George Reisman's Campaign for Capitalism
Brad Aisa
I just wanted to recommend to all reader's attention, George Reisman's well
conceived and explained campaign to achieve laissez faire capitalism in the
United States, and world wide. It is the concluding chapter in his opus on
Capitalism, and is reproduced on the following web site:
http://www.capitalism.net/catoe_20.htm
I would highly recommend that you read his excellent program, and perhaps
consider how it might be in your interest to adopt his program as your own,
and undertake action in pursuit of it.
I have long held that too many Objectivists vastly overestimate the need
for some vague "philosophic revolution" to occur before concrete steps in
pursuit of capitalism can be made. I have long argued that the pursuit of
such a program will, by its nature, greatly assist in such an eventual
revolution (or evolution) transpiring.
Capitalists have two potent weapons on their side: reality and morality.
--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
David Friedman
In article <66g0ja$4ds$1...@news.interlog.com>, Brad Aisa
<ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
>I have long held that too many Objectivists vastly overestimate the need
>for some vague "philosophic revolution" to occur before concrete steps in
>pursuit of capitalism can be made. I have long argued that the pursuit of
>such a program will, by its nature, greatly assist in such an eventual
>revolution (or evolution) transpiring.
You are beginning to sound like a Libertarian.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
"No man is secure in his life, liberty or property
while the legislature is in session"
Chuck Prime
Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
: I just wanted to recommend to all reader's attention, George Reisman's well
: http://www.capitalism.net/catoe_20.htm
First time in a year+- I have been here.
Thanks for the alert. I haven't checked it out. But I will.
: I have long held that too many Objectivists vastly overestimate the need
: for some vague "philosophic revolution" to occur before concrete steps in
: pursuit of capitalism can be made.
Indeed.
Such wannabe-Objectivists context-drop, desiring ends without means.
Specifically, their attitude regarding the establishment of a free
society is: "someday" "somebody" will "do something" "somehow."
Never mind that Objectivism permits no dichotomy between body and mind,
and no severance of effect from cause.
Never mind that the enemy successfully injects his poison by a steady
needle of activist gradualism, that there is still a gap between the
intellectuals and the citizenry to utilize, a large and growing attitude
of dissent to capitalize on, the un-parodyable irrationality of our
enemies to use against them, and the tattered remnants of the Constitution
and our legal system to give us ground to occasionally stand on.
Now, when I say "wannabes," that term does not necessarily apply to
Objectivist professors or to ARI's Speakers Bureau or essay contest
organizers--even though most of these people do advocate the same
wishful-thinking antistrategy. But they are not wannabes; they ARE. They
actually and properly use the crucially important resources open to them
and suited for them. That is not an achievement to be taken lightly.
That term DOES apply to people who organize and attend those horrid
conferences, whose periodic bi-coastal occurrences preach primarily to a
choir which has nothing better to do than spend up to $2000 apiece just to
feel like they are a part of something. Yes, there are a lot of great
speeches there--want to hear one of them? Wait a couple of years, buy it
from SRB, and save yourself $1900.
Or do what I do: sit down for a few minutes' worth of honest thinking, and
figure a lot of it out for yourself.
The wannabes, and those who adopt their antistrategy, are people who, if
they ever bothered to read "It's Earlier Than You Think" in the first
place (wherein Rand rejected anything but academia as a plausible
restoration strategy), certainly never bothered to notice a couple of
trivialities therein.
One being that Rand spent most of the article describing the large-scale
attention Barry Goldwater got when proclaiming to stand for grand
uncompromising principle.
Another being that he lost the presidential bid only after the spotlight
called his bluff and found that he couldn't actually cite any of those
principles. (He apparently now spends his time in Arizona scanning the sky
for UFOs.)
Another being the (rare) mistake on Rand's part when she concluded that
because one man lost when his bluff was called, no other man could have
won even if he had not been bluffing.
And yet another thing these pretenders never bothered to notice: that
"It's Earlier Than You Think" appeared in The Objectivist Newsletter
exactly thirty-three years ago this month--earlier than they think.
There's nothing personal in the wannabe's alleged battle anyway. It's just
a game to them. A psychological con they play so as to feel like they're
worth something while denouncing the need to do anything.
I say: observe them, then ignore them.
: Capitalists have two potent weapons on their side: reality and morality.
And passion--if we mean what we say about reality and morality.
Passion while fighting for our right to pursue our dreams--if we have any
that we care to fight for.
We really have everything on our side, except ourselves.
Considering the nature of Objectivist ideals when compared to the gutter
nihilism of our enemies, there is no excuse whatsoever for losing our
battle. And considering how much is at stake in this battle and how
personal it ought to be to us and to those we would convert, if we lose,
it will be because we do not deserve to win.
It's that simple. Context-dropped wishes to the contrary that "someday"
"somebody" will "do something" "somehow," notwithstanding.
As for me, I can't tell you folks what I do these days. Not yet. But
you've probably heard of it.
Robert J. Kolker
Chuck Prime <pr...@winternet.com> wrote:
.........................snip.....................
> Considering the nature of Objectivist ideals when compared to the gutter
> nihilism of our enemies, there is no excuse whatsoever for losing our
> battle. And considering how much is at stake in this battle and how
> personal it ought to be to us and to those we would convert, if we lose,
> it will be because we do not deserve to win.
> It's that simple. Context-dropped wishes to the contrary that "someday"
> "somebody" will "do something" "somehow," notwithstanding.
> As for me, I can't tell you folks what I do these days. Not yet. But
> you've probably heard of it.
If you are in the deconstruction business, may you live long
and may your enterprise prosper.
If I read about IRS agents dying by the dozens and the
gross, I will utter a silent prayer of thanks to your
efforts. Whatever it is your doing, show no mercy or
forgiveness. Let Justice be done, even if the sky falls.
Bob Kolker
--
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you
will not have to listen to his incessant whining about how hungry he is"
Chuck Prime
Chuck Prime <pr...@winternet.com> wrote:
: Brad Aisa <ba...@ERASETHISinterlog.com> wrote:
: [Things]
I believe I struck a nerve with my last post.
Just such a wannabe as I described accused me in email--and yes, there
is a point to this--of wishing for a "somehow" strategy on the sole
grounds that this person failed to note in my post where I advocated the
educational efforts of Objectivist professors, and ARI Speakers Bureau and
essay contests.
I ask all of you: what kind of premise leads a man to assume that any call
for social-political action can only be made at the expense of ideology?
He also by implication accused me of envy for my disapproval of the
conferencing organizations' availability, price policy, and (as a result)
their proclivity of preaching only to the converted. His basis was that he
thinks I cannot afford them. (I can't--not often, and never rationally.)
Observe that the organizers, speakers and attendees of those conferences
are exactly the same people who loudest and most invariably proclaim the
need and the desire to SPREAD Objectivism, yet their actions are to
organize and attend what amounts to country clubs. Since they surely spend
much of their time working for a living and engaging in other ideological
activities (many, such as OSG, being of the same country club nature and
serving no other purpose), those many hours they spend on country club
activities greatly detract from the time they could spend spreading
Objectivism, as they claim to want to do. I simply expect their claims and
actions to be more closely aligned.
And the reason they attend was indirectly confirmed by the person who
emailed me: he wants to associate with people he likes and respects. Good
for him! BUT--since one can and should surround himself with such people
in daily life, since one has multiple communication channels available to
any others who don't live nearby, and since the rest are strangers (who,
in circles as small and tight as Objectivist ones, can still be met
through those multiple channels of communication), the real reason can
only be: to feel like a part of something. Of what? Of a grand movement
larger than themselves. (Why do they need such a thing? That's beyond the
scope of this post, assuming I could answer it at all.)
