BRANDEN BPO BOOK STATUS

[Jerry Biggers]

Recently, I posted announcements from Laissez Faire Books that their publication of the Branden book, THE VISION OF AYN RAND: THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OBJECTIVISM was probably going to be available in September. Then October. Then November. Err, well no - "NOT really."

Here is their just-released announcement (November 18, 2009) on the book delay:

Regarding the new Nathaniel Branden book, The Vision of Ayn Rand: the printer is now telling us they are delayed on the print date. We have expressed our discontent with this very strongly, letting them know that this would end our long-term relationship with them. We have recently had two other titles printed there and didn't run into this problem. We will expedite shipping of the volumes to us when they are ready to fill orders as quickly as possible. For the leather bound editions, when they arrive, we will send them out to all US addresses by UPS to expedite the delivery to you. We did consider moving the printing to a new printer but that would delay the delivery even further. Our apologies.

Because of the delay and the holiday season coming up it will not be possible to have the launch for Dr. Branden's book in Los Angeles. Instead we will be making the launch part of the ISIL conference, January 8-10. This will be held in Phoenix. Other speakers include Mimi Gladstein and Ed Hudgins. For more information see www.isilretreat.org.

Well, from that, may we conclude that they now mean that the book may not be available, at all, until their ISIL conference - in January? This may be propitious for their conference, but not so for those who have already ordered - or were planning to order - this long-awaited book.

[Jerry Biggers]

Recently, I posted announcements from Laissez Faire Books that their publication of the Branden book, THE VISION OF AYN RAND: THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OBJECTIVISM was probably going to be available in September. Then October. Then November. Err, well no - "NOT really."

Here is their just-released announcement (November 18, 2009) on the book delay:

Regarding the new Nathaniel Branden book, The Vision of Ayn Rand: the printer is now telling us they are delayed on the print date. We have expressed our discontent with this very strongly, letting them know that this would end our long-term relationship with them. We have recently had two other titles printed there and didn't run into this problem. We will expedite shipping of the volumes to us when they are ready to fill orders as quickly as possible. For the leather bound editions, when they arrive, we will send them out to all US addresses by UPS to expedite the delivery to you. We did consider moving the printing to a new printer but that would delay the delivery even further. Our apologies.

Because of the delay and the holiday season coming up it will not be possible to have the launch for Dr. Branden's book in Los Angeles. Instead we will be making the launch part of the ISIL conference, January 8-10. This will be held in Phoenix. Other speakers include Mimi Gladstein and Ed Hudgins. For more information see www.isilretreat.org.

Well, from that, may we conclude that they now mean that the book may not be available, at all, until their ISIL conference - in January? This may be propitious for their conference, but not so for those who have already ordered - or were planning to order - this long-awaited book.

Following up on this disheartening announcement from LFB, that their printer stated that there would be even further delays, I wonder if the earlier-announced intention by LFB to not have this book available for sale through Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, and all other commercial book sales distributors, was a factor affecting the printer's priorities? Obviously, the printer would have concluded that the VISION/BPO book would need a considerably smaller, and less profitable, print run.

I wonder also how many copies would have been sold if this book had also been on display (in bookstores, on web sites, etc.) next to the current bestselling Rand biographies by Burns and Heller? Much of the current attention that these books have been getting in print and on internet sites will have dissipated by January.

What is it about libertarians and Objectivists that they fail to fully take advantage of these opportunities?

[Alfonso Jones]

What is it about libertarians and Objectivists that they fail to fully take advantage of these opportunities?

Failure to understand markets?

Bill P

[Robert Campbell]

Yes, the latest delay is annoying, to say the least.

And there do seem to be market opportunities of which they are not taking enough advantage.

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

What is it about libertarians and Objectivists that they fail to fully take advantage of these opportunities?

Failure to understand markets?

Bill P

Well, yes. But isn't that rather curious for adherents of a philosophy that places market at the top of their economics priority?

