Has the Ayn Rand Institute changed?

As mentioned in an earlier blog, I was delighted when I found out that Diana Hsieh had recently commented on the article I wrote for SOLO back in the spring. My writings don't normally get much attention. So any time I see a person with a very large audience commenting on them it is a pleasant surprise. It is especially nice because Diana Hsieh's writings have had some impact on my intellectual development, going all the way back to her undergrad paper on the analytic/synthetic dichotomy.

However, I don't want people to get the wrong idea about my opinion of ARI. Although I now recognize that ARI isn't completely full of malevolent, intolerant, cultish fanatics, that doesn't mean that I think they are totally without fault. On the contrary, I think ARI has greatly contributed to the public's perception of it as an irrational organization by it's own actions.

For example, what originally convinced me not to support the Ayn Rand Institute was Peter Shwartz' essay "On Moral Sanctions". That was 8 years ago, when I was 19 years old. In David Kelly's "A Question of Sanction", he had accused Peter Shwartz of asserting that "libertarians are the moral 'equivalent' of the Soviet regime, and I the equivalent of Armand Hammer. These are wild accusations, preposterous on their face." Sure enough, when reading Peter Shwartz' essay I found the following statement:

"IS LIBERTARIANISM AN EVIL DOCTRINE? Yes, if evil is the irrational and the destructive. Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called 'liberty.' It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why 'liberty' is desirable and what 'liberty' means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his 'liberty'—and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition. Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain 'wings' of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of 'liberty' can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical. And since reality is the fundamental 'restraint' upon men's actions, it is nihilism—the desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism. If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, widespread death would be the consequence."

Now, having known many Libertarians and participated in countless discussions over how to philosophically justify the existence of natural rights, I knew that the idea that they "belligerantly reject" the need for a philosophical defense of liberty was patently false. I also knew, due to witnessing countless denials by various Libertarian spokespeople, that they were certainly not advocates of "nihilism". As such, It wasn't difficult to determine that Shwartz' statements were unfair charachterizations of the Libertarian Party. As Kelly said, they lacked a "sense of proportion".

Now, lest any ARI supporter go ballistic on account of me criticizing Shwartz' essay, let me also say that many TOC supporters are guilty of behaving in exactly the same way when they start talking about ARI. This tendency to engage in crazed denunciations whenever someone disagrees with one's conclusions is shared by both sides.

However, This is one of the main reasons I had such a poor view of the Ayn Rand Institute. It was not only because I had heard bad things about them, but because I had read their own essays and seen for myself what kind of people they were.

Luckily, I was able to see another side of ARI that I had not seen before. Yaron Brook did not accuse Libertarians of being "nihilists" or belligerently rejecting the need for philosophy. Instead, he merely stated that it was a "big tent" organization and so could never achieve the kind of things that ARI could do in the long run. There is a big difference between those two types of statements. Brook's statement is a reasonable criticism which even an Objectivist supporter of the LP would agree to, while Shwartz's statement is a crazed denunciation that has no effect except to make the reader feel as if he can't trust the person who's written the essay. When I read Peikoff's "Fact and Value", in which he said that he agreed completely with Shwartz' view, I could only conclude that the kind of "moral judgement" he was defending was exactly the kind I saw in Shwartz' writing. As such, I couldn't see how the ARI point of view could be justified.

Yaron Brook, on the other hand, never exhibited the kind of charachteristics I saw in Peter Shwartz' writing. Even when I asked him a deliberately inflammatory question he was completely polite to me. In fact, everything he said throughout the lecture was very reasonable. Although I didn't agree with all of it, there was never a time that he said something that was just completely and utterly off the wall.

Nevertheless, to those who say that ARI has not changed: I must admit, I am not totally convinced myself. It may be that this is just a passing phase that ARI is going through. At some point in the future we may see yet another schism, followed by frenzied denunciations on all sides, while the public looks on and concludes that there is very little value in a movement that just cannot seem to get it's act together. That danger will always be there as long as the Objectivist movement consists only of "think tanks" who's leaders are unelected. The answer lies in creating something totally new: An organization that truly represents the broad base of the Objectivist movement, rather than just a small group of academics. But alas, that is not going to happen anytime soon. And so, until then, ARI will have to do.

--------------------Tom Blackstone

ARI, AWA, Diana Hsieh, and other topics.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005 ARI, AWA, Diana Hsieh, and other topics.