I therefore ask all of you: don't these people have something better to do
with their time and effort than mutually re-assert en masse a belief in
priorities they do not always practice?
Before I answer, I will note that the person who emailed me spends so much
of his time HERE literally arguing the years away with this small
unchanging group--which includes so many people he neither likes nor
respects--(and he did the same on a.p.o before this was established), that
no matter how rarely I come here and no matter when I do--there he is.
(Every one of you who has spent any time here knows him. That is why.)
So my answer to whether he and others ought to spend their time exercising
the priorities they preach is: these ARE the priorities they preach. And
the results are what should have been expected.
Which is one reason I call them "wannabes."
Tony Donadio
Chuck Prime wrote:
> Just such a wannabe as I described accused me in email--and yes, there
> is a point to this--of wishing for a "somehow" strategy on the sole
> grounds that this person failed to note in my post where I advocated the
> educational efforts of Objectivist professors, and ARI Speakers Bureau
> and essay contests.
I suspect that it was my message Mr. Prime was referring to. It was
intended for hpo; apparently I responded by email by mistake. Here
is my message; you can judge the fairness of Mr. Prime's response
for yourselves. I'll comment briefly afterward.
*****
Chuck Prime unjustly misrepresents the views of those Objectivists
who focus their attention on education and philosophic reform.
The "somehow" he refers to *is* philosophic reform. It is those
who think that you can accomplish political reform *without*
philosophical reform who are guilty of thinking that you can
establish a free society "somehow." The simple fact of the matter
is that people on a wide scale are not going to accept Objectivist
political reforms on the basis of the morality and philosophy that
they accept now -- and if they did, they wouldn't be understood or
practiced properly, nor would they last.
None of us think there is anything wrong with working for political
reform, when there is an appropriate opportunity to do so.
> That term DOES apply to people who organize and attend those horrid
> conferences, whose periodic bi-coastal occurrences preach primarily to a
> choir which has nothing better to do than spend up to $2000 apiece just to
> feel like they are a part of something.
Listen, you jerk. I've been to many of these conferences, and I don't
go "to be preached to" or to "feel like I'm part of something." I go
to learn new ideas that will be useful to me in LIVING MY LIFE, and to
*enjoy a good time with people I like and respect*. Do you have a clue
what that means or feels like? Does the personal, selfish pleasure of
resting and enjoying a vacation mean nothing to you?
If you can't afford the $2k for an enjoyable vacation, then I'm sorry
-- but don't take it out by insulting those of us who can.
> Yes, there are a lot of great speeches there--want to hear one of them?
> Wait a couple of years, buy it from SRB, and save yourself $1900.
I see. And if there are good ideas in those lectures that I might learn,
and make profitable use of during the year I'm waiting for the cassettes
to come out? Those ideas are of no use to me in the meantime?
(By the way, if you purchased the tapes for ALL of the talks given at
these conferences, it would probably cost you more than going to the
conference would -- and you'd miss out on the vacation.)
> Or do what I do: sit down for a few minutes' worth of honest
> thinking, and figure a lot of it out for yourself.
You pompous ass. Are you really so godlike that you can figure out
"in a few minutes worth of honest thinking," most of the content of
*dozens* of courses worth of original research and material presented
by professional intellectuals who have been specializing in these
fields for years? Or do you just have a low opinion of their
scholarship that you're not quite willing to state openly?
How would you figure out all the material in a course on the history
of Individual Rights, for example, that one graduate student spent
several years worth of research on, without doing all that research
yourself? By placing books by Cicero, Locke, Grotius and Pufendorf
under you pillow?
Jesus, get a clue.
Tony Donadio
******
I'll give Mr. Prime an opportunity to say publicly whether this is the
message he was referring to in his remarks. If not, then I apologize
for the confusion, but I still wanted to post it to hpo. I will make
a few comments now; if he states that he was referring to my message,
then I will respond further later.
> I ask all of you: what kind of premise leads a man to assume that any call
> for social-political action can only be made at the expense of ideology?
This certainly isn't my view. It's
> He also by implication accused me of envy for my disapproval of the
> conferencing organizations' availability, price policy, and (as a result)
> their proclivity of preaching only to the converted. His basis was that he
> thinks I cannot afford them. (I can't--not often, and never rationally.)
If this was addressed to me, then please note that I was referring to
*affording a vacation*. Most of us who go to these conferences make
them our yearly vacation. Is there a reason why we should NOT enjoy
such a vacation more than, say, going to the Bahamas?
> Observe that the organizers, speakers and attendees of those conferences
> are exactly the same people who loudest and most invariably proclaim the
> need and the desire to SPREAD Objectivism, yet their actions are to
> organize and attend what amounts to country clubs. Since they surely spend
> much of their time working for a living and engaging in other ideological
> activities (many, such as OSG, being of the same country club nature and
> serving no other purpose), those many hours they spend on country club
> activities greatly detract from the time they could spend spreading
> Objectivism, as they claim to want to do. I simply expect their claims and
> actions to be more closely aligned.
I don't know what fantasy world you are living in, but they generally do
conferences to improve their sklls and reputation as speakers, so that
they will get hired to speak in other venues; if their talk is popular
enough, to get it carried on tape by Second Renaissance; and to MAKE
MOMEY by doing this. Have you ever heard of the profit motive, Mr.
Prime?
> And the reason they attend was indirectly confirmed by the person who
> emailed me: he wants to associate with people he likes and respects. Good
> for him! BUT--since one can and should surround himself with such people
> in daily life, since one has multiple communication channels available to
> any others who don't live nearby, and since the rest are strangers (who,
> in circles as small and tight as Objectivist ones, can still be met
> through those multiple channels of communication), the real reason can
> only be: to feel like a part of something.
This is bullshit sophistry. How many Objectivists -- people who really
understand and live the philosophy -- live in your neighborhood for you
to "surround yourself" with in daily life? How is one supposed to find
or meet "others who don't live nearby" in the first place? This is one
of the things the conferences are FOR. What "multiple channels of
communication" is Mr. Prime talking about? To the extent they exist,
do they substitute for actually going someplace and meeting actual
people? And even if one can take advantage of them, Does Mr. Prime
really think that telephone and email communication is no different
from actually being with people? What about unattached men and women
who are looking for a romantic partner who shares their values?
No, in Mr. Prime's rationalistic world, there are no legitimate
reasons for taking a vacation with other Objectivists. Apparently
one has to stay in one's own backyard, associate only with the
three Objectivists who live in your town, and work ceaselessly
for ideological reform from in front of one's keyboard and with
a telephone by one's side.
> Of what? Of a grand movement larger than themselves. (Why do they
> need such a thing? That's beyond the scope of this post, assuming
> I could answer it at all.)
>
> I therefore ask all of you: don't these people have something better to do
> with their time and effort than mutually re-assert en masse a belief in
> priorities they do not always practice?
People should. And some of us do, despite Mr. Prime's nonsense remarks
to the contrary.
> Before I answer, I will note that the person who emailed me spends so much
> of his time HERE literally arguing the years away with this small
> unchanging group--which includes so many people he neither likes nor
> respects--(and he did the same on a.p.o before this was established), that
> no matter how rarely I come here and no matter when I do--there he is.
> (Every one of you who has spent any time here knows him. That is why.)
Mr. Prime has to be talking about me. For his information, as the rest
of you know, I've only recently returned to hpo myself; I was away
almost
as long as he has been. I will give him this much: garbage posts like
his
are frankly beginning to make me regret the time I do spend here.
