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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 100

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Go ahead.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 101

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 5:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK.

Post 102

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I decided to to a recap of this thread and came to a screeching halt with the first sentence of Phil Coates:
In addition to the large donor-supported organizations (first NBI, then ARI and TOC)...
Was NBI a donor-supported organization? My understanding is that, in the capitalistic tradition that was taught there, it was a profit business organization paid for by the services and products that were sold there. I have never heard of any NBI donors. I am almost sure that any such donor person or organization would have been widely known by now. I even  remember the story of the business plan that was presented to Rand at the time of the break. I don't recall donations being included.

I know that ARI recently received a large donation, in addition to the books and services it sells. I don't know the finances, but I imagine that there is the involvement of Rand's copyrights in there somewhere.

Is TOC really donor-supported? Doesn't it sell books and services too?

Michael


Post 103

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 5:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK,

TOC is almost entirely donor supported.  Some money is derived from conferences and the bookstore, but the vast majority of the money comes from donors.

I think you are right about NBI though!

Bill


Post 104

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 6:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is too bad Barbara left.  She might have been able to share stories about initial investments, cash flow management, etc. that kept NBI going strong for years.  Is there anyone else on RoR that was heavily involved in the business side of NBI?

Post 105

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

I just received an email from Barbara on this. Without trying to be a conduit, I believe the information pertinent. She stated that NBI never took one penny in donations and that it was a for-profit and a profit-making venture during its entire existence.

That being the case, shouldn't Objectivists be learning from that experience?

Apparently ARI started with a donation from a person named Ed Snyder. I Googled his name and came across former SoloHQ posts mentioning that he later bitterly regretted doing business with Peikoff. Also, the likelihood of Rand copyrights being used for funding ARI are minimal.

Thanks for the info Bill. (I forgot that I and Kat are small TOC donors ourselves.)

Michael


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 106

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd like to address Dean's dislike of the dollar sign as a symbol that we can all justifiably embrace. In Post 36, he wrote,
I think objectivism would greatly benefit from having symbols like the cross or Jesus/evolution fish. I'd love to have some symbols for freedom, capitalism, individualism, objectivism, etc. I don't like the Atlas Shrugged image for Objectivism. I like skyscrapers, and other great things produced by men through capitalism. The dollar sign is too tainted by dirty government money and it's incompetent protection against fraud-- and it only concretes an insignificant portion of the meaning of Capitalism.

I'd like a symbol that made the Objectivist's understanding of Capitalism concrete. Hmmm... Capitalism... the system of behaviors developed to maximize the ability for each individuals to live as they themselves see fit; by means of maximizing freedom from initiation of force; potential opportunities to be productive; and monopoly over the use of one's own body, that which was acquired through consensual trade, one's own work, and donation. I'd wear it on my cloths, I'd put it on my car.
Here is what Rand had to say about the dollar sign in her Playboy interview:

[T]he meaning of the dollar sign is made clear in Atlas Shrugged. It is the symbol, clearly explained in the story, of free trade and, therefore, of a free mind. A free mind and a free economy are corollaries. One can't exist without the other. The dollar sign, as the symbol of the currency of a free country, is the symbol of the free mind. More than that, as to the historical origin of the dollar sign, although it has never been proved, one very likely hypothesis is that it stands for the initials of the United States.

Also, money originated as a more efficient alternative to barter. A common unit of currency made it much easier to satisfy the double coincidence of wants that underlies the free exchange of goods and services. So the symbol of any currency--be it the British pound, the Swiss franc, the Japanese yen, or the Islandic krona--could theoretically serve as an appropriate symbol of free trade. But since the U.S. has historically been the freest country on earth, what better monetary symbol of free trade is there?

It is true that the dollar (as well as all other currencies in today's world) has been tainted by governmental manipulation and devaluation, but the essence of money is still its function as a medium of exchange, an exchange which by its nature is necessarily voluntary, since prices are a function of supply and demand--of the willingness and ability to buy what others are willing and able to sell. The fact that money has traditionally been maligned as a symbol of greed and corruption, as "filthy lucre," and "the root of all evil," is no reason to abandon it as a symbol. Just as Rand sought to rehabilitate the word "selfishness" from an unjustly tarnished reputation, so we, as Objectivists, should not be reluctant to restore the honorable status of money to its rightful place as a symbol of capitalism and freedom.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 1/18, 11:00pm)


Post 107

Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 12:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hear, Hear !!!