"Not to get off on a rant here," (as Dennis Miller would say) but the simultaneous claim and worry of the liberal (and Marxist) critics that Ayn Rand's philosophy is subscribed to by the wealthiest big business capitalist pigs, is not borne-out by examining where that particular economic strata decides to put their money. Most of the left-leaning politicians, political pressure groups and think tanks, and of course, the Mainstream Media are overwhelmingly supported by the wealthy.

Yes, I know that there are exceptions, such as John Allison (of BBT). but their numbers pale into almost insignificance when compared to the wealthy supporting the Left.

On a recorded SEMINAR LP from the early nineteen-sevenities, Nathaniel Branden responded to a question about this dearth of support. As I recall, he said that it usually takes at least a generation for the ideas of a new philosophy to become prominent in academic or other key cultural areas. Well, instead of 20 years, we are now over 50 and the infusion of Objectivism into vital areas of our society is still relatively insignificant. By that, I mean that Objectivist ideas are not accepted for serious consideration as policy alternatives or as political arguments.

Judging from the last Presidential campaign and subsequent election, one might have concluded that Auguste Comte's books must "have been second only to the Bible" in popularity.

In fact, even scientology (whose belief system is in serious contention for being the most irrational and out-of-touch with reality since, well, Comte's Positivist Church of Humanity) can demonstrate that they have more adherents among the successful businessmen and entrepreneurs (the founders of many large internet and computer companies: DiskKeeper, Panda Security, Earthlink, to name a few). Now why is that? Shouldn't attempting to practice such an irrational "psycho-epistemology" have either sent them to an insane asylum or to the poorhouse?

And why is George Soros, an archetypal plutocratic greedy billionaire (one that fits the liberal stereotype of what a supporter of Ayn Rand should look like), lavishly supporting the anti-capitalist left? What's wrong with this picture?

And before someone responds with, "that's why Rand's philosophy is so important," I agree. But that brings us back to the start: why is it so difficult to spread this philosophy? Or even libertarian philosophy? Interesting group of people. Cogent Arguments. But after fifty years of Objectivism (and a lot longer for classical/libertarianism), why so little progress?

Edited November 18, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Selene]

Jerry:

"And before someone responds with, "that's why Rand's philosophy is so important," I agree. But that brings us back to the start: why is it so difficult to spread this philosophy? Or even libertarian philosophy? Interesting group of people. Cogent Arguments. But after fifty years of Objectivism (and a lot longer for classical/libertarianism), why so little progress?"

Excellent question.

I think the primary reason is due to the puritanically purist position taken by Randians and Libertarians.

The secondary reason is an almost pathological aversion to the political process. The last libertarian Presidential "campaign" was a classic of ineptitude compounded by incompetence.

Here we has an ex sitting Congressman with access to funds and an alleged bookmaker from Vegas who graduated from Columbia in the same class as Barry. who led me to believe was going to also bring money into a well funded campaign.

Did anyone see anything anywhere from national that even remotely resembled advertising?

Did anyone see any field organizing money coming into the local libertarian groups to build a field force from the election district level?

You can win if you do not buy a ticket. You cannot gain ground politically without dedication, hard work and money.

That is, unfortunately, the way I see it over the last 50 years.

Adam

Fired up ...ready to go!

[Robert Campbell]

I've heard a person who has given a fair amount of money to The Atlas Society joking that "Objectivists practice intellectual birth control."

I think there is something to this.

Demanding that large numbers of people accept the entire Objectivist system (not all of which is Rand's, but I digress) is not a pathway to either cultural or political change.

Demanding that they accept the entire system and treat Ms. Rand as an object of worship is a non-starter. Objectivism is not the next mystery religion.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

This is a depressing topic to put it mildly.

The earlier decision to not Amazon carry the Branden book was a very bad sign. LFB's printer postponing the job makes a person believe in a conspiracy.

