About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[Deleted by Dean Michael Gores, per author's request]

Post 1

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 9:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The word toleration is used in many different senses. Here are a few:

1. Those with power granting privileges to those whom one tolerates.
2. Those who respect rights and thus have no option but to tolerate others with whom they have disagreements even if that means disassociation.
3. Or, in addition to respecting rights, staying engaged with those whom one disagrees.

The George Washington quote uses the first sense. I understand TOC to advocate toleration in either sense 2 or 3 given what they have generally written in the past. Do you really think TOC advocates the abolition of rights and a begrudging toleration via the granting of privileges to the powerless? If not the whole “history lesson” is irrelevant. It appears that TOC merely invites and stays engaged with those whom it has differences (case 3) while you’d disassociate completely (case 2). Right?


Post 2

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 9:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

Not quite right. There is a difference between dialectical engagement against wrong ideas - which is a positive value, and the reason I associated with TOC in the past - and legitimization of objectively criminal abuse of political power, which is what TOC tries to do by making those two unspeakable congress-reptiles the centerpiece of their "celebration of Ayn Rand's centenary." The first is dialectic, the second is boot-licking. And the second is, to any honorable man, objectively and contextually intolerable.

Post 3

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 3:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Toleration" is a vague term and social ideal which is rarely defined in either conservo-progressive or libertario-Objectivist circles. Thus it practically insures a great deal of pointless and hopeless debate. In general, I think all "physical social" behavior should be tolerated short of criminality. So should all general social behavior short of indifference, disloyalty, and treason to one's friends/allies and to the good/innocent. So should all mental, intellectual, and verbal behavior short of intellectual dishonesty/cowardice, lies/fraud, and deliberate ignorance/stupidity. Justice and morality demand that people are "innocent until proven guilty" on all counts.

Obviously the waters of this "toleration" debate have been muddied and poisoned by those miserable religious pseudo-Objectivists over at ARI. Against all of human philosophical and political history, they dare to be proudly and defiantly "intolerant." Or...at least they do when talking with and back-stabbing their friends and allies. When dealing with the indifferent and ignorant, these slimey mendacious poltroons keep their evil sneaky mouths shut about their ridiculous depraved ideal of "intolerance."

The great claim by the hateful deviant cultists at ARI is that practically anyone who disagrees with them or dislikes them is evil. What gall and hubris! They pathetically pretend that anyone who honestly doubts or openly questions them is necessarily an intellectually dishonest and cowardly "evader," who is also low in character and corrupt in spirit. Now this is hilarious! More times than not, this describes them to a "T."

In trying to determine which non-Objectivist VIPs are mostly honestly mistaken and who are mostly personally debauched -- and thus who probably belongs at any Ayn Rand celebration and who doesn't -- it's important to bear in mind just who (or what ;-)) has made this discussion so difficult and nasty. Those loathsome disgusting ARI cult-things -- who dare not show their ugly obscene faces on this forum -- make this whole discussion much harder than it should be. Those evil clowns are militantly opposed to open honest discussion and reasonable debate in principle and that's the main problem here.     

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 1/10, 4:38pm)


Post 4

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andre Zantonavitch wrote:
"Toleration" is a vague term and social ideal which is rarely defined in either conservo-progressive[I don't know what this is?] or libertario-Objectivist circles[?]. Thus it practically insures a great deal of pointless and hopeless debate."

I for one, am glad Andre defined "Toleration."

"those miserable religious pseudo-Objectivists"
"back-stabbing"
"these slimey mendacious poltroons"
"their evil sneaky mouths"
"their ridiculous depraved ideal"
"hateful deviant cultists"
"They pathetically pretend"
"who (or what;-))"
"Those loathsome"
"cult-things"
"show their ugly obscene faces"
"Those evil clowns"


But what does this have to do with Adam's Article?




Post 5

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, I'm finding this a very difficult issue. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the two men you so despise, and I need to know more than that they voted against" joint-custody adoption of children by Gay and Lesbian couples living in the Federal District." It can, in some circumstances, be a mistake to pass judgment on someone because of his policy on a single issue -- it can be important to know the reasons for that policy, as well as his convictions on other important issues.