Kenneth J. Stauffer
Chuck Prime wrote:
I believe I struck a nerve with my last post.
So my answer to whether he and others ought to spend their time
exercising
the priorities they preach is: these ARE the priorities they preach.
And
he results are what should have been expected.
Which is one reason I call them "wannabes."
----------
Chuck Prime, you're a meat head.
Ken Stauffer.
John Alway
Tony Donadio wrote:
> Chuck Prime wrote:
[...]
> > That term DOES apply to people who organize and attend those horrid
> > conferences, whose periodic bi-coastal occurrences preach primarily to a
> > choir which has nothing better to do than spend up to $2000 apiece just to
> > feel like they are a part of something.
> Listen, you jerk. I've been to many of these conferences, and I don't
> go "to be preached to" or to "feel like I'm part of something." I go
> to learn new ideas that will be useful to me in LIVING MY LIFE, and to
> *enjoy a good time with people I like and respect*. Do you have a clue
> what that means or feels like? Does the personal, selfish pleasure of
> resting and enjoying a vacation mean nothing to you?
You're absolutely right! I have a brochure for the
next conference taking place in New Hampshire, and I can tell
you those lectures look very enticing to me. I think perhaps
Chuck Prime looks at things from a purely political point of
view. I don't, nor can I. I'm interested in gaining knowledge
so that I can be a better thinker and thus engineer and thus
producer, which would all make me that much more content in
life.
For instance, Harry Binswanger is giving a talk titled
"The Metaphysics of Consciousness: The What and How of
Cognition." There are clearly insights he has that
I could learn from.
Another course of interest to me is "The Philosophic
Corruption of Physics" by David Harriman. He is qualified
to do this as he has an M.A. in philosophy and an MS in
physics, and has worked as both a physicist and a
philosopher.
There are several other fantastic looking courses.
...John
Leslie Bates
On 11 Dec 1997 17:57:20 GMT, "Kenneth J. Stauffer"
<stau...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Chuck Prime, you're a meat head.
>
>Ken Stauffer.
>
If you're going to publically call someone a "meat head" then at least
give your audience an explanation as how you came to that conclusion.
If you can't do that then SHUT THE F**K UP!
Leslie Bates (Yes, *That* one.)
P.O. Box 581211, Minneapolis, MN 55458
-------------------------------------------------
The Collective Is Death.
-------------------------------------------------
Jason Lockwood
I am also tremendously insulted by the view that Objectivist conferences are
for "country club types." I attend them for the same reasons Tony and John
do: they offer me the chance to learn something valuable that I can apply to
*my* life in benevolent, happy surroundings. I attended the Lyceum
conference in Irvine, California this past August and *had the time of my
life*. I learned a lot, I laughed a lot and I experienced the joy of a world
that can and ought to be. If that's a "country club," count me as a member.
Incidentally, these conferences aren't just Objectivist love-ins; one finds
serious scholarship there. One great lecture this summer was John Ridpath's
talk on Rousseau and the French Revolution versus Locke and the American
Revolution. He showed how the ideas of Rousseau lead inexorably to military
dictatorship, while Locke's ideas lead to a free republic.
Jason Lockwood
J. Kendrick McPeters
"Jason Lockwood" <jl...@execpc.com> wrote:
>Incidentally, these conferences aren't just Objectivist love-ins; one finds
>serious scholarship there. One great lecture this summer was John Ridpath's
>talk on Rousseau and the French Revolution...
So, tell me, Jason... what will Dr. Reisman be speaking on regarding
economics this year? What's that? He won't be there? And you can't
even read his new "Capitalism" book? Gee, willikers... since there's
no better Objectivist-oriented economics textbook, who is the ARI's
jihad against Reisman really hurting?
Is it just ME, or do these Objectivist purges remind anyone else of
the classic Soviet technique of airbrushing "state enemies" out of
group pictures? Isn't it a little NON-OBJECTIVE to elevate minor
personal disagreements into excommunications and official "non-entity"
status? You'd certainly think so!
---Kendrick
Kyle Haight
In article <3490ad04....@news.usit.net>,
J. Kendrick McPeters <mcpe...@usit.net> wrote:
>"Jason Lockwood" <jl...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>>Incidentally, these conferences aren't just Objectivist love-ins; one finds
>>serious scholarship there. One great lecture this summer was John Ridpath's
>>talk on Rousseau and the French Revolution...
>
>So, tell me, Jason... what will Dr. Reisman be speaking on regarding
>economics this year? What's that? He won't be there? And you can't
>even read his new "Capitalism" book? Gee, willikers... since there's
>no better Objectivist-oriented economics textbook, who is the ARI's
>jihad against Reisman really hurting?
Well, I'm not Jason, but I also attended the conference in Irvine (my
first one), and also had a wonderful time, pretty much for the same
reasons cited by others.
I have a copy of Reisman's book, and have read it. (In fact, I
purchased the prepublication edition.) So I don't know where you get
off implying that conference attendees "can't" read Reisman's book. I
had a conversation with Richard Salsman (an economist who spoke at the
conference), and he indicated that he was halfway through writing a
detailed analysis and critique of the book, so he certainly didn't
feel like he "couldn't" read it. (FWIW, Salsman indicated that he
thought there were some significant problems with Reisman's
methodology, starting with his claim that economics is a deductive
science. But I digress.)
>Is it just ME, or do these Objectivist purges remind anyone else of
>the classic Soviet technique of airbrushing "state enemies" out of
>group pictures? Isn't it a little NON-OBJECTIVE to elevate minor
>personal disagreements into excommunications and official "non-entity"
>status? You'd certainly think so!
Whereas the bizarre projections you are engaging in are a model of
objectivity in action? Get real.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@netcom.com
"We are mice, posting to Usenet in the first stages of a complex plan
to Take Over The WORLD!"
Jason Lockwood
>Is it just ME, or do these Objectivist purges remind anyone else of
>the classic Soviet technique of airbrushing "state enemies" out of
>group pictures?
Yes, it's you.
Jason Lockwood
Kenneth J. Stauffer
in insulting people face to face I would be in for
a well deserved beating. But thanks to the Internet,
I can vent my disgust with the world with minor harm
to myself. Of course my own shame is worse than
any beating.
Cheers,
Ken Stauffer.
J. Kendrick McPeters
Kyle Haight <kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Well, I'm not Jason, but I also attended the conference in Irvine (my
>first one), and also had a wonderful time, pretty much for the same
>reasons cited by others.
Good. Hope no "emergencies" come up when you're around so many
Objectivists... that might be bad for your health, you know...
>I have a copy of Reisman's book, and have read it. (In fact, I
>purchased the prepublication edition.)
Try buying Reisman's book from the "official" fountainhead of O-ist
approved literature. Does Peter Schwartz sell it in his Second
Renaissance Catalog? No? Wonder why that is? Why is PRETTY WOMAN
(the videotape) more worthy than Reisman's "Capitalism?"
Do you have ANY explanation for this, other than the obvious... that
Reisman got purged by Lenny, and is now a non-entity?
>So I don't know where you get off implying that conference attendees
>"can't" read Reisman's book.
I simply mean that Reisman is, within the Official Objectivist Camp, a
purged non-entity. Like many before him, his books and tapes might as
well not exist. If you buy them, you must go through NON-APPROVED
channels. That you did so, despite the ARI's stupid vendetta, is proof
of your intellect and integrity. Congratulations!
>I had a conversation with Richard Salsman (an economist who spoke at the
>conference), and he indicated that he was halfway through writing a
>detailed analysis and critique of the book, so he certainly didn't
>feel like he "couldn't" read it.
