lobbyists are NFPs, I would guess that "most" being lawyers are LLC (limited liability corporation), LLP (limited liability partnerships), LLPC, etc., depending on whether they are incorporated in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, etc., etc. Lobbyists represent people. A "thinktank" so-called has no legal status per se, but is only an organization with some purpose as stated in their charter. They may be any kind of corporation or partnership or firm, but, while "lobbyist" is term known in law - states regulate them - "think tank" is not.

I sat on the Board of the East Lansing Food Co-operative twice. The newsletter actively argued against various legislative proposals, and our "profits" were accumulated under "withheld members' equity." In other words, they could ask for it back, but we were just holding on to it for them (ahem). I also served on the Board of the Michigan State Numismatic Society, a 501 c 3, educational organization.

I, from a moral perspective, refuse to ever donate to a non-profit. Why should my fellow tax paying citizens be forced to pay for my concepts?

That is a problem with the statist intrusions of a mixed economy. Do you feel that your fellows pay for your mortgage, if you have one? (Interest on mortgages is tax-deductible to make it attractive to own a home, the American Dream.) Do you pay for WalMart's "concepts" when they write off the cost of goods sold or depreciation on capital equipment such their huge fleet of trucks? An NFP is lawful. If it suits your purposes, fine; if not, okay, too. As long as you advocate against the tax system, you are morally entitled to use it to reduce your own taxes. Ayn Rand said so.

To use your formulation, do not make the common error of failing to understand that pretty much everybody knows it's Casper Milquetoaste. That's what makes my comment calling him Casper Milk Toast a touch more sardonic, if not taken literally.

Also, do not make the common error of failing to understand that pretty much everybody knows how not for profits operate. This, again, is beside the point. The question is not whether it is lawful to be set up as a not for profit--of course that is lawful--the question is whether that is the best choice for an entity expressly devoted to the spread of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, especially when, as just one of dozens of potential examples, a pivot point in Atlas Shrugged is Francisco's (ironic) statement of his avoidence of profit with regard to the San Sebastion mines: "Isn’t it evil to work for profit? I did not work for profit–I took a loss."

I have a very close friend who is a big time environmentalist. Last week, over a fine glass of wine that I made him buy, I reminded him that his occupation--the manufacturing and selling of chainsaws--does not quite comport with his expressed values. He made basically the same argument you are making, from the other side of the fence: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. But at least he admitted he was acting the hypocrite, and, to state the obvious: he is not an Objectivist who endorses "the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality."

If I were to spearhead an organization devoted to the reform of tax laws to eliminate not for profit tax breaks, it would be oddly incongruent of me to do so under the umbrella of a 501©3 organization. Considering Rand's significant and signature achievement in demonstrating the moral justification for "profits", it seems just barely less incongruent for ARI to use such an umbrella.

[syrakusos]

If I were to spearhead an organization devoted to the reform of tax laws to eliminate not for profit tax breaks, it would be oddly incongruent of me to do so under the umbrella of a 501©3 organization. Considering Rand's significant and signature achievement in demonstrating the moral justification for "profits", it seems just barely less incongruent for ARI to use such an umbrella.

I understand. And I agree. I also see the other side of the question and I accept that, as well, depending on the context. As you say - as we all know, or the question wouid not come up - it is a ironic that so few of us capitalists actually turn a profit running an actual business. One guy on RoR owns a restaurant. The other successful people are, like me, contractors, self-employed workers who employ no one else. Objectivist entrepreneurs do exist: John Allison, of course, as well as Fred Smith of FedEx, Ed Snider of Spectacor, T. J. Rodgers of Cypress Semiconductor, Mark Cuban of the Dallas Mavericks, and Peter O'Malley (Dodgers, then Padres - and something of Atlas story in his battle with LA CIty Hall Wikipedia here - who introduced Ed Snider to Atlas Shrugged.).

But you are right: we all know the irony that the philosophers of capitalism are philosophers, not capitalists. ... after all, the so-called "communists" were usually bourgeois intellectuals, not factory workers...

