ARI pumps its Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

[galtgulch]

www.aynrand.org

ARI Alert: The 2008 Elections

In the wake of the elections, and in the midst of continuing economic turbulence, this is a difficult time for our country.

However, I also see this as a period of outstanding opportunity for ARI.

People are looking for answers—especially in the wake of the Republicans’ overwhelming defeat.

ARI—and in particular, our new division, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights—is uniquely positioned to provide those answers, and thus influence the intellectual debate in this country in ways we have never been able to do before.

Despite all of the unsettling news in the world right now, remember: more than one million high school students will be reading Ayn Rand this year; thousands of college and university students will be reading Atlas Shrugged and encountering Ayn Rand’s ideas in their classes; and that here at ARI we are training a new generation of intellectuals eager to take on this world. The long-term prospects remain brighter than ever.

ARI donors recently received a letter from me, with more details on the issues and opportunities that we face. You can read the letter yourself here.

I hope that you will join with us, and support the work of the Ayn Rand Center of Individual Rights.

Your help will be greatly appreciated—and will allow us to begin immediately in our efforts to influence the post-election debate in Washington.

Sincerely,

Yaron Brook

The Ayn Rand Institute

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:

http://tinyurl.com/hh2tj

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Edited November 19, 2008 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; Are you suggesting this is a bad idea.

Someone once said they only way to get rid of bad ideas is to replace them with good or better ideas.

I might add that the word "pump" to describe ARI's efforts leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I suspect you would not like your post being describing as pumping Ron Paul.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Selene]

Mr. Brook:

I have always advocated that there are several paths to spread ideas through a society, but in my opinion, the need that is most pressing is at the most local level.

Until our philosophy can be legitimately elected and can efficiently perform in local office to solve a "real" problem for individual citizens we will not be successful on a macro level.

Clearly, we must have the think tanks and media outlets to reinforce our message, but until the proverbial "Joe the Plumber" understands that these ideas can and will work at a real level, we will be relegated to a proverbial voice in the wilderness.

My question to you is - can we take one clear issue that combines a number of our economic principles, select a community and through a combination of community organizing. replication of message and legal action, bring into clear focus a problem and a solution that works when implemented.

I would envision one group called home schoolers that would fit all of the criteria that I believe could be coordinated and be effective. Granted some folks in our "camp" might have problems with the religious level in the home school community, but I view that as irrelevant to the common goal that could be achieved.

A simple legal action should be for the State to be forced to pay equally to a home school family the exact same amount of State funding allocated per child to the local public school system.

This aspect of the logical simplicity of equal protection would be a powerful issue wherein a massive amount of our principles could be employed in a direct and local manner.

Secondarily. it attacks one of the major propaganda outlets of centralized government, the compulsory, property tax based public school system which is State and not Federally guaranteed.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

"People are looking for answers—especially in the wake of the Republicans’ overwhelming defeat....Despite all of the unsettling news in the world right now, remember: more than one million high school students will be reading Ayn Rand this year; thousands of college and university students will be reading Atlas Shrugged and encountering Ayn Rand’s ideas in their classes; and that here at ARI we are training a new generation of intellectuals eager to take on this world. The long-term prospects remain brighter than ever." [Yaron Brook]

They are doing important work.

But here are my worries about the 'brighter than ever' part and my worries about trying to find signs of major - or steadily increasing - inroads or growth of Objectivism across half a century since Atlas:

1. Objectivism is a steep climb. It is a hard philosophy: radically opposed to the culture, to the way people have lived, their earliest education and indoctrination. It takes years to learn and then to integrate well. Lots of questions or issues to resolve.

2. Short bits, like op eds, raise as many questions as they answer. Too short to really answer all the objections from 1. above.

3. Long bits (an entire course with readings, assignments, q&a, rebuttals of the 'conventional wisdom') require that one be a part of the intellectual institutions [ see 5. below], else you will not be given the 'face time' or opportunity to have a long 'conversation' or engagement.

4. Fiction is not enough. Novels alone, no matter how brilliant, will not radically change a thousands of years old culture. "Pretty story I liked as a naive adolescent, but what about the "robber barons", human nature, etc..." There needs to be an immediate next step, else people forget and 'drift away' from the sense of life only vaguely understood from fiction.

5. What changes a culture is the intellectual elites who occupy the commanding heights where they regularly come in contact with millions and mold them: a) the media, b) influential books, c) most important, the schools and universities.

