Ayn Rand Institute / Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

[DonDaBoomVape]

Originally Posted by Justncredible

Good info Don, my vote is for you to open some sort of dialogue.

Nope! Kent C is your man. He is still actively involved in the Objectivist community (the open minded branch).

I dropped out long ago ... after I was fired from the Objectivist magazine back in 1971 (because Elaine Kalberman found out I was associating with Brandenites, i.e., followers of the himself). [My point here is not that Objectivism is a flawed philosphy or that Atlas Shrugged isn't The Great American Novel (it is, you know), but that the genius author had some quirks (don't we all) and that others formed a cult around her.]

My only regret from those days is that I never met Ms. Rand. [Of course, if I had and she had looked at me cross-eyed, I might have never gotten over it. Back then I was held together by what I would now describe as fantasy self-esteem. Oh well, the important thing is I got over it.]

We should urge Kent C to represent us vapers.

[McWhat]

I was trying to think of a polite way of saying "Aligning yourself with the Cult of Rand(tm) could backfire" when Don explained it fairly well. I've noticed some of her "followers" tend to miss the big picture, and are more interested in their individual rights than your individual rights.

[aquatiq]

//She goes a little far into the individualism thing for me. I think a person can be part of a group based on self intrest and empathy for others without a loss of individualism.//

I TOTALLY disagree that anyone can go "too far" with individualism. AND, I suggest that you read her works again. There is nothing she says or writes that goes against being "a part of a group based on self interest and empathy for others without a loss of individualism." In fact, objectivist ethics and politics could not be stated much better than that sentence.

C!

[aquatiq]

//I think we have a much greater chance with the Kelly people. They do not hold that Objectivism is a "closed" system, i.e., they are loyal to basic principles but open to new ideas.//

Objectivism IS a closed system. If someone wants to steal from it, and create an abomination from it, they are free to do so, since a philosophy is within the realm of abstract ideas, and not subject to copyright as such. However, if anything that steals from objectivism is then mangled into a "philosophy," then, it will be open to scrutiny; and I look forward to any such rubbish when it arrives.

As to the ARI: I have represented them at several functions, and have started a campus club at my college in Atlanta, GA. I am listed on their website as an objectivist club contact as well. I will also be attending Dr. Brooks presentation on the 3rd of November at Georgia Tech, so if you want, and are fearful of reproach, I will mention this board among other topics when I meet with him.

[Mordred]

An objectivist worth his salt would certainly see the advantages of the e-cig and side with us should anybody want to ban them. That said, so would libertarians, and they tend to be a bit less, how shall I put it, radical.

[Sevenchan]

Originally Posted by DonDaBoomVape

My only regret from those days is that I never met Ms. Rand. [Of course, if I had and she had looked at me cross-eyed, I might have never gotten over it. Back then I was held together by what I would now describe as fantasy self-esteem. Oh well, the important thing is I got over it.]

Don, I'm just dropping into this discussion because my curiosity is piqued by your phrase "fantasy self-esteem." Is this your own coinage? I like it and I'd like to hear a longer explanation of what you mean by it. Any links, or a gloss of your own?

NOTE: I am neutral on Objectivism, not taking political sides here in any way shape or form

[Kent C]

Originally Posted by Justncredible

I think a person can be part of a group based on self intrest and empathy for others without a loss of individualism.

Seems to me that describes exactly the conditions of Galt's Gulch. In which case, you and Rand would be in complete agreement.

Much is made of Rand's self-interest and to an extent she was responsible for some of that by the picking of the title of one of her non-fiction books: "The Virtue of Selfishness". It was a bit of a tweak at altruism. I'll let her explain:

To the Glory of Man - The Virtue Of Selfishness

But while the explanation would be evident to anyone who read the book, that is not what critics do toward those people whose ideas are contrary to their own. What they do is just take the title out of context and without the context that is given in the very first pages and just say: "Rand believes selfishness is a virtue" (using their own definition of it). And just like many do these days - not listen to Rush, but only listen to what the critics say about Rush; or for the other side, don't listen to Obermann and only listen to what the critics say about Obermann - they form opinions of Rand, not on what they have read of Rand, but what others have said about Rand. (not that someone who has read Rand, couldn't disagree with some of her concepts, of course but that's different than characterizing her concepts in a way that she clearly rejects.)

[and 'justncredible', I'm not saying you fit in either category - I'm just pointing out a common misconception of Rand's concept of rational self-interest and how it is misconstrued.]

There is not an ideological movement that hasn't had it's splits - think Trotsky, Luther, Henry the 8th, McCartney :-) (well, he went solo first) and the same was true with Objectivism. There is more from Rothbard than there is from Rand on that split. So Rothbard's comments are usually cited without much response, unless you're on the newsgroup:HPO (humanities:philosophy:objectivism) where I spent a few years. No need to argue those points here.