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry:

"And before someone responds with, "that's why Rand's philosophy is so important," I agree. But that brings us back to the start: why is it so difficult to spread this philosophy? Or even libertarian philosophy? Interesting group of people. Cogent Arguments. But after fifty years of Objectivism (and a lot longer for classical/libertarianism), why so little progress?"

Excellent question.

I think the primary reason is due to the puritanically purist position taken by Randians and Libertarians.

The secondary reason is an almost pathological aversion to the political process. The last libertarian Presidential "campaign" was a classic of ineptitude compounded by incompetence.

Here we has an ex sitting Congressman with access to funds and an alleged bookmaker from Vegas who graduated from Columbia in the same class as Barry. who led me to believe was going to also bring money into a well funded campaign.

Did anyone see anything anywhere from national that even remotely resembled advertising?

Did anyone see any field organizing money coming into the local libertarian groups to build a field force from the election district level?

You can win if you do not buy a ticket. You cannot gain ground politically without dedication, hard work and money.

That is, unfortunately, the way I see it over the last 50 years.

Adam

Fired up ...ready to go!

Adam,

Unfortunately (I'm beginning to start each comment with this), libertarians could never agree enough amongst themselves to concentrate their support on the Libertarian Party (I think this is discussed in some detail in Brian Doherty's recent Radicals For Capitalism: A freewheeling History). A consequence of this, is that various factions tried to gain control of the party for purposes which the majority of libertarians could not agree.

One idea of having a separate Libertarian Party was that, even though its chances to gain political offices were slim, its existence could gradually sway the Republican Party to be more libertarian, similar to the influence of the Socialist Party on the Democrats. This strategy seems to have worked for the socialists, but it is less evident with the libertarian effect on Republicans (with a few notable exceptions). In fact, the G.O.P. has been much more receptive to the "religious right."

And, of course, most conservatives support the Republican Party out of what they feel is a practical necessity - keeping Democrats out of office. They don't believe third parties have any real chance to accomplish this, and supporting them takes votes away from the Republicans and just guarantees victory for the Democrats.

Recently, another attempt at a third party was started: a new version of the Whigs, calling itself the "Modern Whig Party." Their policy statements on their website sound to me like they are trying to be conservative Republicans (but with principled integrity) in Whig clothing. However, I have seen little MSM (or even conservative media) attention to their efforts. This is a fascinating venture, but one I feel will not be able to escape the fate of the the 19th century Whigs (which self-destructed over an inability to deal with issues like "states rights" and slavery, prior to the Civil War).

Perhaps think tanks like The Cato Institute, will have more success than the Libertarian Party has had. Whether they can fundamentally change the political direction of America is another question.

.

[Guyau]

Jerry,

You remarked in #5 that “the infusion of Objectivism into vital areas of our society is still relatively insignificant.” You then indicated that what you meant is “Objectivist ideas are not accepted for serious consideration as policy alternatives or as political arguments.” I think the importance of society is as the matrix for individual lives of persons present and future. The end point is the start point, the individual. Over these last five decades and for the next five to come, the social matrix in America has been and will be such that the major determinate of individual life and happiness is the individual whose life it is. Rand’s works have liberated many individuals to make their lives and minds better, regardless of any political enlightenment they got from Rand and regardless of the political winds back and forth in this vast democratic republic.

I was one who received from Rand both the personal liberation and the political enlightenment (the latter requires supplementation with economic education, whether formal or self-study, beyond Rand’s works to be full weight). I joined the Libertarian Party in 1972, the year it was formed, and I continued my political activism through that podium until 1984. I talked to a few thousand Americans one-on-one during our ballot petition drives, and I gave them our brochures. Scarcely any of them had ever heard the word libertarian. In recent years, I have noticed that that word, naming that modern political position, has become a commonplace of television news commentators. You hear it regularly, with understanding, from Carlson, Buchanan, McLaugflin, and (to reject some personal-liberty position) O’Reilly. Cato people appear regularly on The News Hour, and they are introduced as being from a libertarian think tank. The libertarian political philosophy is not shrinking in the America.