Well, I just spent an hour writing a blog and then accidently closed out my browser. There is no way I'm going to rewrite it all. Instead, here's the short version:

 

My paternal grandmother died two weeks ago. Luckily, I wasn't that close to her so it didn't devastate me or anything. It sucks for my uncle though, because, you know, it's his Mom.

I got my computer from my house in Brunswick and have internet access now.

 I saw Yaron Brook's "State of ARI" talk at the Westin in Buckhead. I also listened online to another of his lectures "Neo-conservatives Vs. America", in which he criticises the philosophy behind the war in Iraq. (You can listen to it by registering for free at ARI's website). I was very impressed. As a result, I joined the Ayn Rand Institute.

      I used to be a very harsh critic of ARI. But after seeing a lecture by Dr. Brook earlier in the year, I wrote this article recanting my position. To my delight, the article has been linked to and commented on at Diana Hsieh's website. (You can find the comments here under "Noodle Food", with the title, "Tall Tales"). I will write more on the issues raised in the article very soon.

     I also spent all day last saturday at Anime Weekend Atlanta (AWA). I watched a series called "Midori no Hibi", about a girl who has a crush on a guy and magically turns into his right hand. (!) I also saw the movie "Appleseed", about a futuristic city where humans live alongside cybernetic "bioroids" who's emotions are dulled. The city's government involved a complicated system of checks and balances designed to prevent humans from waging war against each other or against bioroids while at the same time keeping them from becoming second class citizens.

I also saw a concert by Yoko Ishida, a singer who performs many Anime theme songs. I'd say that concert was the high point of the day.

 At night, I tried to stay late enough to watch Katsuhiro Otomo's new movie, "Steamboy", but it was delayed due to the fact that they had to play Final Fantasy XII an extra time because of so much demand. As a result, I didn't get to see it as I was just too exhausted and wanted to go home.

In short, I have been doing very well lately. It is too bad I couldn't save that earlier blog. So this will have to do.

Kennesaw State and other news.
Monday, July 18, 2005

Kennesaw State and other news.
Current mood: happy


Today has been a very good day for the simple fact that I found out I have been accepted to Kennesaw State University. Now I will finally be in a four-year college that I can finish my degree in. Not to mention, I'm expecting there to be alot better teachers there and a much more serious atmosphere. I will finally be able to take 3000 and 4000 level Philosophy and History classes, instead of these introductory classes I've been taking. This is great news.

It looks like I'm going to be moving back to the Atlanta area within a few weeks. It's going to be pretty stressful, because I'm barely going to have the money to make it into an apartment. But I know that as soon as my student loan money comes in,. I will be doing very well. I'm also going to finally be able to see my friends in Georgia Objectivists again. Going without seeing them this past summer has made it seem like an eternity.

In other news, I have finally gotten a new computer. No more spyware hijacking my computer and spamming me with 1000+ popups while simultaneously freezing my computer. My old computer was 6 years old anyway. It needed to be put out of its misery.

Biased professors.
Saturday, May 07, 2005

Biased professors.
Current mood: amused


I finally got my logic paper back yesterday. It is interesting what this welfare-statist professor wrote as comments on it.

First of all, he underlined the sentence "Depending on how good their investment decisions are and how well the economy performs, there is a whole range of possible outcomes they could be faced with. It's possible that they could make less money from private accounts than they could from the current system." Beside that he wrote, "see end". Second, he underlined the phrase "they are trying to increase the freedom of citizens to make decisions about their own retirement, instead of forcing them into a system where they have no control." and wrote beside it "see end". Third, he underlined the sentence "As long as the citizen has the power over his own money, he has nothing to fear" and put a GIGANTIC exclamation point beside that sentence. (look back at the previous blog if you don't remember the context of that sentence) Apparently my professor is SHOCKED that anyone would think that a citizen is better off by being able to make his own decisions. Finally, at the bottom of the page he put the following:

"This is well written, but a bit short. You might have further discussed the social philosophies behind the two main options. Conservatives think that the current system violates the principle that people should take care of themselves. Liberals are more inclined to think that we should take care of each other. Another point: with the private accounts, what would happen if alot of people invest poorly? As a result there could be a significant portion of the population that is poor (even homeless) and old. Would we need to set up a new (expensive) social program to take care of them?"

He gave me 90 points out of 100, then took 10 points off for it being a day late. I made a B. Had he given me 100 and then taken the 10 points off, I still would have made an A. But I suppose I should've gotten the damn thing in on time.