Of course, he may have a special dispensation. Perhaps, like Peter
Schwartz, he is reading the taboo book in order to do a hatchet job on
it. I guess we'll know when the review is published...
>(FWIW, Salsman indicated that he thought there were some significant
>problems with Reisman's methodology, starting with his claim that
>economics is a deductive science. But I digress.)
Well, the hatchet job scenario isn't looking that unlikely, is it?
>>Is it just ME, or do these Objectivist purges remind anyone else of
>>the classic Soviet technique of airbrushing "state enemies" out of
>>group pictures? Isn't it a little NON-OBJECTIVE to elevate minor
>>personal disagreements into excommunications and official "non-entity"
>>status? You'd certainly think so!
>
>Whereas the bizarre projections you are engaging in are a model of
>objectivity in action? Get real.
Bizarre projections? How many time does someone have to get purged
from the inner circle, with, as a consequence, their books expunged
from the approved list, before you notice a pattern? Isn't it odd
that, for instance, David Kelley's "Evidence of the Senses" was once
praised to the heavens by Schwartz, and now is nowhere to be seen?
What, specifically, has caused the words contained in Kelley's book to
turn "bad," when they used to be so "good?" Do you have any idea?
And Kelley is just the tip of the iceberg, as you should know. What
about Hank Holzer? Is "Sweet Land of Liberty?" a worthwhile book, as
Schwartz once claimed, or is it a "bad" book as seems to be implied by
its removal from the SR catalog?
Perhaps I went over the top in comparing the ARI's behavior to that of
Stalinist Russia. A more apt comparison might be to the dystopic
world of Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451!"
I'm sure of one thing... the list of "approved books" and "sanctioned
scholars" grows shorter, year by year. And that seems, IMHO, to be a
helluva dumb way to run an intellectual campaign!
---Kendrick
Tony Donadio
J. Kendrick McPeters wrote:
> So, tell me, Jason... what will Dr. Reisman be speaking on regarding
> economics this year? What's that? He won't be there? And you can't
> even read his new "Capitalism" book? Gee, willikers... since there's
> no better Objectivist-oriented economics textbook, who is the ARI's
> jihad against Reisman really hurting?
I don't get it. Jason can't read Reisman's book? Why not?
And "Jihad?" What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Tony Donadio
Tony Donadio
J. Kendrick McPeters wrote:
> Try buying Reisman's book from the "official" fountainhead of O-ist
> approved literature. Does Peter Schwartz sell it in his Second
> Renaissance Catalog? No? Wonder why that is? Why is PRETTY WOMAN
> (the videotape) more worthy than Reisman's "Capitalism?"
>
> Do you have ANY explanation for this, other than the obvious... that
> Reisman got purged by Lenny, and is now a non-entity?
Of course there's an explanation. Dr. Reisman and his wife sent a
mass mailing in 1994 attacking Peter Schwartz (the OWNER of Second
Renaissance Books). *The man publicly attempted to destroy his
reputation*, for Christ's sake. If someone tried to do that to YOU,
what would you do? Turn the other cheek? Is that your idea of self-
respect?
Jesus, get a bloody clue.
Tony Donadio
Tim Starr
In article <3490ad04....@news.usit.net>,
J. Kendrick McPeters <mcpe...@usit.net> wrote:
>"Jason Lockwood" <jl...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>>Incidentally, these conferences aren't just Objectivist love-ins; one finds
>>serious scholarship there. One great lecture this summer was John Ridpath's
>>talk on Rousseau and the French Revolution...
>
>economics this year? What's that? He won't be there? And you can't
>even read his new "Capitalism" book? Gee, willikers... since there's
>no better Objectivist-oriented economics textbook, who is the ARI's
>jihad against Reisman really hurting?
>
>the classic Soviet technique of airbrushing "state enemies" out of
>group pictures?
"We have ALWAYS been at war with EastAsia!"
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
R Lawrence
mcpe...@usit.net wrote:
>Kyle Haight <kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>I have a copy of Reisman's book, and have read it. (In fact, I
>>purchased the prepublication edition.)
>
>approved literature. Does Peter Schwartz sell it in his Second
>Renaissance Catalog? No? Wonder why that is? Why is PRETTY WOMAN
>(the videotape) more worthy than Reisman's "Capitalism?"
>
>Do you have ANY explanation for this, other than the obvious... that
>Reisman got purged by Lenny, and is now a non-entity?
I thought the "obvious" explanation was that there is a personal feud
between Schwartz and Reisman. You know, things like Reisman and his wife,
Edith Packer, questioning Schwartz's teaching qualifications and such --
accusations that, as one might expect, Schwartz doesn't take kindly to.
>Like many before him, his books and tapes might as
>well not exist. If you buy them, you must go through NON-APPROVED
>channels. That you did so, despite the ARI's stupid vendetta, is proof
>of your intellect and integrity. Congratulations!
Personally, I have bought most of my books thru "non-approved channels."
Heck, Schwartz doesn't even carry as many books as I have! So I must be a
major intellect with extra helpings of integrity.
>>Whereas the bizarre projections you are engaging in are a model of
>>objectivity in action? Get real.
>
>Bizarre projections? How many time does someone have to get purged
>from the inner circle, with, as a consequence, their books expunged
>from the approved list, before you notice a pattern? Isn't it odd
>that, for instance, David Kelley's "Evidence of the Senses" was once
>praised to the heavens by Schwartz, and now is nowhere to be seen?
Well, it isn't so much odd as unfortunate, although it hardly amounts to a
"banned books list." If Kelley wrote valuable books prior to his break with
the ARI (and he did), then one can always go get them from a source other
than SRB. That's what I did -- and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.
(Not that dense books on epistemology are the mostly widely read material,
even among Objectivists.) The notion that the SRB catalog somehow controls
what Objectivists may or may not read is utterly silly.
================================================
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com>
Anti-Spam Encoded -- to email remove the ".spam"
Steve Reed
Tony Donadio writes, in the same post:
>[...] for Christ's sake. [...]
>Jesus, get a bloody clue.
It's amusing how you address (or, in this and many other cases, abuse) your
interlocutors in the name of someone that you don't believe in ...
<wicked seasonal grin>
"Happiness makes up in height
for what it lacks in length."
-- Robert Frost
Leslie Bates
On 12 Dec 1997 05:37:39 GMT, "Kenneth J. Stauffer"
<stau...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Leslie Bates wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Dec 1997 17:57:20 GMT, "Kenneth J. Stauffer"
>> <stau...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Chuck Prime, you're a meat head.
>> >
>> >Ken Stauffer.
>> >
>> If you're going to publically call someone a "meat head" then at least
>> give your audience an explanation as how you came to that conclusion.
>>
>> If you can't do that then SHUT THE F**K UP!
"Meat head" is commonly taken to mean someone speaks or act as though
he were lacking a fuctional brain. Does Mr. Stauffer explain how he
reached such a conclusion about Mr. Chuck Prime?
Nooooo...
>His name reminds me of meat. If I were to indulge
>in insulting people face to face I would be in for
>a well deserved beating. But thanks to the Internet,
>I can vent my disgust with the world with minor harm
>to myself. Of course my own shame is worse than
>any beating.
In other words Little Kenny is nothing more than a whim worshipping
twit who indulges in childish behavior.
JLH1942
What exactly is this diasagreement about? I have never really heard what it is
about.
Chuck Prime
Tony Donadio <tdon...@monmouth.com> wrote:
: I suspect that it was my message Mr. Prime was referring to.
Yes.
See the new thread, "Followers in 'Our' 'Movement.'"