I had already attained the liberation of turning from religious faith to scientific reason by the time I discovered Rand in 1967. She opened the world further for me, rounding a rational world view (an ever-developing view). She turned me from the received morality of altruism and, hence, from socialism to capitalism. The predominate allure of left-politics in America is the allure of religious mysticism and of altruism, religious or post-religious. (The factors of unionism and environmentalism are important ones, of course, but I think they are not so big as the ones just stated, insofar as they are independent of the latter.) The political progress (I imagine) you seek will come only so far as those allures, those deep allures, are overwritten in peoples’ minds and lives. People tricked towards freedom with slogans and emotionalism, without their understanding of the point of freedom and without advance in their understanding of economics, will not stay on the course of freedom.

Decade after decade, there have been and will be people who try to invoke Ayn Rand as source of their particular political aims and to enlist citizens personally liberated and politically enlightened by Rand into their organized political efforts. It is not a defect of individuals liberated by Rand to decline (or accept) the invitation. It is not a defect that they do not go after (or do go after) becoming rich. They are making their own lives in their own fashion for their own purposes, and this is fully good.

–Stephen

[Jerry Biggers]

I've heard a person who has given a fair amount of money to The Atlas Society joking that "Objectivists practice intellectual birth control."

I think there is something to this.

Demanding that large numbers of people accept the entire Objectivist system (not all of which is Rand's, but I digress) is not a pathway to either cultural or political change.

Demanding that they accept the entire system and treat Ms. Rand as an object of worship is a non-starter. Objectivism is not the next mystery religion.

Robert Campbell

LOL: "Objectivists practice intellectual birth control." And ARIans practice...what? Celibacy? Maybe not, but "monastic isolation," yes.

On another issue, how do the Peikovians describe how they will make political change without cooperating with those who hold similar views? Do they expect to achieve this simply by converting a substantial portion of non-Objectvists to "pure" Objectivism? That would also mean that the converted must also be atheists. I don't believe an avowed atheist has ever gained high political office in America. If the ARIans/Peikovians think that there is too much vocal opposition to Ayn Rand's philosophy now, wait till this country's religious establishment realizes what the ascendancy of Objectivism to cultural/political promise would mean for their influence.

Objectivists of all stripes need to take seriously a pronouncement by Rand which she made in the Playboy interview and elsewhere in the early nineteen sixties: paraphrasing: "I am standing in opposition to 2,000 years of cultural history."

"Objectivism is not the next mystery religion." Literally, no. Figuratively, yes (judging from responses from the MSM and even some conservatives. Also, it's a mystery to me how Objectivism will gain cultural or political ascendancy. I'm not saying that O'ism is not true, I am saying that most of the world does not know about it and does not want to learn.

By the way, whatever did happen to Mithraism? Such is the fate of mystery religions (- and philosophies).

[Jerry Biggers]

This is a depressing topic to put it mildly.

The earlier decision to not Amazon carry the Branden book was a very bad sign. LFB's printer postponing the job makes a person believe in a conspiracy.

Chris,

As far as I know, no other book by Nathaniel Branden (over 6 million books sold) has ever been published by other than a major publishing house. And they were all available through major book outlets.

As for the delays, hopefully, it is just a series of "bad luck." However, the marketing decision (exclusive to LFB, with no major outlets distribution) is inexplicable.

[Selene]

Jerry,

You remarked in #5 that "the infusion of Objectivism into vital areas of our society is still relatively insignificant." You then indicated that what you meant is "Objectivist ideas are not accepted for serious consideration as policy alternatives or as political arguments." I think the importance of society is as the matrix for individual lives of persons present and future. The end point is the start point, the individual. Over these last five decades and for the next five to come, the social matrix in America has been and will be such that the major determinate of individual life and happiness is the individual whose life it is. Rand's works have liberated many individuals to make their lives and minds better, regardless of any political enlightenment they got from Rand and regardless of the political winds back and forth in this vast democratic republic.