[PDS]

If I were to spearhead an organization devoted to the reform of tax laws to eliminate not for profit tax breaks, it would be oddly incongruent of me to do so under the umbrella of a 501©3 organization. Considering Rand's significant and signature achievement in demonstrating the moral justification for "profits", it seems just barely less incongruent for ARI to use such an umbrella.

I understand. And I agree. I also see the other side of the question and I accept that, as well, depending on the context. As you say - as we all know, or the question wouid not come up - it is a ironic that so few of us capitalists actually turn a profit running an actual business. One guy on RoR owns a restaurant. The other successful people are, like me, contractors, self-employed workers who employ no one else. Objectivist entrepreneurs do exist: John Allison, of course, as well as Fred Smith of FedEx, Ed Snider of Spectacor, T. J. Rodgers of Cypress Semiconductor, Mark Cuban of the Dallas Mavericks, and Peter O'Malley (Dodgers, then Padres - and something of Atlas story in his battle with LA CIty Hall Wikipedia here - who introduced Ed Snider to Atlas Shrugged.).

But you are right: we all know the irony that the philosophers of capitalism are philosophers, not capitalists. ... after all, the so-called "communists" were usually bourgeois intellectuals, not factory workers...

Are all of these fellows avowed Objectivists?

I was aware of Ellison and Snyder, but not the others.

If Mark Cuban is an Objectivist, I will be most pleased. His persona strikes me as being Rand-novel-worthy.

[Brant Gaede]

The minions (ironical use of this word) of NBI were proud of making a profit.

--Brant

[PDS]

The minions (ironical use of this word) of NBI were proud of making a profit.

--Brant

As well they should have been. I mean, what the hell?

[Peter]

Peter Reidy wrote:

As far as I know ARI does not run on Rand's royalties. The startup money came from a few philanthropists (perhaps as few as one - Ed Snider), and it has run ever since on donations, sales and maybe investment income. The royalties go to Peikoff via the estate. Maybe he donates to ARI, but he isn't its sole or even primary support.

end quote

You have a good memory. About two or three weeks ago I was looking for an insurance policy I have in a junk drawer and came across several old copies of “The Objectivist Forum.” Vol. 5, No. 6 December 1984 has this near the end in the Announcements section:

We are delighted to announce the formation of a new organization: The Ayn Rand Institute: The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism.

The Institute’s purpose is to engage in a variety of educational activities to help spread Objectivism in the universities and in the business world. Leonard Peikoff will be Chairman of the Institute’s Board of Directors. Also on the Board will be Dr. Edith Packer and Edward M. Snider (Mr. Snider is the owner of the Philadelphia Flyers hockey team.)

end quote

Later on the announcement reads:

The founding capital for the Institute has been pledged by Mr. Snider, who initially conceived the project, and by several other Charter Contributors.

end quote

And after a few paragraphs describing what they will do at the Institute is this paragraph:

The Ayn Rand Institute is not a doctrinal entity. It is not its function or prerogative to define the Objectivist philosophy, but to advance that philosophy by specified activities.

end quote

Have they done as they pledged?

Peter Taylor

[caroljane]

This far into the campaign, how do you think Ryan's objective virtues are holding up? He hasn't helped himself by exaggerating his athletic accomplishments, and calling Romney "inarticulate"was not the most graceful moment--do you still think he was the right choice?

[Peter]

Duance wrote:

This far into the campaign, how do you think Ryan's objective virtues are holding up? He hasn't helped himself by exaggerating his athletic accomplishments, and calling Romney "inarticulate" was not the most graceful moment--do you still think he was the right choice?

end quote

Paul Ryan was my first choice for President but I was surprised when he said he was totally for Ayn Rand’s fictional books, but not for her philosophy because of her atheism. I still have hopes for Paul Ryan.

Her books are the stepping stones to rationality but it is hard to repudiate a religion, especially for a person from a small town, who is still in touch with the people he grew up with.