Let me say at once that I disapprove of the vote in question. But I'm going to have to do some research on Ed Royce and Paul Ryan before coming to a conclusion about them.

Barbara


Post 6

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Andre, I don't like the Ayn Rand Institute, and often have criticized it severely. But your diatribe is ridiculous. What adjectives have you left for bin Laden?

Barbara

Post 7

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

For research, the links in my article should get you started (both names, where first mentioned, are active hyperlinks.)

Post 8

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks, Adam. I'll start with the links you suggest.

Barbara

Post 9

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I hope you're not getting deflected from a certain other project, Majesty!!

Linz

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 10:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I might add that like Barbara, I'm torn on this matter. Adam is clearly unimpressed that I added Hudgins' earlier post as a PS to his article - yet that was not intended to denote support for Hudgins on my part, just to draw attention to what he'd said on another thread on this matter (articles are always more noticeable than thread-posts).

I empathise with Adam's frustration, particularly given the personal circumstance that reinforces it. And none knows better than I, or has remonstrated with them more loudly about it, TOC's penchant for weasel-words & appeasement (the Hudgins piece about Xmas that someone provided a link to was excruciating). But I believe we should engage the non-Objectivist world, which is far & away the larger part of the world. I personally go speak to events sponsored by mainstream political parties when I'm invited, & am open to inviting *their* MPs to speak at SOLO events - National leader Don Brash (who will be Prime Minister if there's a change of government) was a speaker at SOLOC 2. I think frank, uninhibited dialogue is more productive than angry isolationism, as long as there are no false pretences. Adam says these two individuals are *so* beyond the pale that their being speakers at a TOC event warrants his total withdrawal of support for TOC. Perhaps. TOC's failure thus far to respond to him makes me more inclined to agree with him. Yet, if Hudgins could demonstrate that he can turn TOC into a mover & shaker without New-Aging the message beyond recognition, I would agree with *him*.

Come on, TOC - speak up!!!

Post 11

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 11:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Coming from the people that would like to spread Objectivism through the likes of Bob Barr, I'm not too surprised. Plus, this is not the first time Ed Royce has been invited to ToC events: he attended the opening as well. The biggest problem I have with TOC's 'toleration' of these people, for the purposes of publicity, is the association of these peoples' names and actions with Objectivism. Inviting Ed Royce to participate in TOC's, Ayn Rand's Centenary event might generate publicity or increase attendance, but why would one want to publicise Ed Royce's involvement with Objectivism? I don't care what Ed Royce has done involving promoting the free-market, he shouldn't be speaking at the event, and any publicity gained from him speaking is -not- good publicity for spreading Objectivism.

Post 12

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 12:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lindsey,

Don Brash and other New Zealand MPs are foreigners, so I too would be inclined to go easy on them. But Ed Royce and Paul Ryan - and Ed Hudgins too - are Americans, if only by accident of birth. I judge them in context. They learned about George Washington in grade school, and really ought to know better.

Post 13

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 1:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, Adam, they're not foreigners to me. In the context of NZ they may well be the equivalent of the two "congress-reptiles" you cite.

I note that TOC still hasn't responded. Except to me privately - there was a message from one staffer awaiting me this morning. I'm blessed if I know why he couldn't have said what he said to me on the board here, publicly. Another example of what I've referred to before. Individually, fine people; collectively, timorous & ... well, I daren't use the "c" word for fear of setting Mr. Bidinotto off again. How does that work, I wonder?

Bidinotto said we should hold our tongues while TOC undergoes "seismic changes." (We've been hearing something like that since the late nineties.) You'd think that an organisation set up to eschew the practices of the ARI would lend an ear to the frustrations of its grass-roots supporters, acknowledge & address them. But nope. It's the same old let's-pretend-they-don't-exist mentality of the ARI. Skulking & cowering. I say again: come on, TOC - speak up!!

Linz

Post 14

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 3:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Two junior congressmen get 30 minutes out of three hours and that's bootlicking? We don't even know what they're going to say. What about the other content of the program?And how does this compare to ARI kicking out the Reismans with no attempt at justification whatsoever. We can all throw a tantrum because we didn't get our way, that's easy or we can try to do something constructive, that's hard.

