News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

I have no illusions about the peaceful nature of many New World civilizations. Contemporary reports from Europeans made clear, centuries ago, that the Aztecs were incredibly bloodthirsty and the Inca Empire totalitarian. The Maya were thought by some to be pacific until scholars learned how to read Classical period hieroglyphs. Now everyone knows better.

One of the messages of Black Robe is that the Iroquois (who captured and tortured the missionary and his party) did not convert to Catholicism, while the Hurons did. Within a generation the Huron population was much reduced, on account of their being regularly stomped in battle by the Iroquois.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Regarding the peaceful nature of the pre-Columbian Native Americans (you know, "the conquest of paradise"):

There is a book of this title, which I have in storage, concerning the Pacific Islanders. They didn't handle the flu too well.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Due Diligence in Reading my Writing, Please, Before Criticizing

Robert, you criticized me for 'wading in' to the issue of the Indians without having read (enough) history: "If you're going to wade into Native American questions, you need to study up on your history."

1. > For starters, many of the tribes north of the Rio Grande practiced agriculture.

---But I mentioned that here in the brackets at the end: "So, supposing the Indians had all been nomads and not believers in settled, civilized living or in property [not true everywhere on the continent]" -- and more explicitly I mentioned that there were farmers and they were driven off here: "driving the agricultural, non-nomadic Indians off their farms"

2. > It's an extremely complex story, with bad actors on different sides at different times.

---I made the same point here with some examples: "The dealings with the Indians are complicated as to who was the aggressor - they varied by place (the Pilgrims and the Southerners), by political group (Pres. Jackson vs. the U.S. Supreme Court on the Cherokee and other Indian agriculturists), and by time." [Note also "Indian agriculturists" again.]

3. > the northern end of Georgia was largely inhabited by Cherokees, who farmed...they were run out and marched off to "Indian Territory"

---My parentheses [above under point 2] indicates that I am aware of the Cherokees. My reference was to the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that they could keep their land and Jackson said "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it" and then he ran them off and stole their land anyway! (Parenthetical note: yes, I'm aware of the "Trail of Tears". As a history and civics teacher I used it as a striking example of injustice toward the Indians.)

4. > Suffice it to say that Ayn Rand never learned the first thing about it.

---I made essentially the same point here, except I qualified it with "may have" because I don't have exact quotes and I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt rather than possibly overstating the case: "Rand or Peikoff, who I believe may have made sweeping and general statements about "the Indians". They may have oversimplified (if I recall correctly?) as if it were one undifferentiated phenomenon to be generalized about...which is a failure to assimilate American history.

Nothing wrong with your giving greater detail. But your post was in the belittling context of my not knowing what I'm talking about, not having read enough history. And you omit things I actually said in post #319.

,,,,,,,,,,

Don't take the following personally because I'm going to generalize to not you, but others, re: something that happens frquently on these discussion lists. [And, by the way, in Rand or Peikoff criticism as well.] ===> People often scan multiple threads in quick succession. They "post" in response to something they kind of remember, maybe from a previous page or they don't have in front of them or they don't have a full quote or complete context: I don't mind when people disagree with me, but I do when they "skim" something detailed and/or precisely written, then bastardize what I said (or in many cases over the years put words in my mouth or strip away qualifying adjectives or adverbs like 'some' or 'many' or 'maybe' or 'sometimes'.) --- I can't begin to tell you how immensely infuriating it is when people do this time after time, month after month, year after year. It destroys conversation and debate.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

We really should get this thread back on topic.

I got depressed reading Burns' book. I felt she was leaving out too much that was important about Rand and emphasizing too much that supposedly determined her life course aside from Rand's own brain at work. I stopped reading it two weeks ago and will start again by this weekend. I may have been mistaken by this estimation and will review what I read. Has anyone had a similar experience? I don't think she's strong enough with the actual ideas.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You could learn some communication skills. That might stop your need for fury.

Seriously.

I find it highly improbably that the whole world is out to get you and no one else. I don't see others complaining nonstop about the things you complain nonstop about—usually lecturing folks on how to behave or complaining about how folks misunderstand your message.

I don't know what can be done about the first problem since I doubt many people want to behave according to the dictates you have presented so far. But about the second, my suggestion is to learn how to write with greater clarity.

I don't find the majority of people stupid. I often disagree, but I have found that they usually understand clear writing. If you think you are constantly misunderstood or misrepresented, try saying stuff differently than you usually do. It's clear from your complaint that the present way ain't working to your satisfaction.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Michael,

> I doubt many people want to behave according to the dictates you have presented so far.

Report what people say correctly. Not much to ask.

(As for writing clearly, my post shows my points about the Indians were clear.)

