Police outside the RNC


Mark

Recommended Posts

Phil likes to lecture folks on their Internet manners because he's afraid any given forum tends to degenerate into nastiness. His concern is misplaced here--just try to go on and on with it.

Phil's been involved forever, it seems. His involvement goes back to the 1960's, I think. Anybody who has been around as long as he has will be concerned about it. Most of them don't stick around as long as Phil has. They just get fed up with all the baloney and leave.

On the whole, Phil's contributions have been positive.

Is it possible to have an Objectivist movement without the baloney? I don't know. So far, it has not been done. The movement has been trying and failing for 50 years.

Edited by Chris Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's something from the Seattle Indymedia Center talking about how another "Suspicionless Checkpoint" has been set up:

http://www.infowars.com/?p=4527

(Watch the video, it's a mind-boggler, don't miss it!)

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Why do you call OL a "pseudo-objectivist" community? Is it because people here think for themselves and sometimes question or challenge certain Objectivist ideas? Is it because non-Objectivists are allowed to freely express their views here? [Jonathan]

Neither one. It doesn't make the community a bad one for this reason, and psuedo-objectivist is not a moral criticism, but many posters perhaps the majority here simply don't understand the philosophy. They constantly make mistakes about it which, I, someone who has taken all the Peikoff courses can almost instantly see the errors in.

Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but I know more about philosophy than the posters who constantly seem to find a 'hole' in the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, or politics of Objectivism. In the -fundamentals- as opposed to applications or wrong views of how to fight terrorism, length of copyrights, laws on slander and the like.

THERE ARE NO SUCH HOLES. And, no, I don't want to debate this flat statement on this forum. I've already done that and moved on.

> Please provide the evidence and facts which have led you to label this forum "pseudo-objectivist."

I reject the idea that I should be required to invest huge amounts of my time to document the obvious or the commonsensical to people who should be able to follow events themselves. And if they are stubbornly resistant to facts, they will try to find loopholes. Even on psuedo or actual Objectivist sites, I've observed. (Perhaps more to the point, I wouldn't do it on this website because too often (not always of course) the 'frequent flyers', the incessant repeat posters are the least logical here - and I would simply be drowned about by inane repeat posting. Quantity vs. quality. Sorry if that's insulting.)

I'll give examples of three more FACTUAL things (this time from current events) about which I won't attempt to pile up huge amounts of facts and evidence when a thoughtful, careful, attentive person could simply follow - or should have already been following - the record:

1) Sarah Palin's record and statements have been viciously, savagely, dishonestly distorted by the mainstream media, led by the daily New York Times character assassination attempts.

2) The surge in Iraq has been working very well so far.

3) Ron Paul's record has lots of major anti-libertarian ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a control issue going on here that I vehemently reject.

Neither Phil Coates nor Leonard Peikoff nor anyone in the whole wide world has ownership of the name or the concept of Objectivism. And nobody will dictate what others may or may not do on the free market. The place for dictator-wannabes is to start with a gang, not independent thinkers.

Phil is perfectly entitled to call OL a "pseudo-Objectivist community" for his own personal reasons, but that does not make it one and that does not make that term anything more than a subjective name assigned by Phil according to his own subjective standards. Kat and I even pay for his pleasure of posting such personal opinions.

I have defined my use of the term Objectivism elsewhere many times and I will not be bullied or intimidated into adopting a different one.

Objectivist Living is an Objectivist website and is not a pseudo anything at all, except in the minds of a very small number of individuals with control issues. But their control issues belong to their lives, not mine. These individuals most certainly do not control me nor the posters on OL. And I seriously doubt they control the public image of anything outside their own little worlds.

This website is where people come to discuss Objectivism (including Rand, the Brandens and other luminaries in the Objectivist and Objectivist-friendly world), Objectivist-related issues, other issues and how they are related to Objectivism and any issue under the sun they feel like discussing within the bounds of civility.