Post 108

Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 5:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re the dollar sign, I was going to give just a short comment, and then I realized it would have been identical to Bill's final sentence.

For us to give up on the dollar sign, and on "selfishness," is just what they want. Rather, we want to be sending the message that their perspective hasn't a hope in hell here on Earth.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 109

Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 7:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Meanings of words and symbols change over time. Take for example, "man", or for another example "$". "$" was once the symbol for value, created by man. Now its the symbol for taxes and inflation.

You can use the "$" symbol for whatever you want. Everyone does that. You can try to say it communicates your idea of capitalism, but your going to be fighting against everyone who uses the definition "government mandated fiat money with taxes and inflation". "$" won't loose its "government mandated fiat money with taxes and inflation" until people stops using $ to indicate a number is USD.

I think its ridiculous to fight a current definition of a word instead of creating a new word/symbol to communicate what you mean. So much time wasted arguing over and fighting against what the definition of a word/symbol is, instead of spreading the ideas that you want to communicate. Take for another example, "selfish". It wasn't genius for Ayn Rand to use the word "selfish". It was an incredible waste of time and put quite possibly the strongest negative connotation towards her philosophy.

Ayn Rand wasn't in the Marketing or Sales business. Maybe that's why its mostly the intellectuals who are fans/followers of her philosophy? Its got great ideas, but horrible marketing. How many people you know would visibly carry around a book that is titled THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS?

Post 110

Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not only visibly, but proudly. I think such reasoning as yours would apply to carrying around a book with an author's name of "Ayn Rand." Haven't we all experienced the reaction to that?

Post 111

Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 11:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I like the $.

Post 112

Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Might be why I have always liked $crooge McDuck

(Edited by Mr. L W Hall on 1/19, 4:29pm)


Post 113

Friday, January 20, 2006 - 9:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I like Dean's message.

But its not up for anyone to change what Rand as written, but use fresh ways to communciate that values that Ojectivism represents to them. Go for it.

Michael


Post 114

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 12:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
RR wrote,
Not only visibly, but proudly [advocate the $]. I think such reasoning as yours [Dean Gores'] would apply to carrying around a book with an author's name of "Ayn Rand." Haven't we all experienced the reaction to that?
Reminds me of the time I was riding a bus and there was a cute girl on there whom I was hoping to impress, who happened to work with me. I was carrying George Smith's Atheism, the Case Against God along with a lot of other stuff. She was seated and I was standing over her with my arms full, so she asked if she could hold my book. After I gave it to her, she took one look at the title and quickly turned it face down, looking a little sheepish and embarrassed! I soon found out that she was quite religious.

Rand said, "Show me what a man finds sexually attractive and I'll show you his entire philosophy of life." Well, I don't know... The fact that her philosophy differed rather markedly from mine didn't do much to dampen my interest, except that it made me aware that a relationship with her didn't have much of a future, even if she was interested, which she definitely wasn't! In Rand's defense, I suppose that had I gotten to know her better and found religion to be a major issue, my interest might have changed. Or not. I had an Objectivist friend who married a Catholic, and I've known a few other "mixed" marriages in which the couples had major philosophical differences. Maybe it's a sense-of-life issue; if the sense of life isn't there, the attraction won't be.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 1/21, 12:06am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 115

Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 5:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill wrote:

I had an Objectivist friend who married a Catholic, and I've known a few other "mixed" marriages in which the couples had major philosophical differences. Maybe it's a sense-of-life issue; if the sense of life isn't there, the attraction won't be.

I married a woman who identifies herself as a Catholic but still thinks her own thoughts.  If I had to choose between her and some of the nattering, pecking, clucking, dogmatic female Objectivists I have encountered in online forums over the years, I would choose my wife in a heartbeat!

Yes, it definitely is a "sense of life" issue which includes issues of personal tastes and preferences.  Neither of us drinks nor smokes.  Those habits are major negatives for both of us.  After seeing all the drinking and smoking at SOLOC 4, I can only say: "Whew!"

We also have a commitment to our general health and wellness and fitness, another "sense of life" issue that I have seen foil some otherwise intelligent people, especially in Mensa.

I can honestly say that over my nearly 15 years of marriage, I have not met any other women in my various social encounters who have made me regret marrying Leslie.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/21, 10:24am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


User ID Password or create a free account.