Jason Lockwood
Hmmm....
Let me see...
What's that big book sitting on the shelf in my bedroom?
Could it be?
No!
Yes!
It's *gasp* George Reisman's _Capitalism_.
And what's that sticking out of it, right about in the middle?
It's a bookmark!
The Objectivist police will surely be after my tail now. I think I'm about
to be purged.
Please, Tony, Betsy and others, help me stay in the fray!
Austin David Jr
>Well, it isn't so much odd as unfortunate, although it hardly amounts to a
>"banned books list." If Kelley wrote valuable books prior to his break with
>the ARI (and he did), then one can always go get them from a source other
>than SRB. That's what I did -- and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.
>(Not that dense books on epistemology are the mostly widely read material,
>even among Objectivists.) The notion that the SRB catalog somehow controls
>what Objectivists may or may not read is utterly silly.
>
>================================================
>Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com>
>
>Anti-Spam Encoded -- to email remove the ".spam"
>
I think it's silly on Schwartz's part to pull Kelley's "Evidence of the
Senses" from the SRB catalog because Kelley has broken off with ARI. If
Schwartz praised his book before the break, then what has changed now that
Kelley left. Has his recommendation *now* become 'invalid' or incorrect'?
Schwartz looks like a hypocrite. Regardless of whether Schwartz's
criticisms of Kelley are valid or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with
his praise of "Evidence of the Senses". My point is not whether someone can
get Kelley's book from SRB. You can obtain it elsewhere and I respect
Schwartz's right, as owner of SRB, to pull any book he wants. However, he
should keep his *personal* beef with Kelley seperate from his *business*
dealings.
Tony Donadio
Austin David Jr wrote:
> I think it's silly on Schwartz's part to pull Kelley's "Evidence of the
> Senses" from the SRB catalog because Kelley has broken off with ARI.
Who told you that that was Peter's reason? He was outspoken about his
disapproval of David Kelley's decision to speak to the Libertarian
supper club in 1988, and as far as I know it was this incident was what
made him decide to break with Kelley.
From what I understand, a number of other individuals in the Objectivist
movement had already broken with Kelley privately before this occurred.
The reason why ARI and most of the rest of us broke with Kelley was
because of the written statement that Kelley distributed in response to
Peter's action. Speaking for myself, in my judgement the principles he
stated in it amounted to a repudiation of the principles of Objectivism.
> If Schwartz praised his book before the break, then what has changed
> now that Kelley left. Has his recommendation *now* become 'invalid'
> or incorrect'? Schwartz looks like a hypocrite.
I've never asked Peter his opinion of _The Evidence of the Senses_, but
my own opinion from trying to read it (*before* the break) is that it
is written in academic jargonese, and almost unintelligible. I don't
think cutting it was much of a loss.
I frankly don't think this is an issue, though. Even if the book were
really good, that doesn't mean that he should decide to keep carrying
it. There are other legitimate reasons for a bookseller deciding not
to carry certain works. Not being willing to sanction the author is
one of those reasons. Kelley's case is one example; another is the
Reismans, who both privately and publicly attacked Peter Schwartz and
tried to destroy his reputation. If YOU owned a book service, would
you turn the other cheek and sell these peoples' works anyway?
> Regardless of whether Schwartz's criticisms of Kelley are valid or
> not, it has absolutely nothing to do with his praise of "Evidence
> of the Senses". My point is not whether someone can get Kelley's
> book from SRB. You can obtain it elsewhere and I respect Schwartz's
> right, as owner of SRB, to pull any book he wants.
Good.
> However, he should keep his *personal* beef with Kelley seperate
> from his *business* dealings.
Why?
You just got finished saying that you respect Peter Schwartz's right
as owner of SRB to pull any book he wants, and now you're trying to
set the terms under which he can properly exercise that right? Make
up your mind.
Tony Donadio
Paul S. Hsieh
"Austin David Jr" <aus...@erols.com> wrote:
>My point is not whether someone can
>get Kelley's book from SRB. You can obtain it elsewhere and I respect
>Schwartz's right, as owner of SRB, to pull any book he wants. However, he
>should keep his *personal* beef with Kelley seperate from his *business*
>dealings.
I have to respectfully disagree on this particular point.
Let's say that I were a practicing physician who also ran a book service
selling medical texts. Included in my bookstore listing was an
excellent text on, say, neurosurgery written by a competent
neurosurgeon. There was nothing wrong with the book per se -- the ideas
and facts conveyed in this book were fine, and the book would be a
legitimate value to any reader interested in the field.
However, one day I become embroiled in a serious personal dispute with
the author. As the dispute unfolds, serious public allegations are made
-- he calls me a "liar", "dishonest", etc.
At some point, I might find it totally appropriate to pull his books
from my offerings. The position I would take would be something like,
"Dr. X's textbook on neurosurgery is no longer being sold at my store.
I decline to help him earn royalties through my efforts. If you want a
copy of this book, you'll have to purchase it through another outlet".
But I do *not* specifically claim that the contents of the book are now
false (to do so would be unjustified.)
I think this can be a very reasonable stance under the right
circumstances.
(This analogy is probably closer to the SRB-Reisman dispute than the
Kelley issue. And even though I haven't bothered to follow thte details
of the Reisman issue very closely, I can envision myself taking a
similar position as the SRB under similar circumstances.)
================== __ .--. _ _
|| Paul S. Hsieh || | | | |_ | | | _
|| <hsi...@crl.com> || | | .--| | |__ ^ | | | __|_|_
|| || \ \ ___|__|__|_|__|_ /|\ __|_|_|_|______|___
|| La Jolla, CA || \ \ ~~~ ~~ ___/_|_\____ ~~~ ~~~~
================== X__| ~~~ ~~~ \__________/ ~~~ ~~~~~~
--
================== __ .--. _ _
|| Paul S. Hsieh || | | | |_ | | | _
|| <hsi...@crl.com> || | | .--| | |__ ^ | | | __|_|_
|| || \ \ ___|__|__|_|__|_ /|\ __|_|_|_|______|___
|| La Jolla, CA || \ \ ~~~ ~~ ___/_|_\____ ~~~ ~~~~
================== X__| ~~~ ~~~ \__________/ ~~~ ~~~~~~
Steve Smolinski
Jason Lockwood (jl...@execpc.com) wrote:
: What's that big book sitting on the shelf in my bedroom?
: It's *gasp* George Reisman's _Capitalism_.
I'm afraid that I've discovered some things about Mr Lockwood which
distress me. He owns a prohibited book, and as if that isn't enough--he
has actually started to *read* it! Mr Lawrence, I implore you to check
your premises and stop this self-destructive behaviour before you
completely destroy yourself.
Besides, I've only read a quarter of the book, and I want to catch up. :)
Steve
Prohibited book-owner.
Larry Sanger
Steve Smolinski <s...@YorkU.CA> wrote:
> Besides, I've only read a quarter of the book, and I want to catch up. :)
Seriously, how do you find the book so far?
Larry Sanger
--
To reply remove "NOSPAM" from the address
JLH1942
Tony,
How does talking to Libertarians sanction there political party? Can't someone
try to persuade members of the Libertarian Party that aren't Objectivists that
the only philosophical base supporting their politics is Objectivism? There is
nothing immoral about trying to persuade people to your beliefs. I wouldn't
mind giving a speech about Objectivism or it's Libertarian politics to a group
of Communists. Maybe they will see the errors of their ways. Maybe they will
check their premises. I know of one former Communist that is now an
Objectivist.