Incidentally, I derived this policy from Objectivist principles. I personally believe that anyone who holds to a different standard does not fully understand those principles.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THERE ARE NO SUCH HOLES. And, no, I don't want to debate this flat statement on this forum. I've already done that and moved on.

Yes, there are big holes, as several people on this list have demonstrated and you cannot refute that by a mere argument from authority ("I understand Objectivism better than you", which you've never demonstrated in practice, we'd just have to accept your assertion on faith).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

Phil stated his opinion. I seriously doubt it has influenced anyone.

The good thing about keeping to the independent thinking standard is that everyone is responsible for his/her own mind, and this leads to people knowing that, unless stated otherwise, such person speaks only for himself/herself.

Some people claim there are no holes in the philosophy, with the resulting insinuation that indoctrination is the way to go education-wise. I do not agree with this and I rejected a while back the sense of life attitude that leads to it.

I summed it up pretty well for myself back then. Soon after I stopped using drugs, I came to the conscious decision that if I wanted to change the world, I had to start by changing myself. I have since learned that dictators may rule for a while, but beacons light up mankind's history. When I think about changing others, I think about turning myself into a beacon, not about indoctrinating people into any proper way of thinking.

Others (myself included) hold that there are some holes in the philosophy, or if there are not any, the perceived holes were not very well explained in the literature. Thus it is necessary for proper understanding to discuss these issues from all angles.

I think the thing I like best about the policy here on OL is that emphasis is on learning, not teaching. People can only teach here by permission of those who want to learn, individual by individual. Otherwise, they talk to the wind.

You cannot get more Objectivist than that, but that is a mere coincidence. Regardless of the philosophy, I would not have it any other way.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of your basic power junky/control freak type, most police, I believe, are not even aware that they are tools. Not to insult, but for the most part, they are not in the kind of head space where they'd go digging around to find out how the world is being run, and who's on first. The good ones are just decent, patriotic types. They want to help people. That, and the huge majority of them are adrenaline junkies. I've been around, know, seen ample evidence to know that's the case.

But this is changing. It is the nature of evil. And make no mistake, ladies and gents, evil is out in the light a little more than usual these days. That's part of the problem for them--their planned demise of things, the social unrest, the running down of things, it all worked too quickly, and they are having trouble controlling it. This was discussed at the last Bilderberg conference.

The power, the programming, the format, the pressures...good cops will break. The new ones will never know anything different. It is a desensitization to the human condition.

One of the few main things that can be done is expose, expose, expose, share the facts. Open people's eyes. Globalists really can't stand being outted, it queers up their game.

You also have to keep in mind the gradual federalization and politicization of police work. There was a time when police officers did not have unions. Now they do. This unionization protects the corrupt, the lazy, and the incompetent.

There was also a time when police officers resented outside interference, especially from the feds. If a crime was committed in his town, the sheriff regarded the town as his turf. He certainly didn't want to deal with federal goons. He rightfully considered such interference to be an insult to his authority. This has gradually decreased over time and especially since the WTC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Rand's great novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand's benefactors were architects, artists, writers, composers, philosophers, scientists, engineers, and industrialists. Not one of the heroes or even decent characters she portrayed was a police officer or any other type of government employee. In AS, all of her heroes not only didn't work for the government but wanted nothing to do with the government and ran their lives and businesses accordingly.

This was before the Objectivist movement entered the Bizarro World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, guys, maybe the adjective "psuedo" is a bit harsh or too approximate...I just threw it out there off the cuff. Would you prefer Quasi? Partially-in-agreement-with? for the discussion of? "Reform" Objectivist? Non-Orthodox. . . .But the problem is that the word "orthodox" is also sort of exaggerated or approximate.

But don't get hung up on or bristle at one word at the expense of the rest.

I don't think that was central to my original post or its topic. . . if you want to recall that . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you prefer Quasi? Partially-in-agreement-with? for the discussion of? "Reform" Objectivist? Non-Orthodox. . .

Phil,

Nope.

The problem is that this is a discussion site. It is not an organization promoting a movement to save the world.

That is for the orthodox and others to do and bicker about.