6. After Rand, the Objectivists have mostly only reached each other or those almost already converted.

7. There is little sign that they have 'converted' people, radically changed minds outside the movement.

8. They have either not sought or not achieved prominent or influential careers in the media, in writing books which have been noticed, in becoming respected or influential professors or even school teachers or publishers of educational products or materials.

9. Summing up the previous point: Most importantly if one wants to change the direction of a civilization's drift, they have not yet developed widely known or profoundly influential intellectuals (even starting out in small niches) in any major way.

10. Without acknowledging or accepting *all* of the above 9 points, it is not possible to make successful “course corrections”.

ARI (and TAS) and individual Objectivist intellectuals accept and are working on *some* of the above points. To varying degrees. But (issues of professionalism -- presentation, training, curriculum, context) how they go about a number of them can be improved.

[galtgulch]

Galt; Are you suggesting this is a bad idea.

Someone once said they only way to get rid of bad ideas is to replace them with good or better ideas.

I might add that the word "pump" to describe ARI's efforts leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I suspect you would not like your post being describing as pumping Ron Paul.

Chris,

I meant "pump" in the most positive interpretation imaginable!

If the word pump has a negative connotation in certain contexts, e.g. pumping a stock in the market which does not deserve to be, that is unfortunate.

I try to spread the ideas of Ayn Rand and Objectivism at every opportunity. Today I made two people aware of Atlas Shrugged. Yesterday I went to an Amtrak station to meet my wife who was returning home from New York. I chatted with the ticket clerk about whether her train would arrive at the same time as an Acela Express because her train was running late and they would both be due to arrive simultaneously.

She, the ticket lady not my wife told me when I asked how she felt about the outcome of the election, said she was happy because she wanted Biden to get in as he takes the train to work and loves trains!

I suggested she might enjoy a book in which the heroine is the VicePresident in Charge of Operations of a transcontinental railroad. She laughed and said that when she is away from work the last thing she wants to think about is trains!

I still recommended Atlas to her.

Today a lady leaving work with me commented something about guns and I said that the Second Amendment is not about Duck Hunting rather about being armed to fight Tyranny. I said the first thing dictators do is disarm the people. She made it clear she understood that the government can take away one's guns but cannot take away one's rights. I recommended as the book to read, Atlas Shrugged.

The day doesn't go by that I don't "pump" and I believe that each of us who is fortunate enough to have stumbled upon Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism ought to use their own ingenuity to pass the torch. Unless we do I fear we will lose our freedom. Pump away!

[Selene]

Galt:

Mega dittos as Rush Limbaugh's listeners say.

I was on the LIRR today and came through Amtrak to NJ Transit and I talked to about 8 or 9 people engaging them about government miss-run train service and also extolled Atlas.

I had my Tocqueville in America book and mentioned how Ayn came for freedom, something that Touqueville was awed by in the 1830's.

Leading the conversation to the dangers of tyranny and Atlas was easy.

I exchanged e-mails with two people and made the same deal that I have made with folks for almost 45 years. I would buy them a copy of Atlas, but they had to commit to reading to page 200. If they finished the book and loved the ideas in it, they would make the same offer to their network of values people.

Pumping AYN we can call it!

Adam

[Barbara Branden]

"People are looking for answers—especially in the wake of the Republicans’ overwhelming defeat....Despite all of the unsettling news in the world right now, remember: more than one million high school students will be reading Ayn Rand this year; thousands of college and university students will be reading Atlas Shrugged and encountering Ayn Rand’s ideas in their classes; and that here at ARI we are training a new generation of intellectuals eager to take on this world. The long-term prospects remain brighter than ever." [Yaron Brook]

They are doing important work.

But here are my worries about the 'brighter than ever' part and my worries about trying to find signs of major - or steadily increasing - inroads or growth of Objectivism across half a century since Atlas:

1. Objectivism is a steep climb. It is a hard philosophy: radically opposed to the culture, to the way people have lived, their earliest education and indoctrination. It takes years to learn and then to integrate well. Lots of questions or issues to resolve.

2. Short bits, like op eds, raise as many questions as they answer. Too short to really answer all the objections from 1. above.

3. Long bits (an entire course with readings, assignments, q&a, rebuttals of the 'conventional wisdom') require that one be a part of the intellectual institutions [ see 5. below], else you will not be given the 'face time' or opportunity to have a long 'conversation' or engagement.