Edited October 21, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> I got depressed reading Burns' book. I felt she was leaving out too much that was important about Rand and emphasizing too much that supposedly determined her life course aside from Rand's own brain at work. I stopped reading it two weeks ago and will start again by this weekend. I may have been mistaken by this estimation and will review what I read. Has anyone had a similar experience? [brant]

Brant, I don't have the book and so don't know. But are you saying that Burns is doing the 'people are determined by their environment' & anti-free will thing? Rand is pro-freedom and ant-communist not because the facts of reality show her those views are true, but because she had a bad experience with the Russkies when a little girl?

> I don't think she's strong enough with the actual ideas.

She said up front that she was focused on politics and impact on the culture in this book. Are you saying she leaves out epistemology, ethics, art - which her book focus would indicate? Or are you saying she doesn't fully explain Rand's pro-capitalism, pro-laissez faire, anti-initiation of force views?

[Brant Gaede]

I'll come back here in a coupla weeks and answer your questions then.

--Brant

I hope to have the time

[Philip Coates]

There's another review out in the New York Times, by Janet Maslin. It discusses and compares both the Heller and Burns books. She considers the Heller to be the better book.

Maslin continues the rather negative assessment of Rand as a person, but at least it's not a hit piece directed at the philosophy. (I don't post links often enough to remember how to do it, so simply google Maslin + Rand.)

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

The Maslin review is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/books/22rand.html?_r=1

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Continuing the Attacks and Misrepresentations

I hope no one is naive enough to think the two new biographies are going to spark a favorable rereading or reinterepreting of Rand by the culture broadly. You have to change the dominant philosophy and be successful in the schools (not write blogs or op eds only or largely) for that to start. Even the two biographers, apparently, don't fully grasp Rand's ideas. Or not on a deep, systematic level.

I wrote in post #308, "How to Smear and Misrepresent a Philosophy", about "the 'line' used to attack Rand from now on" and about how the two biographies will simply be used by the intellectual elites and the most influential periodicals to attack Rand's ideas of reason, egoism, individualism, and laissez-faire.

In that post, I neglected to mention television and documentaries [add also: Michael Moore]. We see another way in which this has been done in the past with 'libertarian' ideas for decades and now linking Rand to the mess [via Greenspan, for example]. Currently by the respected investigative reporting series "Frontline" :

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/114968-frontline-the-warning/ ====> “I’m opposed to all forms of control. I am for an absolute laissez faire economy,” Ayn Rand told Mike Wallace back in 1959, “for the separation of state and economics.” ..Rand could hardly have known how far-reaching her effects would be...According to this week’s episode of Frontline, faith in such “separation” led directly to Wall Street’s recent collapse. [emphasis added]

The procedure - Rand identified it - is to blame capitalism and freedom for the evils caused by their absence. And then you propose more of the poison that caused the illness.

And after a couple decades of overstated puffery about the (microscopic) inroads made by Reason mag or state policy institutes or privatization ventures and toll roads, the very well-organized, well-funded, tireless Cato Institute and the scores of other market think tanks are ineffectual and ignored in the rush away from free markets in any crisis. They were ignored by the Bushies and the Republican takeover of all branches of government in recent decades..and now the Democrats are in power and there have been satirical articles about how lonely and isolated the Cato people are, as a last intellectual vestige or limited government.

If you don't get a steady stream of books out and don't have teachers and professors and syllabuses, you have zero chance of changing the culture. The next crisis will just sweep the conservatives and libertarians and non-Objectivist ideas away. You don't challenge and replace the fundamental ideas, you don't change anything.

TANESC.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

The problem with CATO is it speaks truth to power. Power isn't interested.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

From the ending of my last post, TANESC means "There Ain't No Effing Short Cuts"

> The problem with CATO is it speaks truth to power. Power isn't interested. [brant]

That's why you're not trying to convince 'power'. You are trying to reach the next generation.

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

You need to take a chill pill.

Really.

The image of a tiny Rand-band set over and against a crushing monolith called The Culture wasn't accurate in the 1950s. There's little excuse for maintaining it now.

The whole point of Jennifer Burns' book is that Randian ideas and influences have become a discernible strain within American culture, especially American political culture. (The book does not pretend to offer a comprehensive analysis of her ideas outside the political realm.)

There was bad stuff happening under the Dubya regime and there's worse stuff going on under the Obama regime, but do you really think Dubya's prosecution of the Iraq War and the Afghan War was worse that Saint Woodrow's prosecution of World War I?

Do you think Obama is more dangerous than FDR was?

Sitting down with a book like The Forgotten Man or The New Dealers' War could help you gain perspective.