Here we discuss Objectivism in addition to other ideas. We do not, for instance, discuss the Pseudo-Objectivism of Ayn Rand, or the Quasi-Objectivism of Ayn Rand, or the Non-Orthodox Objectivism of Ayn Rand, or the Reform Objectivism of Ayn Rand. We discuss the Objectivism of Ayn Rand.

We don't have to agree with all of it to discuss it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, here is something you often do when someone disagrees with you which is both non-objective and unfair.

You said:

"Phil is perfectly entitled to call OL a "pseudo-Objectivist community" for his own personal reasons".

The last phrase is unnecessary. Unless it implies - without actually stating it - that I don't really believe it. Or have some sort of agenda different from the facts? Are you intending to psychologize about me in public? Or would you be wiling to strike "for his own personal reasons"?

You’ve done this repeatedly with me – and in more blatant fashion. (This seems to simply be a more subtle example - which is why I put it in the form of a question. And wouldn't be sensitive to it, were it not for my history with your comments.)

Which is why -- after it had happened a number of time -- I don’t consider you a friend or someone who views me with basic respect. Or that I would want to interact much or be around personally...as I said some months ago. And that’s pretty much true of anyone who has a pattern of psychologizing about me or casts subtle little digs at my motives. (more than once as opposed to a single outburst in anger.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

You are not going to get away with turning this into a discussion (or spat) about so-called psychologizing.

You do not control anything here. If you wish to control something on the level your posts indicate, build your own thing. But here's the problem. Nobody would come and you know it. The real issue here is not psychologizing, but audience. Especially audience of intelligent people. Why not build your own? I think we both know why not.

Sorry if that might sting, but that's the truth. You are free to post your ideas and come and go as you please. Use the audience here to display all that to your heart's content. But that's as far as it goes, friend or foe.

No controlling of others. Instead, convincing by ideas and reason. That's the rule here, even for the arrogant (as you characterized yourself).

Like I have stated before, each person is responsible for his/her own mind.

Michael

EDIT: I am not going to pretend you came here for friendship. When OL started, people like Barbara came for friendship. That is coming for friendship. She came for more, of course, but friendship played a good part. It still does. (Love, actually.) There are several people here because they are my friends. When I look at your posts, I do not see friendship. I never have. I also do not see ideas except for a rare spark. When there is an idea, you usually follow it with a huge complaint that no one is taking you seriously.

Well, I wonder why. One out of every 10 to 20 posts deals with ideas. All the others deal with trying to control people's behavior. (Not just on OL, either.) Thus I do see you seeking audience and seeking to control it. That is the real reason I think you are here. In this respect, you and I are not alike and I think you know it. OL was never your first choice. It was your last choice—after you got thrown off of the sites you really wanted to be at.

Here is a piece of unsolicited advice. Build your own audience, despite what I said above. Go for it and see where it takes you. Should you do that, I will be the first one rooting for you. But you can't have mine to control. I won't let you. What's more important, they won't let you.

And if you want to build your own audience of highly intelligent people, I suggest you do like I did. Leave it up to them whether to come and go and respect their minds and their individual uniqueness. (That means establishing rules of civility and bending them at times.) Don't talk down to them. But then that might not be your kind of audience.

My advice ends here. I don't know how to create an audience of intelligent people who will accept you as king. My competence only goes so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is the Objectivist hero? Is he a policeman? Is he a solider? Is he a relief worker?

He hardly is. In real-life terms, the hero can be represented by many things. Rand came to America because America produced many such heroes in its short history.

The hero is:

Benjamin Franklin flying his kite in a thunderstorm

Orville and Wilbur Wright getting their plane off the ground for the first time

Henry Ford driving his new Model T, while people were laughing at him

George Washington Carver finding dozens of uses for the peanut

James J Hill building a railroad from Minnesota to Washington

Thomas Edison saying "Mary Had a Little Lamb" into his phonograph

Commodore Vanderbilt building his shipping empire

Lamar Muse and Herb Kelleher launching Southwest Airlines after FOUR YEARS of "business harassment" by other airlines

Paul Allen using his Microsoft fortune to fund experiements in private space travel

Robert Jarvik inventing his artificial heart

Jonas Salk creating his polio vaccine

Steve and Steve launching Apple computer

Nikola Tesla building his electric motor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> an audience of intelligent people who will accept you as king [MSK]

More psychologizing and questioning of motives.