Jim


Post 15

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

TOC's exercise has no purpose other than boot-licking (and that's a euphemism) the troglodytes who run Bush's Washington. Most intelligent people are overwhelmed with information, and set up automatic mental filters that work largely by association. The perceived association of Objectivism with those two congress-reptiles- and with their pre-enlightenment worldview - is exactly, and strongly, counterproductive to TOC's stated purpose. But to understand that, one first needs to understand, with Ayn Rand, that the moral IS the practical. If only Hudgins' TOC understood the point of Objectivism...
(Edited by Adam Reed on 1/11, 5:41pm)


Post 16

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 7:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I oppose a ban on lesbian adoption, I was willing to give TOC the benefit of the doubt in the event that perhaps these guys were good on nearly every other issue.  I went to Royce's website, though, and saw that he touts the passage of Medicare prescription drug expansion as one of his accomplishments...not sure if this is a guy who thinks too much of Ayn Rand's ideas...  

As for Ryan, he has a page on his website entitled "Philosophy," which outlines his ideological framework.  Although there are some vague appeals to "God" in there, the theme of economic individualism is prominent.  In the context of a Congress with so many who operate from an overtly collectivist premise, I must admit I found this rather refreshing.  For the time being, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I too have concerns about Objectivism being linked with conservatism as a result of booking either of these gentlemen.

Anyhow, here is Paul Ryan's 'philosophy':

I would like to share with you some background about who I am and what I believe in. To me, a person's principles and beliefs are absolutely the most critical aspect of their character. This is especially true for those who seek to represent others in public office.

I believe that during much of this past century, our federal government, and the political philosophy which guided it, deviated greatly from the timeless principles that built this country and have sustained it throughout its existence. After winning two World Wars and a Cold War, surviving the Great Depression, building an interstate highway system, subsidizing the education of millions of Americans, and launching campaigns against hunger and homelessness, the national philosophy about the proper role of our federal government has changed. What was once a system of limited government has insidiously evolved into one with virtually no limits at all. From the New Deal through the Great Society and beyond, wherever a "national priority" arose; such as housing, education, or energy, we addressed the problem by centralizing solutions into new federal bureaucracies which are designed steer and micro manage these priorities in our society.

Well, after spending trillions of dollars on these centralized solutions, we have found that many of the problems we sought to solve with Washington money and Washington policy have actually worsened. Educational scores have declined. Violent crime has risen over time. Out-of-wedlock births and the social pathologies that accompany them have become commonplace. Class envy economics have placed the American dream out of reach for millions of lower income families. Cold social programs from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services have displaced civility and charity. In short, in this effort to build a great society -- we built a government that took away much of our greatness -- a greatness that was achieved through individual endeavor.

And now we are faced with a $7 trillion federal debt, a crushing tax burden, a regulatory leviathan, and a command and control education regime that stifles local innovation. In short, I believe these results are the product of a 20th century paradigm shift in which the government intrusion replaced the individual action as the basis of our governing philosophy.

I believe that the genius of America lies within each of us and our families, our neighborhoods, and our faith; not the central planners and social in Washington.

I am, however, optimistic about our future. I believe the American people are realizing that the welfare state has failed. Now, our challenge is to replace it with a government rooted in the principles that founded this great nation. By recognizing the fact that a government closest to the people governs best and that the nucleus of our economy and our society is the individual -- not the government -- we will be able to reach our true potential.

Freedom


Specifically, I believe we must pursue three very important goals. The first is Freedom. I believe we must restore the concept of freedom by re-limiting the federal government's reach in our society. I want the federal government to do less with less, and I want to see our families do more with more. We must take power and money from Washington and return it back to the states, local governments, and, above all, the people. Wisconsin is proof of the viability of this idea. Our state welfare reforms, which provide the means for individuals to pull themselves from the cycle of poverty on their own initiative, rank amongst the most successful in the nation.