It is even harder for a politician to voice skepticism about the existence of the gods . . . . if he wants to be elected. I remember Cato saying something about that but I don’t remember exactly what he said, but it may have been, “Great Caesar’s Ghost!” or “Good Golly, Jupiter!”

Peter

[Robert Campbell]

This far into the campaign, how do you think Ryan's objective virtues are holding up? He hasn't helped himself by exaggerating his athletic accomplishments, and calling Romney "inarticulate"was not the most graceful moment--do you still think he was the right choice?

Carol,

Considering Romney's deficiencies regarding the vision thing and incomplete command of policy details, I thought and still think that Ryan was an excellent choice.

He may also be helping to put some Midwestern states in play.

Beyond that, who knows? The choice of a running mate has only a very small effect on electoral outcomes. And the legacy media are so busy trying to convince themselves that it's game over, Romney is toast, don't even bother to hold the election 'cause our guy will be re-coronated, that I wouldn't know where Ryan is speaking and what he's saying unless I kept scanning local newspapers and TV.

Let's see what happens when Ryan "debates" Joe Biden.

Robert Campbell

[caroljane]

This far into the campaign, how do you think Ryan's objective virtues are holding up? He hasn't helped himself by exaggerating his athletic accomplishments, and calling Romney "inarticulate"was not the most graceful moment--do you still think he was the right choice?

Carol,

Considering Romney's deficiencies regarding the vision thing and incomplete command of policy details, I thought and still think that Ryan was an excellent choice.

He may also be helping to put some Midwestern states in play.

Beyond that, who knows? The choice of a running mate has only a very small effect on electoral outcomes. And the legacy media are so busy trying to convince themselves that it's game over, Romney is toast, don't even bother to hold the election 'cause our guy will be re-coronated, that I wouldn't know where Ryan is speaking and what he's saying unless I kept scanning local newspapers and TV.

Let's see what happens when Ryan "debates" Joe Biden.

Robert Campbell

I agree with your assessment here. Running mates don't much influence the voters. Quayle was one of the weakest vp candidates in living memory, but Bush still won. (Poor DQ was not helped by the fact that Bush was so obsessively secretive that he did not even tell him he was chosen, so he had no way to prepare for the media onslaught) Compared with him Sarah Palin was over-prepped. (I read Bob Woodward's book).

I am looking forward to the debate too, though again, everything I read says it will make no difference, each side's supporters will conclude that their guy won. Biden is the more experienced debater, but he's Biden. Ryan is very personable. It could be a Nixon/Kennedy moment,

[Robert Campbell]

Carol,

Not only did Dan Quayle fail to sink Bush 41, Joe Biden failed to sink Barack Obama.

First time around, anyway.

Robert Campbell

[Peter]

The honorable Paul Ryan disagrees with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, of which true Objectivists concur, must lead to thinking of only the validity of what is provable and exists. Objectivism should lead to rational thinking but many people still retain a vestige of myth and superstition, though most of their decisions are arrived at rationally. Reason - epistemologically, logically and empirically (the view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge) must lead to atheism.

But by philosophically, empirically, and scientifically negating the concept *God,* Objectivists and other clear thinkers are putting a double hex on religions like paganism and Hinduism that have a number of gods. I suggest that instead of saying “There is no God,” Objectivists say, “There are no gods,” thereby marginalizing no religion, and including a billion Hindus into our consideration.

Is there a down side to saying “the gods,” instead of the term “God?” Well, it could make the thinking monotheists wonder about their brand of superstition. Face it, monotheists are snobs. You could have a monotheist who gets it when you said, “the gods,” and dislikes you not only for being an atheist but also because you place a lesser value, on monotheism and polytheism, equally. So I hereby the decree that all Objectivists now say “There are no gods” - if it is necessary to say anything at all.