Michael, you really need to clean up your act in this regard.

I've pointed it out to you. Others have pointed it out to you.

--end of discussion--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reject the idea that I should be required to invest huge amounts of my time to document the obvious or the commonsensical to people who should be able to follow events themselves.

Sounds reasonable on the surface. If there are incontestable facts, then only idiots would contest them. Mind you, if a discussion arises in which certain issues are in dispute, then what? Contested issues, good discussion, possible increase in knowledge? Or, exasperated finger-wagging and murky appellations?

If we simply let you decree what was common-sense or obvious, where would be the fun? If you wag your finger at us, can't we wag ours back?

Even on psuedo or actual Objectivist sites, I've observed. (Perhaps more to the point, I wouldn't do it on this website because too often (not always of course) the 'frequent flyers', the incessant repeat posters are the least logical here - and I would simply be drowned about by inane repeat posting.

Oh my. Here we have one of those issues that trigger my own inner Miss Grundy. It's a sloppy, fallacious argument that depends in any way on unnamed 'those dang them folk,' as in the frequent flyers/incessant repeat posters jibes. This is what irks me occasionally about Michael's argumentative style, and it is no less appealing here.

I suspect that you will not put names to these charges. Why? Because that would go against, um, Phil Coates' prescriptions for a perfect O-world. Because it is obvious who you mean. Because you were all worked up when you wrote this. Because you generally post in a sloppy fashion when exasperated or in a fit of Grundy.

I'll give examples of three more FACTUAL things (this time from current events) about which I won't attempt to pile up huge amounts of facts and evidence when a thoughtful, careful, attentive person could simply follow - or should have already been following - the record:

1) Sarah Palin's record and statements have been viciously, savagely, dishonestly distorted by the mainstream media, led by the daily New York Times character assassination attempts.

Oh, Phil, this is very weak. If you were only on an non psuedo[sic] list, you would be willing and able to marshall some support for your statement.

I am a thoughtful, careful, attentive person, generally, I hope, and I have been following the record regarding Palin. But I disagree with you. Presumably this makes me inane and/or illogical to the Grundy in you.

I should also mention that putting three numbered statements in to illustrate your point by analogy does nothing. Your argument goes neither forward nor backward. It doesn't even get out of neutral and off the driveway. If you want to get in the race and have your car win, you have to drive the track.

Ultimately, Phil, the aim of your intervention is undercut by when you back away from defending your position.

I gotta ask you -- what are you aiming at here, what is the goal? If it is to get people's backs up, and to have people feel like there is a grumpy old Miss Grundy wagging her finger at the bad baaaad members of class, then the goal has been reached. If it isn't your goal, then once we discount the tetchiness and grundyism of others including me, your argument is still sitting in the carport overheating.

I must say I like your interventions, finger-wagging and all, when you don't lose your patience and your temper, when your targets are well-identified, your research is thoughtful, your quotes are cogent and your heartfelt emotion is well-married to a fairly-constructed, rational set of statements.

As an aside, I like psychologizing. In the sense of hypotheses to be tested. When the hypotheses are reasonable.

I reject Michael's attempt to box you in as merely seeking a pontificate or royaume here. I think you want some respect, and don't quite know how to gain it.

In any case, you have hijacked this thread. Federal Marshalls are waiting on the tarmac to interview you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reject Michael's attempt to box you in as merely seeking a pontificate or royaume here. I think you want some respect, and don't quite know how to gain it.

In any case, you have hijacked this thread.

William,

Not everything is so oversimplified in my thinking. You should know that by now. I was addressing the single issue of who decides what kind of site OL is. Phil wants to decide and I told him in no uncertain terms that he only does so for himself. Not for anybody else. I don't have time to elaborate a whole list of qualifications each and every post.