In any event, this has certainly taught me a lesson about being an individualist in a collectivist dominated university system. Next time, maybe I should write in favor of a military draft, on the grounds that young people should be taught the value of "civic duty". I'll bet I'd make 100 no matter how sloppy my arguments were.

My logic paper.
(Originally posted on MySpace: April, 28, 2005) I know, this is a lousy essay. The assignment didn't allow me to do much. But here it is anyway:

The Debate Over Social Security Reform


In 1995, amidst all the talk of government reform, privatization, and “spending cuts”, that were touted on the news every day, there was one program that no one dared to talk about reforming: social security. No matter how radical their plans for reforming medicare, AFDC, or any other government program, politicians would also be careful to say very clearly “We won’t touch social security”. Many journalists commented that social security was the “third rail” of American politics, a program that everyone on both sides of the aisle wanted to conserve in its present form without hesitation.

It is amazing how much things can change in a decade. With president Bush safely secure in his second term, he is now determined to make social security reform one of his top priorities. To that end, he has recently finished a speaking tour in which he has trekked across the country, trying to convince Americans of the value of enacting personal accounts in the social security system. As a result, politicians and the media are now discussing social security reform on a regular basis, something that was unthinkable ten years ago.

But should such a reform be made? Or are things better off just the way they are now?

In this essay, I will discuss arguments made by both proponents and opponents of personal accounts. In the end, I will discuss why proponents of the idea have better views on the issue.

The case for personal accounts.

The reasons why some policy experts favor reform is easy enough to state: If nothing is done to change the current situation, in 2018 the social security trust fund will begin to run a deficit. (Sahadi, CNN/Money) This means that the system’s current treasury bonds will have to be cashed in, thus creating a new cost to the federal government. Unfortunately though, the government doesn’t have any extra money to spare, as it is already in debt several trillion dollars and cannot find enough money to fund even it’s current expenditures. (MSNBC.com) As such, something must be done to come up with the extra money to deal with the problem. Either taxes must be increased or benefits must be cut in order to make up the shortfall.

But proponents of private accounts point out another problem with the system. This is not the first time the social security system has been in trouble. In fact, the system has had periodic crises throughout its history. The last time it was in danger of becoming insolvent was in 1983. Back then, Congress’ solution was to raise the retirement age and increase the payroll tax. (Sahadi, CNN/Money) As such, social security began to cost more and give less benefits to americans than it ever had before. A similar fix this time would only put off the problem for a few more decades, at which time congress would be faced with it once again. At the same time, they argue that if americans had been free to invest their money in stocks and bonds, instead of having to pay social security taxes, they could have gotten a much better return on their investment. As such, they believe it is the “pay as you go” principle of the system that is the real problem. Instead of current taxes going to pay for current retirees, they argue that ideally a citizen’s social security taxes should go into a private account owned by him that will gain interest and provide for his retirement. Of course, recognizing that doing so would result in there being no money to pay for current retirees’ benefits, they argue instead for a compromise in which a small part of the tax money would go to a private account and the rest would go to pay for current benefits. In exchange for the private accounts, workers would give up much of their future government provided social security benefits. As such, the government would greatly reduce its future liabilities while giving workers a greater retirement income. (Tanner, Cato Institute)

The case against private accounts.

Although many policy experts think private accounts are a great idea, others are dead set against it. There are two arguments they make against the idea: First, private accounts will not fix the immediate problem. Taxes will still have to be raised or benefits will have to be cut for current retirees. In addition, private accounts actually make the current situation worse, since every dollar that is diverted into private accounts is one dollar less that can be used to fix the current problem. As such, additional funding must be secured to pay for the loss generated by the private accounts themselves. Most likely, this funding will be secured through government borrowing, which just begs the question as to how that money is going to be paid back. Second, no one knows exactly how much money workers will make from private accounts. Depending on how good their investment decisions are and how well the economy performs, there is a whole range of possible outcomes they could be faced with. It’s even possible that they could make less money from private accounts than they could from the current system. As such, some experts are completely opposed to private accounts. (Anrig, Jr., Wasow, Social Security Network)

Why proponents have the right idea.

Despite the arguments against reform, I think proponents of private accounts have the right idea. They are concerned, not with short term fixes, but are instead trying to develop a long range plan to fix the social security system once and for all. In addition, they are trying to increase the freedom of citizens to make decisions about their own retirement, instead of forcing them into a system where they have no control.