And I also decree that Objectivists must stop being superstitious in other ways. Friday the 13th is not bad luck. Saying “gesundheit,” or "bless you" when someone sneezes is passé. An itchy palm does not mean good luck or that you are going to come into money. Walking under a ladder is stupid but does not bring bad luck. Nobody breaks mirrors anymore or finds horseshoes so forget about those. Opening an umbrella inside a house IS sensible behavior if it is raining outside, black cats are just felines, and tossing spilt salt over your shoulder is a waste of resources.

And after all these reforms are implemented Randites, no more calls to that psychic healing hotline, or crossing yourself. I mean it!

Peter, ARI rep, spokesman and apostle of Saint Leonard.

[Selene]

This far into the campaign, how do you think Ryan's objective virtues are holding up? He hasn't helped himself by exaggerating his athletic accomplishments, and calling Romney "inarticulate"was not the most graceful moment--do you still think he was the right choice?

Carol,

Considering Romney's deficiencies regarding the vision thing and incomplete command of policy details, I thought and still think that Ryan was an excellent choice.

He may also be helping to put some Midwestern states in play.

Beyond that, who knows? The choice of a running mate has only a very small effect on electoral outcomes. And the legacy media are so busy trying to convince themselves that it's game over, Romney is toast, don't even bother to hold the election 'cause our guy will be re-coronated, that I wouldn't know where Ryan is speaking and what he's saying unless I kept scanning local newspapers and TV.

Let's see what happens when Ryan "debates" Joe Biden.

Robert Campbell

I agree with your assessment here. Running mates don't much influence the voters. Quayle was one of the weakest vp candidates in living memory, but Bush still won. (Poor DQ was not helped by the fact that Bush was so obsessively secretive that he did not even tell him he was chosen, so he had no way to prepare for the media onslaught) Compared with him Sarah Palin was over-prepped. (I read Bob Woodward's book).

I am looking forward to the debate too, though again, everything I read says it will make no difference, each side's supporters will conclude that their guy won. Biden is the more experienced debater, but he's Biden. Ryan is very personable. It could be a Nixon/Kennedy moment,

And of course we can believe Bob Woodward who got the Watergate break in "story" completely wrong and has been an agenda driven "journalist" ever since.

[caroljane]

This far into the campaign, how do you think Ryan's objective virtues are holding up? He hasn't helped himself by exaggerating his athletic accomplishments, and calling Romney "inarticulate"was not the most graceful moment--do you still think he was the right choice?

Carol,

Considering Romney's deficiencies regarding the vision thing and incomplete command of policy details, I thought and still think that Ryan was an excellent choice.

He may also be helping to put some Midwestern states in play.

Beyond that, who knows? The choice of a running mate has only a very small effect on electoral outcomes. And the legacy media are so busy trying to convince themselves that it's game over, Romney is toast, don't even bother to hold the election 'cause our guy will be re-coronated, that I wouldn't know where Ryan is speaking and what he's saying unless I kept scanning local newspapers and TV.

Let's see what happens when Ryan "debates" Joe Biden.

Robert Campbell

I agree with your assessment here. Running mates don't much influence the voters. Quayle was one of the weakest vp candidates in living memory, but Bush still won. (Poor DQ was not helped by the fact that Bush was so obsessively secretive that he did not even tell him he was chosen, so he had no way to prepare for the media onslaught) Compared with him Sarah Palin was over-prepped. (I read Bob Woodward's book).

I am looking forward to the debate too, though again, everything I read says it will make no difference, each side's supporters will conclude that their guy won. Biden is the more experienced debater, but he's Biden. Ryan is very personable. It could be a Nixon/Kennedy moment,

And of course we can believe Bob Woodward who got the Watergate break in "story" completely wrong and has been an agenda driven "journalist" ever since.

His latest book is about howObama's presidency has failed, isn't it? This is only the impression I get from the MSM, I have not read it, as it has not yet been remaindered at 99cents like the old one. Woodward expected Bush/Quayle to win in 1992.

[Selene]

His latest book is about howObama's presidency has failed, isn't it? This is only the impression I get from the MSM, I have not read it, as it has not yet been remaindered at 99cents like the old one. Woodward expected Bush/Quayle to win in 1992.