4. Fiction is not enough. Novels alone, no matter how brilliant, will not radically change a thousands of years old culture. "Pretty story I liked as a naive adolescent, but what about the "robber barons", human nature, etc..." There needs to be an immediate next step, else people forget and 'drift away' from the sense of life only vaguely understood from fiction.

5. What changes a culture is the intellectual elites who occupy the commanding heights where they regularly come in contact with millions and mold them: a) the media, B) influential books, c) most important, the schools and universities.

6. After Rand, the Objectivists have mostly only reached each other or those almost already converted.

7. There is little sign that they have 'converted' people, radically changed minds outside the movement.

8. They have either not sought or not achieved prominent or influential careers in the media, in writing books which have been noticed, in becoming respected or influential professors or even school teachers or publishers of educational products or materials.

9. Summing up the previous point: Most importantly if one wants to change the direction of a civilization's drift, they have not yet developed widely known or profoundly influential intellectuals (even starting out in small niches) in any major way.

10. Without acknowledging or accepting *all* of the above 9 points, it is not possible to make successful “course corrections”.

ARI (and TAS) and individual Objectivist intellectuals accept and are working on *some* of the above points. To varying degrees. But (issues of professionalism -- presentation, training, curriculum, context) how they go about a number of them can be improved.

Phil, I must take issue with many of your statements.

You say that Objectivism takes many years to learn. It’s true that Leonard Peikoff said that it took him 40 years to learn it, but I don’t know of anyone else who required that kind of time. Further, the more technical aspects of Objectivism are not required in order for the culture to change radically. To think for yourself, to abandon superstition, to refuse to be anyone’s sacrificial lamb, these are not infinitely complex ideas. The American colonists who rebelled against British rule did not find it necessary first to study the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. It is true that novels alone may not be sufficient to effect radical change, but they can go a very long way – as evidenced by the many thousands of people all over the world – probably hundreds of thousands by now -- who say, truthfully, “Ayn Rand’s novels changed my life for the better" –- or as evidenced by Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which is said to have significantly accelerated the demise of slavery in America. (And Uncle Tom’s Cabin said nothing about the error in Plato’s concept of the Form of the Good.)

You say that entire courses in Objectivism require that one be part of an intellectual institution. True, and relevant to professional philosophers. Such thinkers are necessary to effect change, but they are nor sufficient. A great may people in this country openly admired Fascism in the 30’s – after all, Mussolini made the trains run on time, did he not? (Actually, he didn’t.) But when they saw the results in action, Americans didn’t require years of courses in philosophy to tell them they‘d made a mistake. It was only the intellectuals who didn’t learn from observing reality. A decent elementary and high school system would constitute a huge step toward desirable change simply by teaching children critical thinking

You wrote that Objectivists “have either not sought or not achieved prominent or influential careers in the media, in writing books which have been noticed, in becoming respected or influential professors or even school teachers or publishers of educational products or materials.”

Where have you been, Phil? Have you forgotten (yes, I know they are not all “pure” Objectivists, but all have been deeply influenced by Objectivism) David Henderson, Joan Kennedy Taylor, Roy Childs, Bob Poole, Tibor Machan, Robert Tracinski, Nathaniel Branden, The Reason Foundation The Institute for Justice, Chris Sciabarra, Charles Murray, Robert Bidinotto, George Reisman, Robert Campbell, Stephen Hicks, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Tara Smith, Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley, Ed Hudgins, Lou Torres & Michelle Kamhi, Mimi Gladstein, George Smith, Kay Smith, Erika Holzer, David Boaz. This off-the-cuff list only scratches the surface; I’d need to fill a great many pages to even begin to list the relevant names in this country alone, much less the names of such people around the world.

Barbara

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara; As always Great Post!

[Barbara Branden]

Thanks, Chris.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

Thank you!

This thing of "Objectivism is complicated" as a meme wannabe has always grated on my nerves. Another is that "Objectivism is a radical new approach to morality," nowadays (from what I have read) preached mostly by people interested in justifying an almost pathological indifference to the suffering of others.

"A is A" is not rocket science. And "love for oneself is a fundamental component of loving others" is not rocket science either.

Objectivism, from where I sit, is a different way of looking at universal values so that they are not manipulated by nasty folks to gain and justify power, not a total reconstruction of humanness.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Excellently phrased.