You just named another issue in the mix (wanting respect), but I think it goes deeper. I think Phil wants attention. He's lonely.

People will not discuss ideas with him (wanna see the complaints?), so he gets them to talk about... well... uhm... him. :)

I have to admit, finger-wagging gets you attention. Just look at this thread. Where in the hell did the police and the Republic National Convention go to?

:)

Still, I stand by my charge of Phil wanting to be in charge. Anyone who constantly proclaims "I understand Objectivism and you folks do not" is a prime candidate for Objectivist Witch Doctor.

I want to be clear on something that may not have been clear. Judging from Phil's posts, I don't think he is interested in the Attila type of being in charge, but instead in the Witch Doctor kind. Ask Phil and he will decide whether you are Objectivistly fit or not for whatever, yada yada yada. The trouble is, nobody does that and I don't think they ever will... So lacking others proclaiming that Phil is the one and only, Phil proclaims it himself. If you want posts, I can cite a bunch of them.

Phil wants to talk about Phil, so let's talk about Phil. I am just getting warmed up.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WSS,

Some of your points are good ones, or worthy of response where I disagree, but you are right in perceiving that my patience is frayed with these forums. Far from wanting to be pope or king frog in a tiny pond, I'd rather spend less and less time in the pond. And posting and counter-posting.

I also realize that when I'm impatient or irritated I am more likely to post about that. And to not take the time to cross all the i's or dot all the t's [that was intentional].

It's like the later stages of a bad marriage. Your comments are chronically negative and accusatory, but you are still not completely out the door. If someone were to say "why can't you be more positive and less cranky or negative or critical", the reaction would be: "because that's the nature of the situation and I can't suppress it or pretend that things are fine."

To be perfectly clear:

My negative, hypercritical, hectoring, schoolmarm view is conscious, well-considered, and very deliberate. But it is not solely directed at this website. My view of (almost) the entire Objectivist movement is HIGHLY NEGATIVE.

Other than the increased interest in Ayn Rand's works, in addition to *massive shrinkage* in the size of the active movement I largely see a decline in skills and knowledge, civility and persuasion. A lack of education and common sense in the proper sense - not in terms of whether or not one has an advanced degree or went to Stanford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My negative, hypercritical, hectoring, schoolmarm view is conscious, well-considered, and very deliberate. But it is not solely directed at this website. My view of (almost) the entire Objectivist movement is HIGHLY NEGATIVE.

Bad drives out the good? Would a Randian hero belong to a "movement"? One can sit in a car with a powerful motor but no transmission and not go anywhere or get on with one's life.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I first met Phil in 1995 at IOS. While I have had minor disagreements with him, his overall contributions to the movement have been positive. He's started clubs. He published his own newsletter for a while. He is an articulate speaker and is easy to listen to.

I think Phil will disagree with me, but the support for American imperialism is one big sign of decline. But there are others.

This is a story I heard from one of Doctor Branden's colleagues. Apparently when Branden showed up at the IOS seminar in 1996, one of his first reactions was: "What happened to the women?" If you look at some of the photos of the "collective", you will see a pretty even split. Even from the seminar in 1995 to the seminar in 2001 (only there for one day), I could see a decline in the percentage of women.

I also noticed that the seminar got older. This is perhaps an even worse trend than the decline of females. Students have become pretty rare on boards like this. Observe that this year TAS actually gave people the option of staying in hotel rooms instead of dorms in Portland.

This would be easy to prove or disprove if someone simply does a count of the people who attended the seminars. Try comparing IOS 1995 to TAS 2008. If you attended the seminars and still have your old roster lists, check them out and see what conclusions you can draw. Phil could possibly do this.

I naturally wonder if TAS has kept any of this kind of demographical information. It would be pretty easy. It is very foolish not to keep it. It would certainly be easy to keep as well. Even when I was at _Liberty_ magazine, we did polls of the readers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now