Growth


The second is Growth. I believe we must pursue a bold agenda of growth by casting aside the shackles of class envy and promoting economic growth and opportunity through lower taxes and by ultimately replacing the tax code. Globally, we must stay ahead of the competition -- and that means an end to punishing risk takers and entrepreneurs. Morally, we must help our families get the financial freedom to work more for themselves and less for their government.

Renewal


The third principle which I will pursue is Renewal. Many believe the social fabric of this nation is tattered beyond recognition. Parents feel as though they must fight the prevailing images and values of American popular culture to raise their children as upright and responsible citizens. In many aspects of our society, morality has become relative, ethical behavior is now a mere technicality, and God has been pushed from the public realm with a fervor previously inconceivable. We live in a nation in which it is permissible to burn the flag on public ground, but our courts of law have ruled it impermissible to pledge allegiance to that same flag in a public school. In short, we must replace moral squalor with both public decency and private civility. I believe we can begin this process of renewal by relieving the tax burden on our families and by supporting, through subsidy and deregulation, our wealth of faith based charities. We can help restore good citizenship be freeing up individuals to become good citizens.

I believe these goals are rooted in the founding principles of American society that go hand in hand. Guided by such principles, we can unite around a common cause to replace the welfare state with an opportunity society that allows all Americans the chance to reach their God given potential.



(Edited by Pete on 1/11, 7:28pm)


Post 17

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 11:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

When an American politician promises to legislate "public decency", he is promising censorship of everything that offends the theocratic bible-thumpers. When he promises to legislate "civility", he is promising to censor whatever offends the multiculuralist left. And when he promises to legislate both "decency" and "civility", then you are reading a euphemized translation of "censorship good, freedom of speech bad."

Here is an easier way to find out what they actually voted for: follow the hyperlinks on their names in my article. Clicking on those takes you to the voting record. The incidence of agreement with Ayn Rand in their voting records is below chance.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 1/12, 1:02am)


Post 18

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 5:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob asks:
 
But what does this have to do with Adam's Article?
Because despite it all, "toleration" really is an important issue here and elsewhere, and one that needs proper debate. Objectivism, in my view, differs from all other competitors such as "Nicomacheanism," Stoicism, Buddhism, Confuscianism, etc. in that it's both highly technical/idiosyncratic as well as difficult and demanding. More than any other philosophy, people really do reject Objectivism because it calls for them to be too heroic. Thus calling someone who is opposed to Objectivism "intellectually dishonest" really is, believe it or not, at times appropriate. It's just that ARI is itself so intellectually dishonest, depraved, and foolish on this issue that people forget. It would be nice if we could all fairly solidly determine at what point talking to the libertarians, christians, satanists, ARIans etc. really is useless or counterproductive or appeasing or even the sanctioning of terrible evil. Underneath it all there's a serious issue and debate here.
 
Barbara writes:
 
Andre, I don't like the Ayn Rand Institute, and often have criticized it severely. But your diatribe is ridiculous. What adjectives have you left for bin Laden?
First, I like diatribes and playing with language. Maybe you can tell. ;-) Next, as it happens, I have a vast reservoir of adjectives, terms, and insults available to me which I haven't used. But I don't plan to employ them here because this isn't the appropriate forum. Rest assured or stand immensely alarmed (take your pick), as a student of Rabelais (among others), I'm far from linguistically tapped out.
 
There's also the issue here that ARI, in my view, can hurt the world (and myself) a lot more than Bin Laden. Intellectuals have the power to slaughter for centuries after their death, while mere terrorists can only do a limited amount of damage. I for one profoundly fear and hate the Berkeleys, Humes, and Kants of the world far more than even the Hitlers and Stalins. I think Ayn Rand would agree with me (altho' I welcome your insights here). As has recently been debated at length on SOLOHQ -- and to which you seem to strongly disagree-- in my judgment it's the intellectuals and philosophers which have all the power and cause all the problems.    


Post 19

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 8:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
André,

For a closer analogy to the ARI-TOC-SOLO situation, try The Fountainhead. ARI is like Dominique Francon: The poor girl tries very, very hard to be an individualist, but hasn't figured out how. TOC is Peter Keating, so focused on being perceived by his bourgeois patrons as an individualist, that he has no self left with which to be one. Does Howard Roark care?

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.