Tocqueville, as an impressionable young man, wrote back to his family after only three weeks in America:

"...The new society in which we are does not at all resemble our European societies. It has no prototype anywhere. It has also some primary conditions of existence that no other possesses, which make it dangerous for any other society to imitate it: - It's quite a remarkable phenomenon , a great people which has no army, a country full of activity and vigour[sic vigor] where the action of the government is hardly perceived! But what conclusion to draw from it for the states of Europe?..."

This is an objectivist message that was understood in 1837, maybe we should start that simple message again.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Barbara, let me go point by point...your comments are in quotes, mine start with two dashes:

"You say that Objectivism takes many years to learn. It’s true that Leonard Peikoff said that it took him 40 years to learn it, but I don’t know of anyone else who required that kind of time."

--My experience is that the vast majority of people who are "Objectivists" may be able to -recite- it, but have not integrated it. Made themselves into actual Objectivists practicing well all the virtues and traits and applying them to the real world. As opposed to eggheads with a rationalistic or detached or impractical or malevolent bent. (Proof in actual living that it is a hard and arduous philosophy.)

" Further, the more technical aspects of Objectivism are not required in order for the culture to change radically. To think for yourself, to abandon superstition, to refuse to be anyone’s sacrificial lamb, these are not infinitely complex ideas."

--These three ideas have not in fact been accepted in the culture. Not all the way down, or in many cases barely at all. Most people think for themselves in some areas, but not all. Most Americans are religious, highly so. Most believe in sacrifice.

" The American colonists who rebelled against British rule did not find it necessary first to study the analytic-synthetic dichotomy."

--They were able to rebel, but they were not able to keep the founding ideals, which have been steadily eroded. Epistemological 'sophistry' has allowed the intellectual elites to become confused and so to lead the rest of the country steadily away from the principles they fought a bloody war for.

"It is true that novels alone may not be sufficient to effect radical change, but they can go a very long way – as evidenced by the many thousands of people all over the world – probably hundreds of thousands by now -- who say, truthfully, “Ayn Rand’s novels changed my life for the better" (")

--Yes, but did they learn it all the way down? Did they then change the culture or did it stop with them?

"–- or as evidenced by Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which is said to have significantly accelerated the demise of slavery in America...)"

--It led to the collapse of slavery, but slavery was already on the ropes intellectually. And it only killed -literal- slavery. Not the forms of enslavement we've had since. And even with the blacks, they were still in chains for all practical purposes for another hundred years till the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's and until getting the right to vote.

"You say that entire courses in Objectivism require that one be part of an intellectual institution. True, and relevant to professional philosophers. Such thinkers are necessary to effect change, but they are nor sufficient."

--I agree.

"A great may people in this country openly admired Fascism in the 30’s...But when they saw the results in action, Americans didn’t require years of courses in philosophy to tell them they‘d made a mistake."

--But only a few years after the bloodiest war in history (and a few years before it with the New Deal) Americans have not been able to see the mistake, because they have voted for and sought domestic American fascism, only without the overt jackboots. And are moving toward it in 2008.

"It was only the intellectuals who didn’t learn from observing reality. A decent elementary and high school system would constitute a huge step toward desirable change simply by teaching children critical thinking"

--That's true and part of my view . . . to change one word in some of some of my favorite pornography . . . that OINE - Objectivism Is Not Enough. Far from it.

" You wrote that Objectivists “have either not sought or not achieved prominent or influential careers in the media, in writing books which have been noticed, in becoming respected or influential professors or even school teachers or publishers of educational products or materials.” Where have you been, Phil? Have you forgotten (yes, I know they are not all “pure” Objectivists, but all have been deeply influenced by Objectivism) David Henderson, Joan Kennedy Taylor, Roy Childs, Bob Poole, Tibor Machan, Robert Tracinski, Nathaniel Branden, The Reason Foundation The Institute for Justice, Chris Sciabarra, Charles Murray, Robert Bidinotto, George Reisman, Robert Campbell, Stephen Hicks, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Tara Smith, Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley, Ed Hudgins, Lou Torres & Michelle Kamhi, Mimi Gladstein, George Smith, Kay Smith, Erika Holzer, David Boaz. This off-the-cuff list only scratches the surface; I’d need to fill a great many pages to even begin to list the relevant names in this country alone, much less the names of such people around the world."

--Yes but what impact have *they* had? Nobel laureates? Full professors at Harvard? Elites?

I used the adjectives "prominent", "influential", and "respected" very advisedly. The first generation of Oists - you, NB, AR managed to inspire and train all these people, directly or indirectly. A true **multiplier** effect from three (or a half dozen?) people.