Although private accounts will have to be financed through government borrowing, it will result in lower government spending in the long run due to lower government provided benefits. As such, it is still the most responsible decision to be made.

In addition, the argument that people may make less money with private accounts isn’t very convincing. Under the current situation, social security benefits will have to be cut in order to keep the system solvent. Most likely, taxes will be increased as well. In the future, when the next crises arrives, taxes will go up and benefits will go down once again. As such, it is a no-win situation as long as we don’t create private accounts. Besides, even if there was a chance that one could make less money with private accounts, one could mitigate that risk by being a conservative investor. As long as the citizen has the power over his own money, he has nothing to fear.

In conclusion, I think we should deal with the problem permanently and in a way that increases the freedom of americans. Private accounts are the best decision to make..

Works cited.

1. Jean Sahadi. "Social Security Reform: A Guide."CNN/Money. 8 Jan. 2005. 17 Aug. 2005

2. "U.S. Budget Deficit Expands to $412.5 Billion" MSNBC.com. 14 Oct. 2004. 17 Aug. 2005

3. Michael Tanner. "The 6.2 olution: A Plan for Reforming Social Security." The Cato Institute Project on Social Security Choice. 17 Feb. 2004. 17 Aug. 2005

4. Greg Anrig, Jr., Bernard Wasow. "12 Reasons Why Privatising Social Security is a Bad Idea." The Social Security Network. 14 Dec. 2004. 17 Aug. 2005

My article published on solohq.com.
Thursday, March 31, 2005

My article published on solohq.com
Current mood: accomplished

I turned one of my blog entries into an article and it was published on the Objectivist website, solohq.com. Here is the url:

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Blackstone/ARIs_Yaron_Brook_at_GA_Tech_-_An_Incredibly_Surprising_Lecture.shtml

At the time of this writing, the article has generated over 70 comments.

More on altruism, benevolence, and the virtue of integrity.
Friday, March 18, 2005

More on altruism, benevolence, and the Virtue of Integrity.

In my previous blog, I described an argument I was having with my roomate, Rick, over the concept of altruism and it's connection to the Iraq war. here is his response:

"Tom,"

"I basically agree with everything now that I know the definition of
altruism you are using."

"The dictionary says it's
'unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others'"

"So by the dictionary definition, altruistic people are not selfish (not
even petty selfish). Also notice that the dictionary doesn't say
anything about sacrifice. It just says unselfish. So I was going by the
dictionary definition - and I know that the dictionary isn't the source
of all wisdom, so it's perfectly ok for you to have another definition.
Your definition would be more like 'fake self-sacrificing regard for
welfare of others' which is a common disease."

"I was confused by this terminology and some other people you talk to may
be too - sometimes when you say you're opposed to altruism it sounds
like you are opposed to 'unselfishness' and opposed 'regard for others'
(going by dictionary). But I see that you are actually opposed to
(petty) selfishness and you probably care about others. Rand's good guys
clearly express that they hate to see society suffering from corruption
and loosing out on the benefits of free trade - so they do care about
society - and I'm sure Rand did care about society."

"When I think of somebody truly altruistic (by the dictionary
definition), it's someone like a scientist that went ahead and told the
truth even if it meant his own demise. And I respect those people
greatly."

"-rick"

Here is the response that I sent him:

Rick, thanks for responding. :) My definition is roughly based on the works of Auguste Comte, the guy who coined the term "altruism". He said that what he meant by "altruism" was the idea that you cannot take your own interests into account at all when making decisions, i.e. that you must be totally selfless. I recognize that even this definition is self-contradictory, which is the point I was making in the previous essay.

You say that "Rand's good guys clearly express that they hate to see society suffering from corruption and loosing out on the benefits of free trade - so they do care about society - and I'm sure Rand did care about society." The proper term for what you are describing is "benevolence", which indicates a feeling of good will towards others. Benevolence is a good trait to have. I certainly wouldn't want to have a friend who wasn't benevolent. But unlike "altruism", the concept of "benevolence" doesn't include the idea of giving up one's own happiness. In fact, benevolence is a consequence of not giving up one's happiness. Typically, a happy person doesn't like to see other people doing badly as it tends to "bring him down". Unfortunately though, philosophers and politicians have worked hard to replace the term "benevolence" in popular usage with "altruism" in order to obscure the distinction between the two. As you pointed out, they have largely succeded. The dictionaries now simply define "altruism" as benevolence. But politicians still use the word in it's original meaning (when they're not replacing it with new code words like "civic duty" or "humanitarian"). Thus they are able to appeal to the citizen's innate feeling of benevolence and at the same time covertly slip in the idea that human beings should serve the state. It's sneaky as hell, but that's really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how these people manipulate language.