I was one who received from Rand both the personal liberation and the political enlightenment (the latter requires supplementation with economic education, whether formal or self-study, beyond Rand's works to be full weight). I joined the Libertarian Party in 1972, the year it was formed, and I continued my political activism through that podium until 1984. I talked to a few thousand Americans one-on-one during our ballot petition drives, and I gave them our brochures. Scarcely any of them had ever heard the word libertarian. In recent years, I have noticed that that word, naming that modern political position, has become a commonplace of television news commentators. You hear it regularly, with understanding, from Carlson, Buchanan, McLaugflin, and (to reject some personal-liberty position) O'Reilly. Cato people appear regularly on The News Hour, and they are introduced as being from a libertarian think tank. The libertarian political philosophy is not shrinking in the America.

I had already attained the liberation of turning from religious faith to scientific reason by the time I discovered Rand in 1967. She opened the world further for me, rounding a rational world view (an ever-developing view). She turned me from the received morality of altruism and, hence, from socialism to capitalism. The predominate allure of left-politics in America is the allure of religious mysticism and of altruism, religious or post-religious. (The factors of unionism and environmentalism are important ones, of course, but I think they are not so big as the ones just stated, insofar as they are independent of the latter.) The political progress (I imagine) you seek will come only so far as those allures, those deep allures, are overwritten in peoples' minds and lives. People tricked towards freedom with slogans and emotionalism, without their understanding of the point of freedom and without advance in their understanding of economics, will not stay on the course of freedom.

Decade after decade, there have been and will be people who try to invoke Ayn Rand as source of their particular political aims and to enlist citizens personally liberated and politically enlightened by Rand into their organized political efforts. It is not a defect of individuals liberated by Rand to decline (or accept) the invitation. It is not a defect that they do not go after (or do go after) becoming rich. They are making their own lives in their own fashion for their own purposes, and this is fully good.

–Stephen

Stephen:

Beautiful. That is one of the finest expositions of Ayn's effects on the individual human mind that I have ever read. You have riveted in place what I have felt for the last five decades. I was intensely involved in the heavy lifting in NY City for the 6 years before the "official" formation of the party in '72.

As you put it so eloquently in your last line..."They are making their own lives in their own fashion for their own purposes, and this is fully good."

Individuals that understand Ayn's basic concepts and incorporate the valid premises into their personal lives are leading by example and that is "fully good". We have, in retrospect, all the time in the world.

Adam

fired up...refreshed...ready to go!

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

You remarked in #5 that “the infusion of Objectivism into vital areas of our society is still relatively insignificant.” You then indicated that what you meant is “Objectivist ideas are not accepted for serious consideration as policy alternatives or as political arguments.” I think the importance of society is as the matrix for individual lives of persons present and future. The end point is the start point, the individual. Over these last five decades and for the next five to come, the social matrix in America has been and will be such that the major determinate of individual life and happiness is the individual whose life it is. Rand’s works have liberated many individuals to make their lives and minds better, regardless of any political enlightenment they got from Rand and regardless of the political winds back and forth in this vast democratic republic.

I was one who received from Rand both the personal liberation and the political enlightenment (the latter requires supplementation with economic education, whether formal or self-study, beyond Rand’s works to be full weight). I joined the Libertarian Party in 1972, the year it was formed, and I continued my political activism through that podium until 1984. I talked to a few thousand Americans one-on-one during our ballot petition drives, and I gave them our brochures. Scarcely any of them had ever heard the word libertarian. In recent years, I have noticed that that word, naming that modern political position, has become a commonplace of television news commentators. You hear it regularly, with understanding, from Carlson, Buchanan, McLaugflin, and (to reject some personal-liberty position) O’Reilly. Cato people appear regularly on The News Hour, and they are introduced as being from a libertarian think tank. The libertarian political philosophy is not shrinking in the America.

