Atlas Shrugged article in WSJ that mentions Atlas Society

[Chris Grieb]

Today's Wall Street Journal (Jan 9th) has an article by Stephen Moore on Atlas Shrugged. The article is very good. It is very good reading. The article has a great quote from David Kelley about Atlas not being made into a movie.

I must add that is an excellent response to some on OL (you know who you are)who have been predicting and hoping for the end of the Atlas Society.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[BaalChatzaf]

Today's Wall Street Journal (Jan 9th) has an article by Stephen Moore on Atlas Shrugged. The article is very good. It is very good reading. The article has a great quote from David Kelley about Atlas not being made into a movie.

I must add that is an excellent response to some on OL (you know who you are)who have been predicting and hoping for the end of the Atlas Society.

Is there a URL for this?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Backlighting]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the David Kelley quote (and a repeat of the link Las Vegas posted):

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

By STEPHEN MOORE

JANUARY 9, 2009

WALL STREET JOURNAL

From the article:

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

There is also the note:

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

The rest of the article is very good, especially about the comparisons between recent events and events in Atlas Shrugged.

Michael

[Selene]

Ok folks time for a pop quiz:

a) do you agree with the essential argument of the article?

B) if your answer is yes, what would the conclusion be as to what we as followers of her ideas should do?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Just as a technical thing, if you disable the smilies for your post (it's an option if you scroll down), your "b" will not be that cool dude.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The only wrong notes are the reference to John Galt as an "heroic businessman" and no real reference to the philosophy. Instead we get the standard libertarian "bathtub" economics. Ayn Rand was all about the moral case for capitalism. This leaves "rights" in the hands of the lefty civil righters, of whom we seem to hear less and less of BTW. Say "TAS"to me and I hear "Cato."

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Brant: What's wrong with Cato?

Las Vegas: Thanks for the link!.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Chris,

Thanks for the link! I wish TAS the best and they have an impressive body of work. They, like the rest of us, have to compete in the marketplace and sell it. David, Will and Ed are friends and impressive people who will do well regardless of the shape TAS takes. There is a boisterous if clashing Objectivist movement now. The best thing people can do is to speak their mind intelligently and encourage others to do the same regardless of whether they agree with you.

I do very much empathize with the crux of TAS's problem. Their successes are not always as visible. People go their own way and go on to do amazing things elsewhere, exhibiting the very independence David Kelley exhorts. I remember the first IOS Seminar in 1994 was my first introduction to the World Wide Web by none other than Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger attended that seminar too. Josh Zader formed the Atlasphere. What people can do while this web project they have is going on is to get involved with their local clubs or start their own if time permits.

I've been lucky to be involved in many active, fantastic local Objectivist Clubs, the latest and most amazing being Jackie Hazelton and Bill Perry's Arizona Objectivists. I encourage college students to study Objectivism as a philosophy, but to treat the process of self-discovery as more sacred. Be true to your interests, take economics seriously but don't be a slave to it, find your passions(and they may change with time) and treat your own interests with the fierce commitment that Ayn Rand treated hers.

Jim

Edited January 9, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Chris Grieb]

Jim; My posting about the WSJ article was in part for a great article. The Journal is the second highest circulation newspaper in the US and in some ways the most important newspaper in the country.

My comment about critics of the Atlas Society and wide spread predictions of their eminent closing of the Society's doors. The Atlas Society must do a lot of things with not enough money and good people.

I wish Jackie, Bill, you and the others in Arizona great success with their endeavors and I hope everyone works in their own vineyard rather than carping about what others are doing.

Remember the song "Make Your Garden Grow".

Edited January 9, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

There certainly were a lot of people rooting for the demise of TAS. I know that there was a great deal online discussion as if this were already a consummated fact.

I wonder where all the discussion was of people saying, "Gee. TAS looks like it might need some help, but I'm not sure. Is there anything I can do?"

Nah...

An "Objectivist movement" to the vocal people I read who fancy themselves in such doesn't mean a movement to better the world in the name of reason, so if a major player is hurting, they pitch in. What I keep seeing is an interest in setting up one tribe over others.

After all, nobody wants to be altruist or anything.

EDIT: Oh yeah. I forgot about the schism junkies...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant: What's wrong with Cato?