See what I mean...got that wrong also.

[Robert Campbell]

His latest book is about howObama's presidency has failed, isn't it? This is only the impression I get from the MSM, I have not read it, as it has not yet been remaindered at 99cents like the old one. Woodward expected Bush/Quayle to win in 1992.

Carol,

The new Woodward book purports to give the inside skinny on the Obama White House; excerpts unflattering to the present President have been widely quoted.

After Woodward claimed he'd interviewed a man who was dying of brain cancer and incapable of speaking coherently to anybody, I've been inclined to distrust him.

More recent revelations about Watergate (since the identity of "Deep Throat" finally surfaced) have not been kind to Woodward and Bernstein.

Robert Campbell

[caroljane]

His latest book is about howObama's presidency has failed, isn't it? This is only the impression I get from the MSM, I have not read it, as it has not yet been remaindered at 99cents like the old one. Woodward expected Bush/Quayle to win in 1992.

See what I mean...got that wrong also.

His latest book is about howObama's presidency has failed, isn't it? This is only the impression I get from the MSM, I have not read it, as it has not yet been remaindered at 99cents like the old one. Woodward expected Bush/Quayle to win in 1992.

See what I mean...got that wrong also.

Gotcha gotcha! Look everybody! Adam says that Obama presidency hasn't failed!!

[Selene]

Yep...they were clueless and pretty much lied above some serious aspects of the reason for the "burglary."

Which, to date, noone has given a good reason for breaking into the damn office.

[Selene]

Gotcha gotcha! Look everybody! Adam says that Obama presidency hasn't failed!!

With apologies to Emily Dickinson, how can I refute that improper conclusion, let me count the ways...wow I passed twenty-five (5) and ran out of appendages...

[caroljane]

If I were to spearhead an organization devoted to the reform of tax laws to eliminate not for profit tax breaks, it would be oddly incongruent of me to do so under the umbrella of a 501©3 organization. Considering Rand's significant and signature achievement in demonstrating the moral justification for "profits", it seems just barely less incongruent for ARI to use such an umbrella.

I think you are all "right" on this issue. Needs must when the devil drives, and defining the devil is more proper to philosophy than analysing the economic structure of the society in which you are defining it. But when you are defining it I think PDS has the moral edge here,

I understand. And I agree. I also see the other side of the question and I accept that, as well, depending on the context. As you say - as we all know, or the question wouid not come up - it is a ironic that so few of us capitalists actually turn a profit running an actual business. One guy on RoR owns a restaurant. The other successful people are, like me, contractors, self-employed workers who employ no one else. Objectivist entrepreneurs do exist: John Allison, of course, as well as Fred Smith of FedEx, Ed Snider of Spectacor, T. J. Rodgers of Cypress Semiconductor, Mark Cuban of the Dallas Mavericks, and Peter O'Malley (Dodgers, then Padres - and something of Atlas story in his battle with LA CIty Hall Wikipedia here - who introduced Ed Snider to Atlas Shrugged.).

But you are right: we all know the irony that the philosophers of capitalism are philosophers, not capitalists. ... after all, the so-called "communists" were usually bourgeois intellectuals, not factory workers...

Are all of these fellows avowed Objectivists?

I was aware of Ellison and Snyder, but not the others.

If Mark Cuban is an Objectivist, I will be most pleased. His persona strikes me as being Rand-novel-worthy.

[caroljane]

I also appreciate the note about Caspar M. My own style of posting assumes that most will catch my references and use of them, and I never feel at pains to footnote or prove I know the correct usage when I misuse them deliberately. That is a part of the high calibre of OL I take for granted.

[caroljane]

Gotcha gotcha! Look everybody! Adam says that Obama presidency hasn't failed!!

With apologies to Emily Dickinson, how can I refute that improper conclusion, let me count the ways...wow I passed twenty-five (5) and ran out of appendages...

Apologise to Emily all you want, but Elizabeth B. Browning's husband will still be steamed,