The David Kelley split is best summed up in his book "Unrugged Individualism" where he takes Rand's words and shows the 'rational' aspect of Rand's 'rational self-interest,' where it isn't in one's self-interest to be... well, 'selfish' - iow, acting for your interest without regards to others or even at the detriment to others. In fact, that last, if it violates a 'right,' she would absolutely not condone such actions. And the reason that isn't 'rational self-interest' should be self-evident! Kelley makes a convincing case citing scenarios in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (some familiar with both or either should be able to actually cite such scenes themselves) and other non-fiction points in her books.

While I do support the Atlas Society and I could mention the ecig movement to them, the CATO institute may be a better venue as they are in contact with members of congress and other gov't agencies more so than the Atlas Society but next chance I get I'll pass along this info. I really am not in communication with anyone at either place on a regular basis. Another group would be IJ (Institute for Justice) which is the libertarian counterpart to the leftist ACLU. Unlike the ACLU which just focuses on violations of the 1st amendment (except for political correctness, of course ;-) .... the IJ takes on all violations of rights including 2nd amendment, and 3rd, 4th, 5th (ACLU doesn't touch the 'taking's clause'), etc. But it must be against gov't not private companies or individuals.

I'm almost certain that all these groups already know of the situations with the FDA - there's a lot of smokers there - esp. Objectivists - see Rand's quote below that I recently posted. But again, I'll contact each of them with a short outline of the situation just to see if, in fact, they are aware of what is happening.

Rand quote: (just checked... it was an email but here it is on a cut and paste with a bit more than Rand):

Rand:
"I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."

And she was not the only one who looked at it along those lines:

"Sherlock Holmes sat silent for a few minutes with his finger tips still pressed together, his legs stretched out in front of him and his gaze directed upwards to the ceiling. Then he took down from the rack the old and oily clay pipe , which was to him as a counselor, and, having it, he leaned back in his chair, with the thick blue cloud-wreaths spinning up from him, and a look of infinite languor in his face."

Holmes again, to Watson:
"It is quite a three pipe problem, and I beg that you won't speak to me for fifty minutes."

Or, we can remember the case in which Holmes needed a pound of the strongest shag tobacco to resolve the problem and stayed alone all the day smoking, and Watson found him in a sort of trance, in a room that "was so filled with the smoke that the light of the lamp upon the table was blurred by it and my first impression as I opened the door was that a fire has broken out".

[Justncredible]

It is a rather unneeded complex subject.

YouTube - Ayn Rand - The Morality of Altruism

Charity is not always self sacrifice, empathy is not always self sacrifice.


While state sponsored charity does not exist.

I think she muddles the issue and makes it over complex. And in doing so she confuses the message. I feel the issue to Rand is part of her expression of religion. Also her understandings of the founders is lacking any depth. As I said I do not agree with about 20% of what she said.

[aquatiq]

Originally Posted by Justncredible

It is a rather unneeded complex subject.

Charity is not always self sacrifice, empathy is not always self sacrifice.
While state sponsored charity does not exist.

How is this complex? More specifically, how can it's complexity be reduced to its essentials, and make the statement more efficient?

Charity and empathy are not always self-sacrificial, nor should the state have the power to force people to give what they produce to others. Both are important points.

Originally Posted by Justncredible

I think she muddles the issue and makes it over complex.

For example, where did your understanding of her words get "muddled," and what should be left out, that would make it less complex? You certainly muddled your "point."

Originally Posted by Justncredible

And in doing so she confuses the message. I feel the issue to Rand is part of her expression of religion.

Based on what do you come to this conclusion that you offer? In reading your post, I can't help but become irritated at your unsupported allegations about a woman, so detached from context, and without any examples, reasons, or support offered. However, most that I have seen who disagree with Ms. Rand tend to be that way.

Originally Posted by Justncredible

Also her understandings of the founders is lacking any depth. As I said I do not agree with about 20% of what she said.

Quite to the contrary, Ms. Rand gives "depth" to the founders, and an explicit moral foundation to their writings, and achievement: The US Constitution. What "depth"--again I have to ask for support--that you know of, that she did not mention, or address?

You funny.

[Kent C]

Originally Posted by aquatiq

Based on what do you come to this conclusion that you offer? In reading your post, I can't help but become irritated at your unsupported allegations about a woman, so detached from context, and without any examples, reasons, or support offered. However, most that I have seen who disagree with Ms. Rand tend to be that way.

aquatiq,

Frankly, when I was a libertarian, I was taken aback reading some of her criticisms of libertarians - which for the most part was aimed at Rothbard - who later, imo, abandoned some basic libertarian concepts, himself :-)

Reading her non-fiction - esp. "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and then her ethics laid out in varioius books, I agreed with some of what she had said about libertarians - mainly their basis of 'rights' is weak and quite varied or non-existent (ie. only pragmatic).

But I agree with justncredible, this is not place for this stuff... If Atlas Society feels this is a valid issue, I see no reason why they wouldn't, then support from them or the Ayn Rand Institute would be helpful regardless of the finer points of objectivism. There is nothing muddled about their views of less gov't intrusion into the lives of individuals.