Nothing, but it's basically libertarian while TAS is purportedly Objectivist.

--Brant

[Judith]

Brant: What's wrong with Cato?

Nothing, but it's basically libertarian while TAS is purportedly Objectivist.

While I'm sure Rand would turn over in her grave at my statement, I'm also sure it's reasonable to consider Objectivism a subset of libertarianism.

Judith

Edited January 9, 2009 by Judith

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim; My posting about the WSJ article was in part for a great article. The Journal is the second highest circulation newspaper in the US and in some ways the most important newspaper in the country.

My comment about critics of the Atlas Society and wide spread predictions of their eminent closing of the Society's doors. The Atlas Society must do a lot of things with not enough money and good people.

I wish Jackie, Bill, you and the others in Arizona great success with their endeavors and I hope everyone works in their own vineyard rather than carping about what others are doing.

Remember the song "Make Your Garden Grow".

Chris, terrific post and I agree. I think TAS will make a success of their new web strategy and I wish them well. I will be joining you in the Washington D.C. area in my new capacity as a patent examiner in my transition to intellectual property and I'll look you up when I get there. I'll go visit the TAS office when I get there, too.

Best,

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Chris,

There certainly were a lot of people rooting for the demise of TAS. I know that there was a great deal online discussion as if this were already a consummated fact.

I wonder where all the discussion was of people saying, "Gee. TAS looks like it might need some help, but I'm not sure. Is there anything I can do?"

Nah...

An "Objectivist movement" to the vocal people I read who fancy themselves in such doesn't mean a movement to better the world in the name of reason, so if a major player is hurting, they pitch in. What I keep seeing is an interest in setting up one tribe over others.

After all, nobody wants to be altruist or anything.

EDIT: Oh yeah. I forgot about the schism junkies...

Michael

I suggest a different approach. Earmark gifts to projects that you support. Be active and understand if your goals are being served. If you do that, you can work with an organization without hard feelings and without giving them a blank check.

Schism junkies...well I suppose just about all the major players in the Objectivist movement have qualified for that title at one time or another .

Jim

Edited January 10, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Brant Gaede]

Brant: What's wrong with Cato?

Nothing, but it's basically libertarian while TAS is purportedly Objectivist.

While I'm sure Rand would turn over in her grave at my statement, I'm also sure it's reasonable to consider Objectivism a subset of libertarianism.

If you can explain why.

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Brant: What's wrong with Cato?

Nothing, but it's basically libertarian while TAS is purportedly Objectivist.

While I'm sure Rand would turn over in her grave at my statement, I'm also sure it's reasonable to consider Objectivism a subset of libertarianism.

If you can explain why.

--Brant

I'm with Brant on this one. I disagree with blanket cooperation with libertarians. What an Objectivist organization should do is look for the best possible partners with the most in common and leverage those. There is a whole group of technolibertarian first adopters that don't carry all of the foreign policy liabilities of CATO and have much more to offer.

TAS can interview Michael Schrage who wrote Serious Play or Thomas W. Malone who wrote The Future of Work. They can talk to people from MIT Media Labs. They can have a whole new webcontent based on information age entrepreneurship. They can talk to Jimmy Wales about Wikipedia. Talk to Michael Shermer and Colin Camerer about neuroeconomics.

I look at the really good, best practices libertarian-friendly publications like The Economist and MIT Technology Magazine. That's where TAS should be aiming for 3 reasons:

1) They target a growing demographic

2) They target globalization issues TAS wants to hit with its new market

3) They target emerging technology areas that government hasn't strangled yet

Jim

Edited January 9, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; Ed Crane, the president of Cato, was a speaker at the 50th Atlas event. He was introduced by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal as being in the tank for Ayn Rand since he was a teenager.

Ayn Rand accepted the Libertarian non-aggression axion. I think she may have thought that it needed to proved and many libertarians had not done that.

[Roger Bissell]

Just as atheism is a general category that subsumes various specific forms of disbelief in God, and just as egoism is a general category that subsumes various specific forms of self-interest moral theories, so too is libertarianism a general category that subsumes various specific forms of individual rights/non-initiation of force political theories.

