Cultural Capital

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm sorry to hear about this other side of him.

Chris,

Don't be. He ain't.

Just be glad he's a competent professional. You certainly get more value out of him as a customer than readers do (other than Randroids).

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen and Barbara,

I suspect that Fred Weiss left SOLOP because of Mr. Perigo's new photo requirement and the previous departure of several other ARIans, including Ms. Hsieh. The split between Mr. Perigo and Ms. Hsieh deprived Mr. Weiss of his role in the Perigonian wolfpack.

Chris,

My experience, over a few exchanges with Mr. Weiss, is that he pretended to detailed knowledge of Objectivist philosophy that he didn't possess. His effort to "prove" that David Kelley got all of his ideas about perception from Harry Binswanger was priceless.

And he was remarkably quick with the insults.

I called one of his SOLOP posts "furiously inane."

Robert Campbell

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is a useful exercise: figure out why Objectivism is NOT catching on. If it were obviously correct and beneficial no further effort would be necessary. What is missing? What is wrong?

Here is my gloomy prediction (please don't shoot the Messenger kindly): after this generation of Objectivists dies off they will not be replaced. Partly because the philosophy is not generally appealing and partly because of the low birth rate among Objectivists. Objectivism will end up as an historical footnote like General Semantics. That is where all the empirical indicators point.

Bob,

Actually the empirical indicators are much better than that. Rand's book sales are strong (well over half a million a year, and the ARI give-aways are only a small part of this). See here for some 2005 and 2006 numbers.

Bibles sell even better. What do you make of that?

Do you see a general movement away from the Welfare State? If not, then the lessons of A.S. are not being well learned.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Actually the empirical indicators are much better than that. Rand's book sales are strong (well over half a million a year, and the ARI give-aways are only a small part of this). See here for some 2005 and 2006 numbers.

Bibles sell even better. What do you make of that?

Do you see a general movement away from the Welfare State? If not, then the lessons of A.S. are not being well learned.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The problem is not the welfare state as such, but Medicare and Medicaid. The other problems can be dealt with, but no politician will ever effectively address this medical elephant except to make it bigger just as Bush did with the drug benefit add-on. The only practical way out is new medical advances and technology to reduce old age debility, but the government is crapping all over that, too. There is little freedom in medicine.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Actually the empirical indicators are much better than that. Rand's book sales are strong (well over half a million a year, and the ARI give-aways are only a small part of this). See here for some 2005 and 2006 numbers.

Bibles sell even better. What do you make of that?

Do you see a general movement away from the Welfare State? If not, then the lessons of A.S. are not being well learned.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The problem is not the welfare state as such, but Medicare and Medicaid. The other problems can be dealt with, but no politician will ever effectively address this medical elephant except to make it bigger just as Bush did with the drug benefit add-on. The only practical way out is new medical advances and technology to reduce old age debility, but the government is crapping all over that, too. There is little freedom in medicine.

--Brant

Newer additions of A.S. should include a road map on how to get to Galt's Gulch in Colorado.

Seriously, I don't see any of Rand's ideas having a major effect on how United Stateseans think.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seriously, I don't see any of Rand's ideas having a major effect on how United Stateseans think.

Ronald Reagan...

Alan Greenspan...

Even Hillary Clinton for laughs...

Hmmmm...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Seriously, I don't see any of Rand's ideas having a major effect on how United Stateseans think.

Ronald Reagan...

Alan Greenspan...

Even Hillary Clinton for laughs...

? AR contemned Reagan. Greenspan went conservative. Clinton wants to rule. She'd roast us all or--just maybe--do an FDR 180 after she gets to be President. Don't count on that.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

LINZ: "You can say anything, make drunken ranting posts, make any kind of irrational comment you want, or smear people. But we MUST have your picture."

FRED: "I protest. That is really an evil requirement. I must stand on principle."

LINZ: "My house, my rules. I'm not entirely sure why I'm requiring a picture. Maybe for Homeland Security."