Chris Wolf
Tony (the weasel) Donadio writes:
>I frankly don't think this is an issue, though. Even if the book were
>really good, that doesn't mean that he should decide to keep carrying
>it. There are other legitimate reasons for a bookseller deciding not
>to carry certain works. Not being willing to sanction the author is
>one of those reasons. Kelley's case is one example; another is the
>Reismans, who both privately and publicly attacked Peter Schwartz and
>tried to destroy his reputation.
The Reisman's never tried to destroy Schwartz, or ruin his reputation.
They simply acted to defend themselves against Schwartz when he tried
to destroy them, after the Reisman's attempted to expose Schwartz's
attempts to milk a large sum of money from ARI.
Tony always omits these little details, but you can read all the
details on my web site http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/ari/index.html
>> Regardless of whether Schwartz's criticisms of Kelley are valid or
>> not, it has absolutely nothing to do with his praise of "Evidence
>> of the Senses". My point is not whether someone can get Kelley's
>> book from SRB. You can obtain it elsewhere and I respect Schwartz's
>> right, as owner of SRB, to pull any book he wants.
>
>Good.
>
>> However, he should keep his *personal* beef with Kelley seperate
>> from his *business* dealings.
>
>Why?
>
>You just got finished saying that you respect Peter Schwartz's right
>as owner of SRB to pull any book he wants, and now you're trying to
>set the terms under which he can properly exercise that right? Make
>up your mind.
Apparently Donadio cannot understand the difference between "can" and
"should."
*********************************************
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
Ayn Rand On Emergencies
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/murder.html
*********************************************
Tony Donadio
Chris Wolf wrote:
> The Reisman's never tried to destroy Schwartz, or ruin his reputation.
> They simply acted to defend themselves against Schwartz when he tried
> to destroy them, after the Reisman's attempted to expose Schwartz's
> attempts to milk a large sum of money from ARI.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd like to think that this shows that Chris Wolf is suffering from a
very colorful form of dementia, but this is lie is just a little too
brazen for me to attribute to merely to psychosis.
What liar Wolf calls "Schwartz's attempts to milk a large sum of money
from ARI" was in fact a disagreement between the Reismans and the Board
of Directors over how much ARI should pay to instructors at the (then
forming) Objectivist Graduate Center. George's idea of how little to
pay these instructors was outrageous, considering what they were being
asked to do. Peter and Harry's time was worth far more than that. Most
of the Institute's other contributors seemed to agree, because the OGC
has never lacked for financial support.
> >> However, he should keep his *personal* beef with Kelley seperate
> >> from his *business* dealings.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Apparently Donadio cannot understand the difference between "can" and
> "should."
I understand the difference fine. And this answer doesn't address my
question.
Tony Donadio
Tony Donadio
Chris Wolf wrote:
> The Reisman's never tried to destroy Schwartz, or ruin his reputation.
> They simply acted to defend themselves against Schwartz when he tried
> to destroy them, after the Reisman's attempted to expose Schwartz's
> attempts to milk a large sum of money from ARI.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd like to think that this shows that Chris Wolf is suffering from
a very colorful form of dementia, but this lie is just a little too
brazen for me to attribute merely to psychosis.
What liar Wolf calls "Schwartz's attempts to milk a large sum of money
from ARI" was in fact a disagreement between the Reismans and the Board
of Directors over how much ARI should pay to instructors at the (then
forming) Objectivist Graduate Center. George's idea of how little to
pay these instructors was outrageous, considering what they were being
asked to do. Peter and Harry's time was worth far more than that. Most
of the Institute's other contributors seemed to agree, because the OGC
has never lacked for financial support.
By all means, do read the documents cited. They tell a somewhat
different story from Wolf's revisionist account.
Chris Wolf
Paul S. Hsieh writes:
>"Austin David Jr" <aus...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>My point is not whether someone can
>>get Kelley's book from SRB. You can obtain it elsewhere and I respect
>>Schwartz's right, as owner of SRB, to pull any book he wants. However, he
>>should keep his *personal* beef with Kelley seperate from his *business*
>>dealings.
>I have to respectfully disagree on this particular point.
>
>Let's say that I were a practicing physician who also ran a book service
>selling medical texts. Included in my bookstore listing was an
>excellent text on, say, neurosurgery written by a competent
>neurosurgeon. There was nothing wrong with the book per se -- the ideas
>and facts conveyed in this book were fine, and the book would be a
>legitimate value to any reader interested in the field.
>
>However, one day I become embroiled in a serious personal dispute with
>the author. As the dispute unfolds, serious public allegations are made
>-- he calls me a "liar", "dishonest", etc.
>
>At some point, I might find it totally appropriate to pull his books
>from my offerings. The position I would take would be something like,
>"Dr. X's textbook on neurosurgery is no longer being sold at my store.
>I decline to help him earn royalties through my efforts. If you want a
>copy of this book, you'll have to purchase it through another outlet".
>But I do *not* specifically claim that the contents of the book are now
>false (to do so would be unjustified.)
>
>I think this can be a very reasonable stance under the right
>circumstances.
I must respectfully disagree with this respectful disagreement, and
agree with Austin David.
If at all possible, a man's professional life should be kept separate
from his personal life. In the case of a bookseller, a book should be
judged on its merits, and not be affected by the bookseller's personal
evaluation of the author. Carrying a book by an author that you are
having a personal disagreement with, does not imply any personal
sanction of the author, and failing to carry the book simply makes you
look stupid. The book is available elsewhere, and you're simply
forgoing the profit to be made from selling it. You are also
inconveniencing me, the customer. If I find that I have to go to a
different bookstore to get what I'm looking for, because you have a
grudge with the author, then the next time I need a book, I will
probably skip you, and proceed directly to the other store.
I doubt that putting royalties in an author's pocket is going to have
any effect on his dispute with you, so what's the point of depriving
yourself of the sale? Of course, if you were black, it would probably
NOT be in your self-interest to carry books by the Ku Klux Klan, and I
would applaud your decision not to carry them. In fact, I would make
it a point to patronize a store that did NOT carry such books.
R Lawrence
Steve Smolinski <s...@YorkU.CA> wrote:
>Jason Lockwood (jl...@execpc.com) wrote:
>
>: What's that big book sitting on the shelf in my bedroom?
>
>: It's *gasp* George Reisman's _Capitalism_.
>
>I'm afraid that I've discovered some things about Mr Lockwood which
>distress me. He owns a prohibited book, and as if that isn't enough--he
>has actually started to *read* it! Mr Lawrence, I implore you to check
>your premises and stop this self-destructive behaviour before you
>completely destroy yourself.
I think you are confusing two different people. I'm taller than Jason, and
do not own a copy of _Capitalism_.
R Lawrence
>Schwartz praised his book before the break, then what has changed now that
>Kelley left. Has his recommendation *now* become 'invalid' or incorrect'?
>Schwartz looks like a hypocrite.
To the best of my knowledge (anyone with contrary information can correct
me), Schwartz has never said that _The Evidence of the Senses_ somehow
became a bad book because of Kelley's later actions. He has stopped
carrying it, but the logic for not carrying the book is not what you are
suggesting here.
>Regardless of whether Schwartz's
>criticisms of Kelley are valid or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with
>his praise of "Evidence of the Senses". My point is not whether someone can
>get Kelley's book from SRB. You can obtain it elsewhere and I respect
>Schwartz's right, as owner of SRB, to pull any book he wants. However, he
>should keep his *personal* beef with Kelley seperate from his *business*
>dealings.