Just as Objectivism's brand of atheism is a form of atheism, and just as Objectivism's moral philosophy, rational egoism, is a form of egoism, so too is Objectivism's political philosophy a form of libertarianism.

Since neither atheism nor egoism nor libertarianism is an overall, systematic philosophy, it would be incorrect to say that Objectivism is a species of atheism or of egoism or of libertarianism.

However, it is ~correct~ to say that the religious philosophy and the moral philosophy and the political philosophy of Objectivism are species of atheism and of egoism and of libertarianism, respectively. (The ~rational~ species of those religious and moral and political philosophies, of course.)

It would be just as wrong to deny that Objectivism's political philosophy is libertarian, as it would to deny that Objectivism's moral philosophy is egoistic, or that its religious philosophy is atheistic.

The common error in each of these denials is what Rand called the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction, which she wrote about in her essay "Collectivized Ethics, and which Barbara Branden spoke about in her lectures on "Principles of Efficient Thinking," and which I wrote about in my essay "The Fine Art of Thawing Out Frozen Abstractions" (which you can find on my web site at www.rogerbissell.com in the Words & Music section under Essays).

Hope this helps.

REB

[Barbara Branden]

Chris: "Ayn Rand accepted the Libertarian non-aggression axion."

Not quite. Rather, the Libertarian Party, as it acknowledged at its formation, accepted Rand's formulation of the non-aggression principle.

Barbara

[kiaer.ts]

Not quite. Rather, the Libertarian Party, as it acknowledged at its formation, accepted Rand's formulation of the non-aggression principle.

Since neither atheism nor egoism nor libertarianism is an overall, systematic philosophy, it would be incorrect to say that Objectivism is a species of atheism or of egoism or of libertarianism.

However, it is ~correct~ to say that the religious philosophy and the moral philosophy and the political philosophy of Objectivism are species of atheism and of egoism and of libertarianism, respectively. (The ~rational~ species of those religious and moral and political philosophies, of course.)

Where is that pesky sanction button?

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara; Good point.

Roger; Some excellent distinctions which are very worth thinking about.

Jim H-N; There was an interview with Shermer in TNI. In an appearance at Cato Shermer singled out David Kelley as that "guy who does epistemology".

Jim; On the question of foreign policy I think the US should avoid war and Wilson ism IE nation building. If others are at war with us we should wage it with all our might. I have no problems with our mission in Afghanistan where the Tali ban allowed Bin Laden to sleep in his own bed but have ones about the effort in Iraq where the danger of Saddam had be thwarted by the sanctions.

[Chris Grieb]

The Journal is reporting that the Atlas article is most e-mailed article.

[tjohnson]

Just as Objectivism's brand of atheism is a form of atheism...

Does objectivism formally state that there is no god? I would assume that most objectivists would in fact be atheists but I was not aware that it had a particular "brand". In fact, doesn't 'atheism' simply mean you don't believe in any kind of god? How many 'brands' of that can there be?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Barbara; Good point.

Roger; Some excellent distinctions which are very worth thinking about.

Jim H-N; There was an interview with Shermer in TNI. In an appearance at Cato Shermer singled out David Kelley as that "guy who does epistemology".

Jim; On the question of foreign policy I think the US should avoid war and Wilson ism IE nation building. If others are at war with us we should wage it with all our might. I have no problems with our mission in Afghanistan where the Tali ban allowed Bin Laden to sleep in his own bed but have ones about the effort in Iraq where the danger of Saddam had be thwarted by the sanctions.

Chris,

Shermer's new book Mind of the Market was an amazing tour de force of popular neuroeconomics and a must read for advocates of liberty. I'll look again when I have time to see if it was mentioned in the TNI interview. My point is that the important thing that Shermer has to offer is not that he is libertarian and atheist. Those are both fairly common attributes. It's that his new book popularizes an important, exciting new field and it is not emphasized.

I'm not for nation-building, but I think that the US should reserve the right to and prosecute preemptive strikes and/or war against nations that harbor terrorists if intelligence warrants it and it is in the national interest. CATO also does not delineate policy differences with Lew Rockwell-type anti-American libertarians. I'm also for waterboarding top-level terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and indefinite detention of irregular, non-state combatants against the US if they can be proved to be such.

Jim