You also say, "When I think of somebody truly altruistic (by the dictionary definition), it's someone like a scientist that went ahead and told the truth even if it meant his own demise. And I respect those people greatly." You bring up a complicated issue. We have to adopt certain principles in order to survive and flourish in the world: Principles like "always tell the truth", "don't initiate force against others", "always be rational", etc. Yet following those principles won't always be in our own interests. Sometimes it may actually hurt us to do so. All we can say is that it will work out more times than not if we follow them. On the other hand, the reason we adopted the principles in the first place was in order to make our lives better. So what do we do if following our principles will cause us harm? Clearly we cannot evaluate each and every case to see whether we should follow the principle or not. If we did, that would defeat the whole purpose of having the principle in the first place. The whole idea behind principles is to free up our mind from having to make elaborate pragmatic calculations, so that we can go on with our life. And yet, there are a few extreme cases one can get into in which it is manifestly not in one's interest to follow one's principles. For example, the case of the scientist you speak of. I don't know what to do in those cases, because you're basically screwed no matter which way you look at it. There is no way to stay psychologically healthy in an environment where acts of integrity are punished. If somebody wants to speak the truth and die in such a situation, I don't blame him. On the other hand, I don't blame him if he lies in order to save his skin either. The reason you applaud the scientist who speaks the truth anyway though is because his action is a manifestation of the Virtue of Integrity (which happens to be one of the seven central virtues of the Objectivist ethics) which is normally a life-enhancing principle. That is a difficult moral issue that I would dread having to deal with, and that I hope I never have to.



--------------------------------Tom

(originally posted on MySpace: Friday, March 18, 2005)

Iraq, altruism, and the "it's just about oil" argument


In the past two years, I've been arguing relentlessly that the war in Iraq is an altruistic "welfare program" by which American citizens are taxed in order to support the liberation of foreigners, and that "fiscal conservatives" and "economic libertarians" should oppose it on those grounds.

My roomate, Rick, is also opposed to the war in Iraq. However, he has sometimes disagreed with my view that the cause of the war is primarily philosophical. Instead he states an argument I have often heard and that I do not support: Namely, that the Iraq war is "just about oil". Yesterday, after I had come home from a lecture dealing with just this issue (see my previous blog entry), Rick made this argument once again. This time, he said the war is "selfish" and once again that we are "just doing it for oil". In the morning, he gave me several papers he had printed out off the internet claiming that the U.S. government had supported several non-democratic governments in the past and that therefore they really didn't care about "spreading democracy". Thus, according to him, the war in Iraq is actually not intended to help Iraqis and is merely a "selfish" ruse to get oil. The following was my response:

Ok Rick, here’s the things I agree with you and disagree with you on.

First of all, I would not be surprised if the CIA helped Saddam Hussein come to power back in the 1960’s, nor would I be surprised if the U.S. supported a bloody dictatorship in Iran or a ruthless puppet regime in South Vietnam. Most of all, I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that foreign intervention involves long-term dangers and today’s world needs to learn that lesson. I am completely against "foreign intervention" if by that we mean an attempt to impose some type of "pro American" government on people without their consent. The only time it would be proper to engage in "regime change" would be when America is attacked, and the only concern we should have then is to install a government that won’t attack us again.

Having said that, I think you misunderstand the concept of altruism. Your argument that the U.S. acted out of self-interest misses the entire point. Of course, it is true that altruists always want things for themselves in a kind of petty way. They want to live in big mansions and have monuments to themselves erected all over the place. They want to round people up and torture them for fun, or kidnap women and rape them. They want to exert absolute power over everyone around them and make everyone worship and/or fear them. You can call that "selfishness" I suppose. But there are fundamental differences between it and the "Rational Selfishness" that Ayn Rand advocated. In fact, that kind of behavior actually represents the concept of "altruism" (by Augusta Comte’s definition) in many fundamental respects. The only difference is that they want you to be altruistic while they remain "selfish".