FRED: "I have to take a stand, since I already said no and I never go back on my word. And even though my intrinsicist rule of not doing it is no more fundamental than your intrinsicist rule that I have to do it."

LINZ: "I've now made it a requirement for everyone. I can't go back on my drunken policies or I might begin to look foolish. (In your case, I might be willing to waive the privately requested naked picture)."

FRED: "How DARE you require me to do something absurdly simple which I don't wish to do. Just to show you, I will even have to stop posting character-assassination attacks on the Demon Coates, your enemy and mine. I will now stop posting entirely. Even on the off chance I have something intelligent to say. I'm going to cut off my nose to spite my face."

LINZ: "Well, okay, but can you send in a picture of that?"

[Chris Grieb]

Everybody: Isn't this off Wolf's topic?

Phil;

I got a good laugh from your last post.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Those are just a few politicians on record saying that Rand influenced them. Bob's contention is that Rand's ideas influence no American in a meaningful manner. She influenced the Americans I mentioned.

Incidentally, I am reading Maestro: Greenspan's Fed And The American Boom by Bob Woodward. Greenspan never abandoned Rand's ideas. When he took the job as Chairman of the Fed, he read the law that created it and used that as his guide to business purpose—like any good senior manager would do to honor the Articles of Association for a corporation. Only Objectivists and libertarians find fault with him for not running the Fed on the basis of a different charter (CUI or works by Mises) or not betraying his office and destroying the institution altogether. Out in the real world, people understand that if you take a job, you are supposed to do the best you can for your employer.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen and Barbara,

I suspect that Fred Weiss left SOLOP because of Mr. Perigo's new photo requirement and the previous departure of several other ARIans, including Ms. Hsieh. The split between Mr. Perigo and Ms. Hsieh deprived Mr. Weiss of his role in the Perigonian wolfpack.

I suspect that even in the unlikely event Linz had remained on good terms with Diana and the other ARIans, Fred Weiss would have stopped posting on principle over the photo requirement. I think Phil has it comically nailed in his post #58.

Ellen

___

[Wolf DeVoon]

Everybody: Isn't this off Wolf's topic?

Phil;

I got a good laugh from your last post.

Nonsense. I distinctly remember saying something about gossip and laughter as a first principle. Where is that darn test pattern when I need it? Oh, well. Carry on. Linz' karma. Ho ho ho.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

I like to look at wide abstractions. Believe it or not, I do see a connection between your original post and the discussion of Perigo's irrationality.

You wondered if the founding fathers made a structure strong enough to withstand current events. Likewise, one could wonder the same about Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

There is an aspect of human nature that causes people to automatically seek out power. Most people manage to control and channel this urge as they grow up and get on with productive lives, just like they learn how to control their urge to go to the potty. A select few deliver their volition to this urge and devote their lives to gaining power. This is a choice just like criminals choose to deliver their volition to obtaining wealth by confiscation. There are psychological issues, but the moral one is that the volition of these people is serving dominance over other human beings as the root goal.

In Objectivism, what Phil just experienced is something I went through and I have seen one person after another face. We look in the face of the irrational garbed in a veneer of rationality, see the harm it has done others, and simply do not accept that fact that it will be the same with us. I know that is partly what kept me posting on SoloHQ, then start posting on Solo Passion when it started. I saw the way others were treated, but I refused to think that the world was that way. I heard the rational talk from the irrational people, so I believed that if I could just appeal to the rational side, things would be different with me and rationality would prevail. I believe this was an underlying belief of Phil and everyone else who has had problems over there (and at other places in Objectivism-land).

Then reality hits and surprise comes with it. After one observes one case after another of people suffering from being irrationally attacked and contradictions galore, there is no real reason for the surprise except for the goodness of the person's soul. He doesn't believe that he was in the face of chosen irrationality because he doesn't believe that something like that could exist at root. Not when a philosophy of reason is on the table. But it does exist and he learns it the hard way. I know I did.