I had already attained the liberation of turning from religious faith to scientific reason by the time I discovered Rand in 1967. She opened the world further for me, rounding a rational world view (an ever-developing view). She turned me from the received morality of altruism and, hence, from socialism to capitalism. The predominate allure of left-politics in America is the allure of religious mysticism and of altruism, religious or post-religious. (The factors of unionism and environmentalism are important ones, of course, but I think they are not so big as the ones just stated, insofar as they are independent of the latter.) The political progress (I imagine) you seek will come only so far as those allures, those deep allures, are overwritten in peoples’ minds and lives. People tricked towards freedom with slogans and emotionalism, without their understanding of the point of freedom and without advance in their understanding of economics, will not stay on the course of freedom.

Decade after decade, there have been and will be people who try to invoke Ayn Rand as source of their particular political aims and to enlist citizens personally liberated and politically enlightened by Rand into their organized political efforts. It is not a defect of individuals liberated by Rand to decline (or accept) the invitation. It is not a defect that they do not go after (or do go after) becoming rich. They are making their own lives in their own fashion for their own purposes, and this is fully good.

–Stephen

Stephen,

I agree with much of what you so eloquently said, summarizing, "Objectivism is a tool for individual liberation." Objectivists are the exception. Perhaps they will never be the rule. Sounds likely to me.

However, I was primarily talking about political change. You seem to be saying that whether or not that change happens, it is unimportant, because the individual is sovereign (ala Rourk).

Ayn Rand did not view the political process as unimportant to the future of freedom in America. She knew that as the country becomes more collectivist, the restrictions on the freedom of the individual to live his life as he chooses must increase. That affects everybody (even would-be Roarks).

Your line of argument implies (but you do not explicitly say) that all Objectivists or individualists will just be able to ignore the coming restrictions that Obama has planned for us. If we engage in political action to oppose him, fine. If we don't engage in political action (or other methods to advocate for freedom), that's also fine. There will be little or no adverse consequences for the individualist if collectivization continues. Obama will have a live-and-let-live policy toward Objectvists, libertarians, and anyone else to chooses to not participate in, or ignore, his socio-economic engineering.

Perhaps you believe that. But I think that totalitarians (which is ultimately what socialists are) have other plans for us.

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

I certainly agree that some political response is required to Obama and crew.

But all that is needed is for Rand's ideas to help inform that political response. To be successful, a move away from Nanny Statism doesn't have to flow from mass conversion, or even mass elite conversion, to her entire philosophical system.

To some extent, her ideas are already helping to inform the political response. Not that their potential has been exhausted, by any means...

Robert Campbell

PS. When I mentioned mystery religions, I also had in mind Christianity, which incorporated some mystery-religion elements, and has gone on to be rather widely accepted in one form or another...

[tjohnson]

But I think that totalitarians (which is ultimately what socialists are) have other plans for us.

What does this mean? Socialists are ultimately totalitarians? So if you have some socialist sentiments you will end up being a totalitarian? Is this like starting on grass and ending up shooting heroin?

[Selene]

But I think that totalitarians (which is ultimately what socialists are) have other plans for us.

What does this mean? Socialists are ultimately totalitarians? So if you have some socialist sentiments you will end up being a totalitarian? Is this like starting on grass and ending up shooting heroin?

GS:

Do you agree with the following proposition?

Each individual citizen's needs are superseded by the total needs of that citizen's society.

I have tried to take out any "value laden" terminology that would indicate a political bias.

Adam

[Guyau]

Oh yes, Jerry, I think that political activism is an important activity; and it is a source of personal satisfaction. To quote from my composition Your Moral Ideal,

Here “the world of your moral ideal” is success in one’s particular ventures of production together with success in joint efforts to create a dependable and just legal framework for those ventures.

However, political action is a collective action. If one takes the perspective that the country will proceed very differently simply according to whether one contributes a little or a lot of one’s time and money to it’s right political direction, then one has pumped up one’s social significance unrealistically. The first fifteen years after college, I was a political activist. The cost to me for my time was very high. Looking back with 20-20 hindsight these decades later, I would say that my own self-interest would have been better served had I instead spent that activist-time learning more of the mathematics of physics. That is particular to me and my life course, but similar tradeoffs have to be gambled by each person for their particular life.