Why? Is the Kelley who writes books a different person from the one who
Schwartz knew personally? Keep in mind that the disagreement in question is
over philosophical issues, and Schwartz is running an ideological book
service. Now, mind you, I think Schwartz's decision to not carry _The
Evidence of the Senses_ is a mistake. I would say that he should carry the
book based on its own merits, even if the author later said/wrote/acted
upon ideas that Schwartz does not agree with. But I would not make a
generalization like the one you gave above. For example, in the instance of
Resiman and Packer, where personal attacks were involved, it makes perfect
sense to me that he would refuse to carry their works, and I do not
disagree with his decision in that case.
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>Chris Wolf wrote:
>
>> The Reisman's never tried to destroy Schwartz, or ruin his reputation.
>> They simply acted to defend themselves against Schwartz when he tried
>> to destroy them, after the Reisman's attempted to expose Schwartz's
>> attempts to milk a large sum of money from ARI.
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>I'd like to think that this shows that Chris Wolf is suffering from a
>very colorful form of dementia, but this is lie is just a little too
>brazen for me to attribute to merely to psychosis.
The details are all available at my web site
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/ari/index.html. I urge everyone to read
the details for themselves, and decide who is telling the truth.
>What liar Wolf calls "Schwartz's attempts to milk a large sum of money
>from ARI" was in fact a disagreement between the Reismans and the Board
>of Directors over how much ARI should pay to instructors at the (then
>forming) Objectivist Graduate Center.
And who was on the ARI Board of Directors that voted to pay the high
salaries to Schwartz and Binswanger? Why, Schwartz and Binswanger, of
course! Surprise! That's right. Schwartz and Binswanger voted, as
members of the Board of Directors, to pay themselves high salaries out
of the ARI coffers, for teaching at the Objectivist Graduate Center.
Man, that doesn't even pass the sniff test!
>George's idea of how little to
>pay these instructors was outrageous, considering what they were being
>asked to do.
Huh? Apparently Donadio doesn't even know the basic facts of this
case. George didn't want to pay Schwartz and Binswanger AT ALL.
George thought that the needs of the students at the Objectivist
Graduate Center could be met just as well, and for far less money, by
using local Objectivist graduate students and PhDs, instead of flying
Schwartz and Binswanger across the country for seven weeks, and paying
them fifty thousand dollars (about ten times what a typical college
professor makes for the same amount of teaching).
Of course, this wouldn't have put any money in the pockets of Schwartz
and Binswanger, so George was declared to be "immoral," and kicked out
of the ARI.
Once again, we see that Donadio doesn't even know the basic facts of
the situation.
>Peter and Harry's time was worth far more than that. Most
>of the Institute's other contributors seemed to agree, because the OGC
>has never lacked for financial support.
Another Donadio half-truth. It's my understanding that the vast
majority of the support for OGC is made by one contributor, so the
fact that OGC is well-funded can hardly be taken as a ringing
endorsement, by the rest of the ARI's contributors, of the ARI's
willingness to pay Schwartz and Binswanger fat salaries. Once again
we see that Tony Donadio fails to tell all of the truth.
Tym Parsons
On 15 Dec 1997, Chris Wolf wrote:
> Schwartz and Binswanger voted, as
> members of the Board of Directors, to pay themselves high salaries out
> of the ARI coffers, for teaching at the Objectivist Graduate Center.
Big deal. How ARI allocates its money is a matter of public record,
published in its _Impact_ newsletter for all ARI contributors. If
contributors don't like the way ARI uses their money, they're free not to
contribute. In contrast, the scurrilous charges that Wolf makes imply
that ARI should be run by a "democracy" of contributers qua
"stakeholders", which is as flawed applied to ARI as it is applied to
for-profit corporations.
> George thought that the needs of the students at the Objectivist
> Graduate Center could be met just as well, and for far less money, by
> using local Objectivist graduate students and PhDs, instead of flying
> Schwartz and Binswanger across the country for seven weeks, and paying
> them fifty thousand dollars (about ten times what a typical college
> professor makes for the same amount of teaching).
>
> Of course, this wouldn't have put any money in the pockets of Schwartz
> and Binswanger, so George was declared to be "immoral," and kicked out
> of the ARI.
What bullshit. By all reports, all it means was that Reisman was peeved
that his ideas on how to run OSG weren't accepted by the rest of ARI's
board of directors. I can see where there could be honest disagreement
about whether Reisman's "budget" approach to the OGC was objectively as
effective as Schwartz's and Binswanger's.
What the poster really seems to be offended by is the fact that
Objectivist principals are willing to charge all the market will bear for
their expertise, as if somehow they should be giving it away unselfishly.
Tym Parsons
Tym Parsons
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, I wrote:
> By all reports, all it means was that Reisman was peeved
> that his ideas on how to run OSG weren't accepted by the rest of ARI's
> board of directors.
What I was referring to was OGC, the Objectivist Graduate Center. Not
OSG, the Objectivism Study Group.
Tym Parsons
[Insert gratuitous .sig here to compensate for unreasonable quote limits,
such that this post will get thru the HPO auto-moderation bot.]
David Friedman
In article
<Pine.OSF.3.96.97121...@saul10.u.washington.edu>, Tym
Parsons <tpar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>What the poster really seems to be offended by is the fact that
>Objectivist principals are willing to charge all the market will bear for
>their expertise, as if somehow they should be giving it away unselfishly.
>
>
>Tym Parsons
"All the market will bear" is a somewhat odd expression, applied to a
situation where the people who offer the price are the same as the people
receiving it. The board of directors of a corporation are fiduciaries, not
principles.
Do you have any evidence that Schwartz and Binswanger actually command
that price--fifty thousand dollars apiece for seven weeks of teaching--on
the open market? That anyone other than an organization whose board of
directors they were on was willing to pay it to them?
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
"No man is secure in his life, liberty or property
while the legislature is in session"
Jim Klein
In <DDFr-15129...@ddfr.vip.best.com> David Friedman
<DD...@best.com> writes:
>"All the market will bear" is a somewhat odd expression, applied to a
>situation where the people who offer the price are the same as the
>people receiving it.
Ha!! LOL...I gotta market that'll bear more than men could ever print!
jk
Tony Donadio
A quick comment on Chris Wolf's lies:
> And who was on the ARI Board of Directors that voted to pay the high
> salaries to Schwartz and Binswanger? Why, Schwartz and Binswanger, of
> course!
So? That doesn't change the fact that they were also the best
qualified to teach these courses, and that they were available.
> Huh? Apparently Donadio doesn't even know the basic facts of this
> case. George didn't want to pay Schwartz and Binswanger AT ALL.
> George thought that the needs of the students at the Objectivist
> Graduate Center could be met just as well, and for far less money, by
> using local Objectivist graduate students and PhDs, instead of flying
> Schwartz and Binswanger across the country for seven weeks, and paying
> them fifty thousand dollars (about ten times what a typical college
> professor makes for the same amount of teaching).
According to George's letter, that latter would be about $4k, and
the anticipated expense was $45k -- for two teachers. From what I
remember that included travel and living expenses for two months.
Work out the math for yourself, and see if that comes to anything
near ten times the amount cited.
Furthermore, as I understand it, the few local Objectivist graduate
students that would have been qualified to teach some of these
courses (such as Gary Hull) were not available to do so at the time.
Wolf, are you so stupid that it never occurred to you that ARI's
Board of Directors might have already explored that other option?
> Once again, we see that Donadio doesn't even know the basic facts of
> the situation.
Uh-huh.
Tony Donadio
Steve Reed
Tony Donadio writes:
>Chris Wolf wrote:
>>And who was on the ARI Board of Directors that voted to pay the high
>>salaries to Schwartz and Binswanger? Why, Schwartz and Binswanger,
>>of course!