Nevertheless, the fundamental distinguishing characteristic of altruism is the concept of "sacrifice". An altruist always believes that someone must be sacrificed to someone else. It could be that he thinks he should sacrifice himself for others or it could be that he thinks you should sacrifice yourself to him. Either way, it’s still altruism. You’re either advocating altruism for yourself or altruism for others. But altruism is still altruism.

There is an element of hypocrisy in the very concept of altruism that is inescapable. If "selfishness" is evil and self-sacrifice the good, then that means it is good for me to sacrifice myself but bad for others to accept my sacrifices. Thus, there is no way to practice altruism consistently. That is why you will always see hypocrisy in every person who advocates altruism, and that is why it so devastating to a person’s integrity. It is literally a moral code that is impossible to practice.

As such, when you point out that the U.S. supported a puppet regime in South Vietnam that the people didn’t support, or that they helped Saddam Hussein get into power, or that they supported a brutal dictatorship in Iran, that only confirms the fact that altruism by it’s very nature is hypocritical. As Ayn Rand once said "Whenever a man speaks of ‘sacrifice’, you can bet there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Whenever a man speaks of ‘service’, you can bet there’s someone being served. The man who speaks of ‘sacrifice’ speaks of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master."

There is another sense in which these people are even more fundamentally altruistic though. Despite the failures of the interventions, the truth is that these people really do have a grand vision for creating a "New World Order" dedicated to "Democracy". Even those things that you’ve talked about, creating bloody dictatorships, etc., were all things done for the greater goal of creating this world. It was to "stop the spread of Communism" that we entered Korea and Vietnam, and setting up puppet regimes was considered o.k.. in the short term in order to accomplish that goal. The same goal was used to justify bringing the Shah to power in Iran and bringing the Taliban to power in Afghanistan. In addition, in America they are willing to run up huge deficits, increase taxes, pass laws like the Patriot Act that take away our civil liberties, and massively increase government control over our lives in order to accomplish these things. And yet, these are American citizens. They will not be in office forever. Eventually, they will have to go back and live in the private sector like everyone else. They will have to live under tyranny and oppression. And yet, they don’t care. That is just a sacrifice they will have to make for the good of the world.

I have spoken to many neocons and seen this phenomena over and over again. Many times I will ask them, "Do you want your taxes to go up to pay for all these wars?" and they say "I don’t mind if my taxes go up". Keep in mind that these are conservatives who are usually virulently opposed to tax increases.

Why do you think that is? Why do you think there are so many people who are willing to give up their own freedom in order to support this "New World Order"? Do you think people who had grown up in an Objectivist society that teaches that self-sacrifice is wrong would hold these views? Do you think the fact that Christianity has dominated the field of ethics for the past 2000 years has nothing to do with what’s going on in the world right now? I personally find that hard to believe.

Just yesterday, I was in a Literature class in which my professor was arguing that we have a "civic duty" to help our fellow men and that a military draft should be enacted to teach young people that moral principle. He also advocated that smoking be outlawed.

When several students told him that smokers are responsible for their own actions, he replied that it was "selfish and immoral" to hold that view. And yet, this is not a "conservative" making this argument, but a "liberal" who believes in "internationalism".

I agree with you that interventionism is wrong, and that altruists are hypocritical. I even agree with you that oil was a factor in sending us into war. But if you think the only thing that is going on is that we are protecting oil interests and do not look at the underlying philosophical problems then I have to say you’re seriously misunderstanding the situation. What is happening in Iraq today is only the latest incident in a series of events that began with the United States invasion of Germany in World War I. It was there that Woodrow Wilson enunciated the policy of "making the world safe for democracy", and we have been living –AND DYING-- by that policy ever since. But that policy itself is simply an application of Christian morality. Without attacking the moral principles behind the war in Iraq, but simply making it seem like it’s just a transient issue over oil, you trivialize the very real problem that we are facing. Eventually, there will be alternative sources of fuel and we will no longer rely on oil. But when that day comes, the neocons will still be around, oil or no oil. You can’t fight them by ignoring who they are or what they are trying to accomplish.