I would be careful, by the way, with relying on the line of political argument, such as I often heard in my youth, that went like this: The mixed economy leads to socialism (left or right), which leads to totalitarianism (communism or fascism). Therefore, I’ll just argue against totalitarianism, which gets the blood boiling. Informed contributions on particular mixed-economy and personal-liberty issues from the partisans of liberty will win more lasting ground.

[tjohnson]

I would be careful, by the way, with relying on the line of political argument, such as I often heard in my youth, that went like this: The mixed economy leads to socialism (left or right), which leads to totalitarianism (communism or fascism). Therefore, I'll just argue against totalitarianism, which gets the blood boiling. Informed contributions on particular mixed-economy and personal-liberty issues from the partisans of liberty will win more lasting ground.

Good advice.

[tjohnson]

Do you agree with the following proposition?

Each individual citizen's needs are superseded by the total needs of that citizen's society.

I have tried to take out any "value laden" terminology that would indicate a political bias.

No, I do not agree.

[Jerry Biggers]

Oh yes, Jerry, I think that political activism is an important activity; and it is a source of personal satisfaction. To quote from my composition Your Moral Ideal,

Here “the world of your moral ideal” is success in one’s particular ventures of production together with success in joint efforts to create a dependable and just legal framework for those ventures.

However, political action is a collective action. If one takes the perspective that the country will proceed very differently simply according to whether one contributes a little or a lot of one’s time and money to it’s right political direction, then one has pumped up one’s social significance unrealistically. The first fifteen years after college, I was a political activist. The cost to me for my time was very high. Looking back with 20-20 hindsight these decades later, I would say that my own self-interest would have been better served had I instead spent that activist-time learning more of the mathematics of physics. That is particular to me and my life course, but similar tradeoffs have to be gambled by each person for their particular life.

I would be careful, by the way, with relying on the line of political argument, such as I often heard in my youth, that went like this: The mixed economy leads to socialism (left or right), which leads to totalitarianism (communism or fascism). Therefore, I’ll just argue against totalitarianism, which gets the blood boiling. Informed contributions on particular mixed-economy and personal-liberty issues from the partisans of liberty will win more lasting ground.

Well, hindsight is always 20-20. Or at least it seems to be. Unfortunately, that line of reasoning, for me, has not always been particularly useful. It is based on, "If I knew then, what I know now, I would have taken a different course of action."

But your point is that political activism, for you, now appears to have been futile or at least not the best use of your time. O.K., and that means what, exactly, regarding political opposition to the encroachment of the State? You seem to be saying that the individual can just go on about his business and the State will just ignore him.

[Guyau]

No, Jerry, I do not seem to be saying any such thing. There is no such seeming, without great stretching, to what I have said.

At a very practical level, everyone has to be cognizant of the ways in which the government and the society more generally is not going to ignore their “bad” behavior. The millions of Americans who smoke pot cannot simply go about their smoking as if the law will just ignore them. I have never had to worry about that, but certainly one factor behind Jer and I moving from Oklahoma to Illinois many years ago was the circumstance that homosexual relations were legal in Illinois. Then again, at one point of my trajectory, I thought I would like to become a high-school physics teacher. But at that time, there was a great deal of public agitation for laws against gays being allowed to teach in public schools. Jer didn’t want me to be in that cross-hair, so on his prompting, I looked for a different commercial career, which worked out fine.

Looking beyond one’s particular nearby practical social setting: How much of one’s time to devote to winning the repeal of unjust laws and to educating people about the nature of individual rights is not a one-level-fits-all sort of thing. I would, however, caution against putting your own pursuit of prosperity on hold under the vision that prosperity is a thing of the past. I remember folks who did that sort of thing in the ‘70’s. Mostly, I think they later got more realistic and took a better course.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[Greybird]

[...] How much of one’s time to devote to winning the repeal of unjust laws and to educating people about the nature of individual rights is not a one-level-fits-all sort of thing. I would caution against putting your own pursuit of prosperity on hold under the vision that prosperity is a thing of the past. I remember folks who did that sort of thing in the '70s. Mostly, I think they later got more realistic and took a better course.