As I've noted before, Ayn Rand can be forgiven some of her lapses into pessimism because she lived under Soviet Communism from 1917 to 1925. And she lived through 1943 in the United States.

What have you and I been through that's remotely comparable to either?

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> Randian ideas and influences have become a discernible strain within American culture, especially American political culture. [Robert]

By discernible, do you mean microscopic in terms of reversing the direction of government size or control?

I'll take a chill pill when I see the size of government decrease over a decade, when I see less rather than constantly more regulation. Until then, Robert, you need to take a pep pill. May one suggest amphetamines? A certain Russian-American novelist recommends them.

[bTW, any acknowledgement of too carelessly reading my post on the situation of the American Indians yet? No pills needed, just a simple "whoops, my mistake".]

Edited October 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> Do you think Obama is more dangerous than FDR was?

Robert, it is not who moves the needle faster or a greater percentage toward an all-powerful state. If zero is laissez-faire and 100 is totalitarianism and a previous administration and congress and courts moved the needle 10% (ending up at 35% statism) and the present regime moves it 5% (ending up at 55%), then we are in more danger from the later regime which has taken more timid steps.

I know this is complicated, but trust me, I have a math degree.

[Selene]

Phil,

The whole point of Jennifer Burns' book is that Randian ideas and influences have become a discernible strain within American culture, especially American political culture. (The book does not pretend to offer a comprehensive analysis of her ideas outside the political realm.)

Sitting down with a book like The Forgotten Man or The New Dealers' War could help you gain perspective.

As I've noted before, Ayn Rand can be forgiven some of her lapses into pessimism because she lived under Soviet Communism from 1917 to 1925. And she lived through 1943 in the United States.

What have you and I been through that's remotely comparable to either?

Robert:

Well put. I think I would enjoy auditing your course.

Phil:

You do not have any "knifing" enemies on this forum, even me, although I could be persuaded.

If I have somehow caused you any deep psychological trauma by my psychotic sniping, I apologize.

Adam

always a believer in redemption...might even consider a statist ...nah

[jriggenbach]

> Randian ideas and influences have become a discernible strain within American culture, especially American political culture. [Robert]

By discernible, do you mean microscopic in terms of reversing the direction of government size or control?

I'll take a chill pill when I see the size of government decrease over a decade, when I see less rather than constantly more regulation. Until then, Robert, you need to take a pep pill. May one suggest amphetamines? A certain Russian-American novelist recommends them.

[bTW, any acknowledgement of too carelessly reading my post on the situation of the American Indians yet? No pills needed, just a simple "whoops, my mistake".]

Just out of idle curiosity, is there any operational difference between "precisely written" and "filled with vague generalities designed to cover my ass in case anyone reading actually knows something about the subject"?

JR

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

I actually noticed your references to Andrew Jackson vs. the Supreme Court and to non-nomadic American Indians north of the Rio Grande the first time around.

It would have been better had I put in a cross-reference to Andrew Jackson's role in getting the Cherokees, Choctaws, Creeks, and Chickasaws marched off to Oklahoma.

But your comments about Native American agriculturalists were confusing and came across like an afterthought.

The story is extremely complex in terms of who recognized property rights of some kind and who didn't, and in terms of who acted as the aggressor on which occasion.

The Cherokees were booted out of northern Georgia in the 1830s when they were living there peacefully.

The Cherokees were booted out of the northwestern corner of South Carolina in the 1780s after they had allied themselves with the British during the Revolutionary War.

Two rather different circumstances involving the same tribe...

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Amazon is reporting the Burn's book is at 230 on their chart. The Heller book is a little below 500.

[Robert Campbell]

Amazon is reporting the Burns book is at 230 on their chart. The Heller book is a little below 500.

Sales of the Burns book have jumped since her appearance on The Daily Show.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> Just out of idle curiosity, is there any operational difference between "precisely written" and "filled with vague generalities designed to cover my ass in case anyone reading actually knows something about the subject"? [Jeff R]

Well, that's hard to say unless you offer a specific quote(s) that you claim is a vague generality.

Otherwise your claim itself is a vague generality. Combined with psychologizing about a writer's (you seem to be saying, evasive or dishonest) motives.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

Well, that's hard to say unless you offer a specific quote(s) that you claim is a vague generality.

Phil, there is a cure for xray disease.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Adam, I think he was referring to me, not to xray, as an uninformed (but trying to hide it) blowhard since he appended it to my quote.

Some aspect of my post about the Indians?

Edited October 23, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

Adam, I think he was referring to me, not to xray, as an uninformed (but trying to hide it) blowhard since he appended it to my quote.

Some aspect of my post about the Indians?

I guess that is true.

I guess it's all about you.

Even when you are blue...

I can't do a haiku.

Adam