And this is where the founding fathers were wise. There is a principle they built into the US government that takes into account the power lust (and urge to rule by whim) built into human nature. It is one that libertarians do not like to talk about much, but I believe that it is even a stronger principle for protecting individual rights than simply claiming protection by charter (which can always be overturned one day): the principle of checks and balances.

If the US government is ever to turn around toward more freedom (and I believe it can), the process will be rooted in checks and balances. The beauty of this principle is that it does not fake reality. It takes man as he is, not how he should be or how he might be one day, and it plays the bad part of one person against the bad part of another to cancel out the bad result if those parts were ever united into one person with total power. The founding fathers knew that men compete for power and that this competition within a structure prohibiting total power would be an assurance that total power would never come into being. Men are unlikely to give up what power they do obtain. On the contrary, they will strive to increase it.

Back to Objectivism. I have claimed for some time now that the view of human nature in Objectism is incomplete. This is evident when Objectivist guru-wannabes like Perigo are encountered. Good people simply don't believe that his spiritual motor is not reason, but power and whim instead. He uses his reason to serve those values.

In Objectivism these things are condemned, of course, but they are always considered as something that can be bred out of human beings. There are no checks and balances in Objectivism to deal with man as he exists. Power lust is for those who have not learned Objectivism, not for those who have read it in depth and preach it. But there it is. A is A like the lady said. People like Perigo exist and they go about trying to set up their flocks. They were never potty-trained in terms of power and whim.

The uniting point I see between your original post and the discussion of Phil being banned on Solo Passion is the abuse of power and how to deal with it. The founding fathers accepted reality as it was and instituted checks and balances. Objectivists—good people who are Objectivists—still need to learn and accept the full reality of human nature.

Thank goodness there are different Objectivist organizations and the Internet is blowing the lid off crowd control. That is an effective manner of checks and balances, despite not being a formal one.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> [We] simply do not accept that fact that it will be the same with us...I believed that if I could just appeal to the rational side, things would be different with me and rationality would prevail. I believe this was an underlying belief of Phil and everyone else who has had problems over there (and at other places in Objectivism-land).

Michael, that certainly wasn't my underlying belief once he purged William (Scherck) for no reason other than the fact that he made fun of him. And once he turned away in anger from rational argument in other areas regarding his behavior and that of the group he hangs with. My guess was that it was fifty-fity that he'd purge me eventually.

[Aside: I don't know if it was that I argued -too well- and he could see that, as you suggested. There are other possible explanations than dishonesty for people doing really stupid, petty things or causing self-inflicted wounds and alienting everyone around them. They usually go pretty deep into the past. For some reason, my gut sense about him is that he's an emotionalist lacking somewhat in critical thinking powers, not an irrationalist or an evader.]

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] once he purged William (Scherck) [...].

Phil, your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to stay after school and write on the blackboard as many times as are needed to remember it:

William Scherk

Poor WSS, with a name so often misspelled people have trouble finding the whole set of posts when attempting to track the history of his run-ins on SOLO, since neither Perigo nor most of the others in the fray (including our friend Fred Weiss) could manage to get the spelling of "Scherk" right.

E-

___

Edited August 22, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You don't have to agree with me, but I stand by my observations.

Also, I cannot believe that you kept posting in that environment as a kind of solitaire or daydreaming, knowing that you would not make any difference to anybody. You don't appear to be a time-waster.

Also, I want to be clear that I am not saying that you argued too well in general. You argued too well against those issues where Perigo felt he needed to assert his gugu-ness. Your biggest no-no was pointing to the real size and impact of the site and not allowing folks to think they were changing the world. Even if it is not true, folks have to believe they are disciples/missionaries saving the world or the whole game falls apart.

What raggedy-ass guru doesn't change the world?