But the second generation has not done the same. It has ended, or whimpered out if you notice the **disastrous** direction of the country simultaneously toward socialism and toward nutcase religion, pretty much with them. Even the few writers or professors from the previous group who have a national reputation (other than for preaching to already half-converted or "the choir") have not similarly had a multiplier effect that I can see.

The libertarians among them still get less than 1 percent of the vote, the two parties despise those views and don't nominate anyone with them, and that is proof positive.

(Now there –is- a solution to this. But one has to recognize what has not worked first.)

[Brant Gaede]

Objectivism lacks Aikido.

--Brant

[DavidMcK]

"The philosopher Immanuel Kant was the first to use the terms "analytic" and "synthetic" to divide propositions into types. Kant introduces the analytic/synthetic distinction in the Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1998, A6-7/B10-11)." From wikipedia....note the date. The point that Barbara made is something I agree with.

Edited November 23, 2008 by DavidMcK

[Guyau]

Yaron Brook addressed the recent Republican Party convention here in our new home state.

We moved to Lynchburg last month. We never owned a home before. It is a splendid place for me to study and write. My library is glass on three sides. My books fan out behind me. There are trees out every window of the house. We have about two acres, so many birds, an otter, chipmunks, rabbits, and squirrels. The Blue Ridge Mountains are near. I am happy.

PS (a day later)

Just now a deer walked out of the woods and across the front yard.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[BaalChatzaf]

Objectivism (as taught by Ayn Rand and some of her followers) does not integrate well with empirically well established science, particularly physics. Which is one reason it is not taken seriously in the academic world. Any philosophy which leads to the conclusion that physics does not work, cannot work and is corrupt to the bone will have a very short shelf life.

That is the reason why I don't take Objectivism seriously at the epistemological level. It leads to just plain wrong conclusions. I remember the advice given by a well known novelist with a thick Russian accent. Something about checking one's premises (if I recall correctly).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

I was born and raised in the early part of my life in the area you are now in. You are in one of the most beautiful places on earth for mountain-loving people.

I saw the first 12 minutes of Brook's speech. It is interesting to watch his evolution as a public speaker. He is learning. For instance, he calls back to the good old days (when Republicans essentially stood for individual rights, etc.) and how Republicans lost their way. He used a very effective Obama technique: "Don't tell me xxxxxxxx has failed. What's failed is yyyyyy." In his case, xxxxxxxxx is capitalism, of course. He even got the part about "a person like me is able to address people like you" right. He played the immigrant card strongly and to good effect. And on and on.

It wasn't a great political speech, but it was a hell of a lot better than I have seen coming out of ARI before. Everything indicates that, as time goes on, Mr. Brook will get better and better at playing the crowd. I actually hope so.

I predict Mr. Brook will end up running for some kind of office after a while.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> I predict Mr. Brook will end up running for some kind of office after a while.

I predict he won't because he's not big on self-sacrifice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Would you have predicted that Brook would have spoken at a Republican convention say 3 or 4 years ago?

Take a look at where he spoke: Republican Party of Virginia 2009 State Convention

Here's a quote from right at the beginning of the website:

We will officially nominate our 2009 candidates for Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General at the 2009 State Convention (click here for Official Call).

In order to attend and vote at this convention, you must be elected a delegate to the state convention.

Elected?

That's right. But don't worry; you don't need to try that hard.

Generally, every local Republican committee has more slots for state convention delegates than are people interested in attending as delegates. So, basically, if you sign up, you'll be elected.

Does that sound like something an ARI speaker would attend and speak at? Kelley got trashed by Peikoff for far less.

I think the wind is starting to blow in a different direction...

Michael

[DavidMcK]

"The American colonists who rebelled against British rule did not find it necessary first to study the analytic-synthetic dichotomy."

That would be pretty hard to do since Kant's 'Critique' wasn't published until 1781.

[Rich Engle]

Now this is an interesting, useful thread! Even though if you look for jokes there's probably a porn movie title in the header.

I will read in...

r

[thomtg]

[...]

We moved to Lynchburg last month. We never owned a home before. It is a splendid place for me to study and write. My library is glass on three sides. My books fan out behind me. There are trees out every window of the house. We have about two acres, so many birds, an otter, chipmunks, rabbits, and squirrels. The Blue Ridge Mountains are near. I am happy.

PS (a day later)

Just now a deer walked out of the woods and across the front yard.

You should take some pics of the glass library to decorate your new corner.