-------------------------------Tom

ARI's Yaron Brooke at GA Tech. An incredibly surprising lecture.
ARI's Yaron Brooke at GA Tech. An incredibly surprising lecture.
Current mood: jubilant


When you are a person like me, who studies intellectual subjects constantly and has formed his views after deep thought over many years, you get used to your view of the world being confirmed time and time again. The views that other people express are always ones you have heard before. The arguments they make you have already considered and either agree with beforehand or have already found them lacking. You get used to the idea that you are much more enlightened than everyone else and that you cannot expect them to teach you anything new. Even worse, when you try to teach THEM something new, they will usually be completely ungrateful and will even accuse you of trying to "push your philosophy" on them. Never in the world would you expect someone to prove you wrong or to cause you to think about things in a new way.

And yet, that is what happened to me last night when I went to see Yaron Brooke, the Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute at Georgia Tech, give a lecture last night on "Why We Are Losing The War".

I have always been an outspoken critic of the Ayn Rand Institute, believing that their views were a distortion of Objectivism. To me, they had always seemed like a bastion of everything that Ayn Rand had railed against: conformity, dogmatism, adherence to authority, collectivism. In particular, I had been appalled at some of the essays I had seen coming out of ARI advocating the war in Iraq. I couldn't imagine how someone calling themselves "The Ayn Rand Institute" could advocate what is essentially a neoconservative view of foreign policy. After all, Ayn Rand was a self-proclaimed "isolationist".

To my dismay, I noticed that alot of people who value many of the principles that Objectivsm advocates: rationality, independence, freedom, thinking for yourself, questioning authority, were nevertheless steering away from Objectivism because they believed it was some kind of crazy cult that advocates going to war with everyone in the world.

I had resolved to fight ARI at every oppurtunity. I had told people that ARI was doing more damage to the Objectivist movement than all of it's enemies combined, and that supporting them was like "shooting yourself in the foot". I had made a determination to explain to people time and time again that ARI does not accurately represent Objectivism.

So when I found that ARI's new Executive Director was giving a speech on foreign policy at GA Tech, I jumped at the oppurtunity to confront him and show him up for the fraud that he was.

As the lecture began, he started talking about 9/11 and the threat of Islamic terrorism. He stated that America is fighting an ideological war against an enemy that is commited to nihilism. He said that they want to crush the American values of reason, science, and human progress. "They hate us because we are a secular nation," he exclaimed.

i thought "yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah, get to the part where you say we have to 'spread democracy' in Iraq." Then the unthinkable happened: he said something like "we really shouldn't have gone into Iraq, because Saddam Hussein didn't support Islamic Fundamentalism. Iran was a much better target."

i stared in disbelief for quite some time, and wondered what the hell I should do now. If he doesn't support the war in Iraq, the wind gets blown out of my entire argument. Nevertheless, he still supported many other interventionist sounding policies, so I wrote down a question to ask him.

It took raising my hand for a long time before he finally got to me, but here is the question that I asked him:

"I agreed with alot of what you said tonight, especially when you talked about the values of rationality and science. But I have some concerns as well. I've been studying Ayn Rand's philosophy for 9 years, and I've read all of her books. What I've found in Rand's writings in foreign policy is that she is usually very skeptical of the neccesity of the United States engaging in war. In fact, in her essay, 'The Roots of War' in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal she condemns every U.S. intervention that was entered into in her lifetime, including U.S. involvement in World Wars I & II, and the wars in Korea and Vietnam. In another essay called 'The Chickens Homecoming' in Return of The Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, she specifically attacks 'interventionism' and defends 'isolationism'. Yet many of the policies you advocate sound very interventionist by her standards. How do you reconcile your views with that of Ayn Rand's?"

At this point, I expected him to accuse me of misrepresenting Rand's philosophy. But instead, he said I was absolutely right, that Ayn Rand was an isolationist, and that he agreed with her. Then he went on to say that America had no business whatsoever trying to "spread democracy"or rid the world of "weapons of mass destruction". He said the Vietnam and Korean wars were wrong. He said that if the South Koreans can't defend themselves now we should "let them rot". Then he said "The only justification for war is when the United States is attacked or there is undeniable proof of an immenent attack.." After that, he explained that Iran's Islamic Fundamentalist government is harboring Al-Queeda cells and is trying to develop nuclear weapons. He said he didn't care if the Islamists took over all of the middle east, "as long as they don't mess with us", but that they had shown that they would not keep to themselves.

As I listened to this guy answer my questions, I was shocked at how completely reasonable he seemed. He contradicted everything I had been led to believe about ARI from reading essays on their website and from seeing him on television. He wasn't some kind of cult fanatic. He was simply a reasonable person with very strong views, just like me.