Michael

[Jonathan]

SOLOP is like a dinner party where the drunken, vomiting host stumbles up onto the table and, while repeatedly congratulating himself for being the ideal host, drops his trousers and sprays urine and feces all over his guests and their plates. Then, after most of the guests have left in disgust, when one of them lingers to explain to the bleary-eyed host that the others have left because they and the entire room have been sprayed with urine and feces, the host whines that he is being insulted on his own property, accuses his guests of being atrociously unappreciative of all that he has done for them by allowing them seats at his table, and, finally, ejects his last remaining critic.

I was surprised that Phil had the stomach to continue mingling with Objectivism's hillbillies as long as he did.

J

P.S. Like MSK, I see the SOLOP issue as tying in to this thread's initial topic. The fact that most Objectivists now recognize Pigero for what he is, and have rejected or abandoned him, makes me more optimistic about the role that Objectivists might play in promoting liberty.

[william.scherk]

. . . like a dinner party [ . . . ] with Objectivism's hillbillies

Apparently Lindsay Perigo is an experienced radio 'open mouth' host. I suspect that this longtime vocation -- of being host and button-man on radio -- inevitably shapes online persona and behaviour. To be both a host/enforcer AND participant is built-in to the radio format.

All online forums are not built on the exact same scaffolding, but share foundations, if they feature the opinions of a master and have the master in the thick of debate: when a list owner is a regular participant, it mirrors the radio show . . .

I think problems of this structure face anyone hosting an forum: rare that an Emperor keeps out of the 'Parliament.'

I don't know how it is finessed elsewhere in the O-online world in detail, but it might not be possible to square the circle. No Emperor likes to give up either the power of the red button or the ability to enter discussion threads. How is it done to satisfaction at OO, THE FORUM, Binswanger's, Noodlefood, Meta-whatever, and so on?

Much depends on the character of the Emperor/Empress, then. If you are Diana/B-swanger, you say "my place, my rules, don't associate with or give off the smell of a bad Objectivist." This might seem arbitrary to the mind of the person so banned or pre-banned, but completely justified in the mind of the big cheese.

The old SOLO had the same problem, of course, and its somewhat shared ownership complicated it further.

-- Lindsay there was "Principal Emperor" and so could behead or order headless whomever, for whatever reason. So could Joe Rowlands, the "Prime Minister." Sometimes they concurred in the beheadings, sometimes not, but there was a relatively large readership, so fresh verbal outfall tended to flow over the corpses, and many factions to feed meant that everyone should expect corpses to be tossed from the ramparts from time to time. In the O-online world, most of the participants and honchos are assumed to already possess The Truth (whereas the outside world cannot), so all are enured to a few innocents being beheaded on average.

When Joe banned Lindsay, I think it was a horrid shock, whatever the ostensible reasons. Lindsay could not see himself being demoted, and could not see why (nowhere was the why ever spelled out, anyhow), and he could not forgive.

And he could not change his own MO. My house, my rules. So the collected Lindsayite party clobbered up a new Palace and installed the old regime.

Over time, on came a few 'parade-pissers,' 'pomowankers,' 'scumbarras' and 'jerk/idiots.' The fat finger trembled over the red button and pushed down heavily from time to time, no matter the 'guidelines' or 'credo' or whatever.

Over at Joe's Imperial Hotel, the host continued to act more or less like Lindsay -- wrote up imperial edicts and entered threads on patrol against heresy -- and red-buttoned and hectored and saw to it that he had a nice party.

Here at Objectivist Living, though the details, scope and ethos are entirely different, the same basic setup tends to apply. Michael is both Emperor and Parliamentarian. He reserves the right, as owner, to set the laws of the land . . . as with the other empires, he must keep the enforcement option close to hand. It could be no other -- the patrol function is a function of ownership.

_________________________

No less a staggering intellect than Joe Maurone spelled out one aspect of this conundrum for Lindsay (gaining the epithet 'menstrual man'): When lapsed objectivist Bill Tingley was invited to rant about Jeebuz Lawd and inveigh against silly, blind, non-catholic Objects, dissent with the invite emerged like bed-bugs on a Throne. Ultimately, Maurone pointed out the oddity -- if Emperor can rant the party line in every thread, and seek to maintain his Prime among primos no matter the topic, how can he chastise those who find the invitation to Tingley to be stupid and unnecessary?

