James Heaps-Nelson Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) Adam; I'm a bit confused. It seemed to me that the point Greenspan made in article "Antitrust" is still a good one. On the legal front a great many legal scholars would agree many of Rand's and Greenspan's criticism of these laws. One who comes to mind is Robert Bork.I wonder if Anne Heller may have confused Greenspan's essay "The Assault on Integrity" which is a defense of businessmen. The article is worth rereading.Jerry; I do not know how long the event at Cato lasted but since both authors would be signing books for period and might have had other events to go to. I don't think he was peremptory when David Boaz cut it off. It is worth noting that when the question period started no one had one and Boaz had to pose the first question.Chris:I do not think we are disagreeing."I have close to a zero tolerance policy after a certain point with some of these folks." I was addressing the second and third generation of "believers in Rand" that was being addressed.As to Greenspan, I agree with the authoress that he did change his global opinion of the concept "businessman" as it existed in the 1961 Anti Trust essay: http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/12/12/interrupting-the-election-coverage-alan-greenspan-on-antitrust-circa-1961/AdamAdam,The problem I have with second and third generation "believers" in Rand is not so much their celebration of Rand, her works alone justify that. It's a failure to take to heart the central individualism of her message. It is up to each reader to reconcile the demand for coherence (contradictions by their nature do not exist) with correspondence to reality. The problem is that everyone deals with incomplete information, including Rand. There is an everpresent tension between further identification and coherence.Balancing this tension and remaining true to individualism and independence means there will always be important, honest disagreements among people about Rand and her work. What is needed are not only honest critics and promoters, but also people willing to take the implications of her work in significant, positive new directions.There is enough out there in complex systems and complexity theory, evolutionary and developmental psychology, positive psychology, neuroscience and other fields to occupy many lifetimes and expand Rand's system beyond a philosophy into an organic body of knowledge. During this process, some will come to disagree with Rand, finding topics she did not address and errors in her statements about psychology to be of significant weight to dismiss her. What I found refreshing in Rand was a willingness to stick her neck out, to make new identifications on an unprecedented scale and stand behind them in the face of almost universal criticism. That these traits and their consequences should now be significantly and on balance held against her is a shame. Jim Edited October 30, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now