At one point he talked about how some Objectivists disagree with him about the idea that we shouldn't be trying to "spread democracy". My friend Aaron asked him, "You mean people disagree at ARI? I thought you guys didn't tolerate disagreement." He replied, "No, we disagree about all kinds of things. We just don't disagree about the fundamental principles of Objectivism. You've been misled about ARI from the very beginning." Afterwards he said, "There are some mean people who support ARI, but there are mean people in every movement. Don't judge the whole movement by a few individuals."

After the lecture ended, I went up to Dr. Brooke and thanked him personally for answering my questions. I told him about Georgia Objectivists. He gave me his card and said he'd love for us to host a meeting in which he could come and speak and tell everyone what ARI is all about and what kind of things it does. I told him we would try to set that up.

Afterwards, several members of GO along with members of FOR who had attended the lecture went to dinner at Fellini's Pizza. We were all talking about what an amazing speaker this guy was and how well he had answered people's questions. Several of us wondered aloud how in the world we could have been so wrong about ARI. What we figured out in the discussion is that it seems that Yaron Brooke is a significantly different person from the people you usually hear about, such as Leonard Peikoff and Peter Shwartz. Brooke apparently realized that there were problems in ARI and has been trying to fix them. Now he is Executive Director, and the possibilities are practically limitless.

There are still many things Brooke argued for that I am not sure I support, but that is not really the point. The point is that he is a reasonable person who makes arguments based on Objectivist principles. I now have a very different view of the Ayn Rand Institute, and I don't think that view is going to change anytime soon.

Now I have to deal with the hard part: how to reevaluate my life's work with one less enemy to fight. But that's a "problem" I'll be happy to deal with. :)


----------------------------Tom Blackstone

The Aviator and other news.
(Originally posted on MySpace: Friday, March 4, 2005)

Well, I was supposed to go with Lauryn to see The Aviator today, but she had too much going on and couldn't make it. So instead, I went to see it with my friend Chris. It was a fantastic movie. People have been talking about how it has "Objectivist" themes in it, and I wholeheartedly agree. I'm not a big fan of Ed Hudgins, but his essay exploring the various Objectivist influences in the movie is fantastic. There were so many great scenes in the movie that it's hard to decide which ones to talk about first. Near the beginning of the film, there's a scene where Hughes is directing the movie "Hell's Angels", which was the most expensive movie ever made to that date. He is in the cockpit of a two-seater aircraft yelling frantically, extremely "pumped up" about the scene being produced, and all the sudden an airplane flys by and knocks the camera off of his plane. Hughes doesn't even miss a beat, but immediately pulls out his own personal movie camera and begins shooting the scene himself. The effect of this is to show you just how fanatical this guy is about his work. It is truly the love of his life. There are scenes like that all over the movie, with him shouting orders at employees and them telling him the things he's asking can't be done. His response is always "don't tell me it can't be done. Don't ever tell me things can't be done." Until the movie for Atlas Shrugged comes out, this is probably the next best thing you'll ever see.

In other news, it looks like I am going to be very busy the next week or two. Next saturday is the <A href="http://database.lpgeorgia.com/register.cgi">Libertarian Party of Georgia Convention</A>, which I think is a great oppurtunity to recruit some new people into the Objectivist movement. Me and several other people from GO are going to be there to let people know about our organization and all the things that we're doing.

The thursday after the convention, Yaron Brooke, the Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, is coming to give a speech at Georgia Tech on "Why America is Losing The War". If you think Brooke is going to give the answer that we're losing the war because we shouldn't have been in it in the first place, which would be the answer that Ayn Rand would have given, you are unfortunately mistaken. Suprisingly, the so called "Ayn Rand Institute" actually supports the war in Iraq, despite the fact that it goes against everything that Ayn Rand said about foreign affairs. In fact, not only does Yaron Brooke support the war in Iraq, he thinks we are being overly concerned with minimizing civilian casualties in Iraq. According to him, we shouldn't worry about civilian casualties, but should just kill anyone that even remotely stands in our way. Several members of GO have been complaining about Brooke's distortion of Objectivism for a while, and it looks like we finally have the chance to do something about it now. There will probably be a question and answer period after the speech, and I am going to use it to my advantage to heckle the hell out of that idiot. Doing so will definetly be alot of fun. Stay tuned for results. ;)

I'm headed to The Future tomorrow with James Robinson and Chris, and am going to get really drunk and dance my ass off. See you all later. :P