Well, because he is Supreme. And there is no answer back.

What is the answer to the apparent built-in unfairness of an emperor cum parliamentarian? I don't know.

If the industry and excellent qualities of the proto-emperor attract readership . . . how can he or she maintain the empire? Which empire has ever had Absolute Ruler stripped of crown only to stand for election in the court of public opinion (Romania does not count)?

re: this thread's initial topic [ . . . ] The fact that most Objectivists now recognize Pigero for what he is, and have rejected or abandoned him, makes me more optimistic about the role that Objectivists might play in promoting liberty.

How many objectivists are there, and what is their influence? can one who holds to objectivist virtues make common cause with the Non-O?

EDIT: immured | enured, condundrum | conundrum, then gave up . . .

NB to HillBill Barlow: the 'ramparts and corpses' are prossed from Wm Shnerck's 2006 posting 'Universe of Evil,' in which the Empress was portrayed by La Diana Diabolico . . .

See GrandGuignol.com for additional non-prossed images

Edited August 23, 2007 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

SOLOP is like a dinner party where the ... host stumbles up onto the table and, while repeatedly congratulating himself for being the ideal host .... Then, after most of the guests have left in disgust, when one of them lingers to explain to the bleary-eyed host that the others have left because they and the entire room .., the host whines that he is being insulted on his own property, accuses his guests of being atrociously unappreciative of all that he has done for them by allowing them seats at his table, and, finally, ejects his last remaining critic.

I was surprised that Phil had the stomach to continue mingling with Objectivism's hillbillies as long as he did.

Gross and unfair, even to Linz. Also to anyone reading it.

--Brant

Edited August 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

Gross and unfair, even to Linz. Also to anyone reading it.

--Brant

I think that I accurately captured the essence of SOLOP, conveyed a sense of Pigero's hypocrisy and emotional immaturity, and I did so without being as vulgar as he is.

J

[Ross Barlow]

Jonathon wrote:

“…Objectivism’s hillbillies….”

Wat ya’ll got aginst us hillbillies?

Michael, I think we got us a city-slicker here. ;-)

-Ross.

P.S. – Jonathon, your “dinner party” scenario, and, William, your depiction of corpses being “tossed from the ramparts” still have me laughing. As many times as I tried, I could never stomach the SOLO culture, mainly because of the host’s preposterous pseudo-ego.

[Jonathan]

Jonathon wrote:

“…Objectivism’s hillbillies….”

Wat ya’ll got aginst us hillbillies?

Oh, you're definitely not a hillbilly, Ross. As I was using the term it's an issue of attitude, not address.

Michael, I think we got us a city-slicker here. ;-)

Me? Heh.

I'd be willing to bet that I'm the person on this list who has spent the most amount of time living outside of cities. I'm probably one of very few in Objectivist circles who doesn't share Rand's preference for skyscrapers or her almost-hatred of pastoral scenes uninterrupted by billboards. Having been born on a prairie which borders forests, I get as much aesthetic pleasure from miles and miles of man's horizontal productivity as Rand did from vertical yards of it, and, when walking in the woods, my only thought is not "Damn, just think of all of the products that could be made if these trees were harvested!"

In fact, I think that one characteristic of "hillbillyism" is the need to treat tastes and personal preferences as a competition. It doesn't make much difference whether one picks fights with owners of Chevy pickup trucks because too much of one's fragile identity is derived from owning Fords, or if one is loyal to Coors beer while expressing contempt for those who drink Leinenkugel, or if one gets into shouting matches when he discovers that others prefer Pavarotti to Lanza, or if one tries to bully others into agreeing with one's belief that Mickey Spillane is superior to Thomas Wolfe, or Capuletti to Degas, or city life to rural, because in all such cases one is displaying hillbilly characteristics.

J

Edited August 24, 2007 by Jonathan