| | Well, I expected my article to be controversial. But I'm happy to see that there are so many people who say that I have a point about the evils of ARI being exaggerated.
Andre Zantonovich says I should ask Dr. Brook about SOLO. (post 9) I'm not sure if that question is all that important to me, because I'm not heavily involved with SOLO. However, he has asked me to help in setting up another meeting for him in which he is going to try to sell us all on the idea of contributing to ARI. When and if that happens, I'm going to explain to him that I am a supporter of the Libertarian Party, and will continue to be until ARI starts running candidates for public office. ;) I'm also going to tell him that I think it is very important to teach Libertarians about Objectivist principles. Then I'm going to ask him if I would be welcome in ARI considering that I'm doing the very thing that got David Kelly into trouble. We'll see what happens. He'll look really stupid if he starts denouncing me in front the members of GO, who are almost all close friends of mine.
James Kilbourne says that ARI "can't see anything wrong with AR". (post 53) According to Brook, that is not true. ARIans sometimes disagree with AR on applications of her philosophy. The only thing they don't disagree on is the basic principles themselves. He also admitted that it can sometimes be hard to figure out which aspects of her philosophy are "fundamental" and which are derivative, and that he's not sure what the answer to that is. He sounded very much like David Kelly when he was talking. I almost expected him to start using the word "tolerance".
Alot of people on this thread have been talking about Peikoff. For the record, I still think Peikoff is a nutcase. My view of him hasn't changed at all. He is one of the reasons I'm still wary of getting involved with ARI. However, he is no longer the head of the group, and I think people need to remember that.
Someone asked who a "Saddamite" is. As far as I can tell, it's anyone who supports Ayn Rand's "isolationist" views. Joseph Rowlands says that's not the case, that the term only refers to cultural relativists who think the war is an injustice against Iraqis. However, I could have sworn the term was used against me once by Lindsey Perigo, and I am certainly not a cultural relativist. My problem with Iraq is the same one I have with every welfare program. I just don't think it's right to force Americans to pay for the liberation of foreigners. However, it may be that Perigo did not actually use that term and I'm just getting confused. So perhaps Rowlands is correct.
John Trager asks about Brooks' statements concerning WMDs. (post 53) I believe Brook's position was that WMDs by themselves are not enough to justify a war. There has to at least be proof that the country is planning to attack us. In the case of Iran, he kept repeating over and over again that "we were attacked", implying that Iran is implicated because they are an Islamic Fundamentalist government that actively supports the al-queeda network. Iraq, of course, was against Islamic Fundamentalism and al-queeda. Which is why Brook found it impossible to justify on "isolationist" premises.
Thanks for the comments everyone. :)
-----------------------Tom Blackstone
http://tomsphilosophy.tripod.com
(Edited by Tom Blackstone on 3/23, 1:38am)
|
|