Some did garner such wisdom. Others ended up contributing to Websites such as LewRockwell.com.

Don't get me wrong about that site, as it's a great intellectual resource. (Robert Higgs, Butler Shaffer, Walter Block, and — for polemical delight — Fred Reed all make it worthwhile, by themselves, for anyone who loves liberty and clear thinking.)

But too much of it seems to be stuck in what I call the "disaster porn" mode, including, sadly, Lew Rockwell himself, when acting as the site's editor. (Not when he's an essayist himself.)

Three articles in one day that almost celebrate various economic and investing pundits' predictions of the imminent trashing of the U.S. dollar? As is true today, and on many recent days? That's too much of getting one's financial-societal-destruction masturbatory jollies. It's more efficient to go get that from the latest cinematic abortion by Roland Emmerich.

Education as to governmental malfeasance and Federal Reserve mystification? Yes. But outright fearmongering that verges on being done for its own sake? We've had that in oversupply for decades.

I wonder what Lew Rockwell thinks will keep a general, gunfire-in-the streets economic meltdown from touching him in his non-profit institutional refuge in Auburn, Alabama. I'm almost afraid to ask him. (I've asked him many other things, and he's published some of my thoughts in his blog.)

[Greybird]

... Rant over. As to the topic at hand:

I don't recall the late, great Vince Miller being anywhere this inefficient and weak on the follow-through for ISIL's various enterprises, including an annual international libertarian conference.

I don't recall Jim Peron being this ineffectual in his own past publishing ventures.

It's a little unseemly for them to blame these kinds of problems on a supplier's faults. Vetting a printer's performance, and having alternatives at hand, and writing the contracts so that printers can be switched for failing to deliver — all of that is what entrepreneurs should be doing routinely. (Vince had his own press. Maybe he had the right idea, as ink-stained as that made him.)

I wish Laissez Faire Books (which I've patronized for nearly 30 years, back to their New York storefront) and ISIL (a membership for most of those years) all the best, including getting some of their organizational savvy back. Until then, I'm not inclined to entrust them with any more of my money, not when economic matters are stretched this thin.

[Jerry Biggers]

No, Jerry, I do not seem to be saying any such thing. There is no such seeming, without great stretching, to what I have said.

At a very practical level, everyone has to be cognizant of the ways in which the government and the society more generally is not going to ignore their “bad” behavior. The millions of Americans who smoke pot cannot simply go about their smoking as if the law will just ignore them. I have never had to worry about that, but certainly one factor behind Jer and I moving from Oklahoma to Illinois many years ago was the circumstance that homosexual relations were legal in Illinois. Then again, at one point of my trajectory, I thought I would like to become a high-school physics teacher. But at that time, there was a great deal of public agitation for laws against gays being allowed to teach in public schools. Jer didn’t want me to be in that cross-hair, so on his prompting, I looked for a different commercial career, which worked out fine.

Looking beyond one’s particular nearby practical social setting: How much of one’s time to devote to winning the repeal of unjust laws and to educating people about the nature of individual rights is not a one-level-fits-all sort of thing. I would, however, caution against putting your own pursuit of prosperity on hold under the vision that prosperity is a thing of the past. I remember folks who did that sort of thing in the ‘70’s. Mostly, I think they later got more realistic and took a better course.

Stephen,

I am not sure that we have that much of a difference of opinion on the issues of the State versus the individual.

On another issue, as a former long-term resident of Illinois, I would like to caution you that while Illinois does have a law on its books allowing "sexual relations between consenting adults," some law enforcement authorities have continued to act as if that was not the case. Harassments and arrests still occasionally occur. The case may be thrown out, but the victim may still have had his/her name dragged through the mud by the media.