Not simply "on" the board, but if Reisman's and others' reports are correct,
they -were- the board, as in being its entire membership at the time.
>So? That doesn't change the fact that they were also the best
>qualified to teach these courses, and that they were available.
Ever heard of "conflict of interest"? Or recusing yourself from a vote where
you're an interested party? This is a boilerplate requirement for corporate
bylaws, and I'd be surprised if Pennsylvania corporate statutes (where ARI is
incorporated) don't call for this as well.
If that makes it inconvenient -- and required appointing more directors, as
S&B did later, though not before giving themselves contracts -- well, since
when did they start to complain about following the law?
And who assessed the "fact" of their competence? Peikoff the Grand Sachem?
Methinks that some teaching of the teachers is necessary before you have
enough of them to run a "graduate center" or any other school properly.
Tym Parsons
On 16 Dec 1997, David Friedman wrote:
> >What the poster really seems to be offended by is the fact that
> >Objectivist principals are willing to charge all the market will bear for
> >their expertise, as if somehow they should be giving it away unselfishly.
> "All the market will bear" is a somewhat odd expression, applied to a
> situation where the people who offer the price are the same as the people
> receiving it. The board of directors of a corporation are fiduciaries, not
> principles.
Fiduciaries to whom and for what?
> Do you have any evidence that Schwartz and Binswanger actually command
> that price--fifty thousand dollars apiece for seven weeks of teaching--on
> the open market? That anyone other than an organization whose board of
> directors they were on was willing to pay it to them?
This is a rigged question if there ever was one. The only "open market"
involved here is non-profit organisations competing for tax-deductible
contributions. If contributors think that ARI is paying Schwartz and
Binswanger more than they're worth, then they're free to take their
money elsewhere.
Nicholas Rich
Tym Parsons wrote:
>
> On 16 Dec 1997, David Friedman wrote:
>>The board of directors of a corporation are fiduciaries, not
>> principles.
>
> Fiduciaries to whom and for what?
1. The owners (stockholders).
2. Directing the stable value and growth of their financial investment.
Nicholas Rich
--
Sachs, Savage & Noble . a...@ss-n.com . http://www.ss-n.com
Debt Reduction Professionals . Alternative Dispute Resolution
Opportunities with SSN . training program . contract negotiators
OFFSHORE OPPORTUNITIES . http://www.ss-n.com/offshore.htm
Jason Lockwood
>I'm afraid that I've discovered some things about Mr Lockwood which
>distress me. He owns a prohibited book, and as if that isn't enough--he
>has actually started to *read* it! Mr Lawrence, I implore you to check
>your premises and stop this self-destructive behaviour before you
>completely destroy yourself.
Steve,
It was all a ruse on my part to root out the traitors in our midst. I have a
direct line to Peikoff on who's reading Reisman so we can blacklist them
all.
Thanks for the revelation.
Jason Lockwood
<sarcastic grin>
Tony Donadio
Someone wrote:
> >>And who was on the ARI Board of Directors that voted to pay
> >>the high salaries to Schwartz and Binswanger? Why, Schwartz
> >>and Binswanger, of course!
>
> Not simply "on" the board, but if Reisman's and others' reports
> are correct, they -were- the board, as in being its entire
> membership at the time.
I reply as I did before:
> >So? That doesn't change the fact that they were also the best
> >qualified to teach these courses, and that they were available.
>
> Ever heard of "conflict of interest"? Or recusing yourself from
> a vote where you're an interested party?
I've heard of it. I don't believe in that conception of "conflict
of interest" and I never have. The premise behind it is that a
financial interest in the outcome of an issue prevents one from
acting objectively with regard to it. That's not my idea of
Objectivity.
Peter and Harry were empowered by myself, and every other person
who donated money to the Institute, to use that money according
to their judgement to advance Objectivism. I certainly don't
think they overpaid themselves, given what their time was worth
and what they were being asked to do. Any contributor who did
had and still has the option of not contributing further.
> This is a boilerplate requirement for corporate bylaws, and
> I'd be surprised if Pennsylvania corporate statutes (where
> ARI is incorporated) don't call for this as well.
Then be surprised. The Institute sought legal counsel and was
advised that this was not a problem.
> And who assessed the "fact" of their competence?
I guess that I and the Institute's other contributors did, by
approving of their actions and continuing to send them money.
Given what the Institute's accomplished over the last few
years especially, I think the facts bear out our judgement.
Tony Donadio
J. Kendrick McPeters
R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.spam.com> wrote:
>I thought the "obvious" explanation was that there is a personal feud
>between Schwartz and Reisman. You know, things like Reisman and his wife,
>Edith Packer, questioning Schwartz's teaching qualifications and such --
>accusations that, as one might expect, Schwartz doesn't take kindly to.
Why shouldn't Reisman and Packer question Schwartz' "qualifications"
to lecture on economics and psychology? Jeeze, what the hell is that
jerk qualified for... other than hysterical propagandizing?
A hundred years from now, Reisman will be remembered for writing a
thousand page textbook which proved the case for laissez faire. And
Peter Schwartz will be remembered (if at all!) for one of his stupid
rants being shoehorned into a book by Ayn Rand.
Reisman is a creator; Schwartz is a second hander. If Ayn Rand had
never lived, Reisman would still, in all probability, be an economist.
But, in a world without Rand, there would be no Peter Schwartz. His
whole shtick is to "channel" Ayn Rand... alas, he's not a very good
channeller, so he only gives us "Ayn Rand in a bad mood."
>Personally, I have bought most of my books thru "non-approved channels."
You'd have a very small library, were that not the case!
>Heck, Schwartz doesn't even carry as many books as I have!
Indeed, I recently visited the Strictly Randian Books webpage (thanks
Steve!) and was SHOCKED to see how damn few books there are. I mean,
it looked like you could list em all, in 12 point type, on one side of
a letter sized page! (Purging all who disagree may be one way to live
a personal life, but it sure doesn't make for much of a bookstore!)
>So I must be a major intellect with extra helpings of integrity.
Yep. I think your presence on HPO gives Objectivism far more "credit"
than the current "leadership" deserves.
>Well, it isn't so much odd as unfortunate, although it hardly amounts to a
>"banned books list."
They may not be "banned," but all their merits sure have been lost in
the Memory Hole, haven't they?
>If Kelley wrote valuable books prior to his break with
>the ARI (and he did), then one can always go get them from a source other
>than SRB. That's what I did -- and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.
That's because you're a rational person, more interested in knowing
the truth, than in conforming to a cult. I'm sure you aren't alone...
but I'd bet there are more Betsy Speichers (who I'm sure would NEVER
read a book by an outcast heretic) in the ARI than Richard Lawrences.
And that's truly a pity!
>(Not that dense books on epistemology are the mostly widely read material,
>even among Objectivists.) The notion that the SRB catalog somehow controls
>what Objectivists may or may not read is utterly silly.
Controlling what Objectivists read, and ASPIRING to control, are two
different things, though. How long would a student at OGC last, if he
bought Reisman's book and "carried on" about how great it is?
Not long, I'd bet....
---Kendrick
Betsy Speicher
On 17 Dec 1997, J. Kendrick McPeters wrote:
> That's because you're a rational person, more interested in knowing
> the truth, than in conforming to a cult. I'm sure you aren't alone...
> but I'd bet there are more Betsy Speichers (who I'm sure would NEVER
> read a book by an outcast heretic) in the ARI than Richard Lawrences.
Wrong again, McPeters.
I've read both Branden books on Rand very thoroughly, the James Baker
book, Jerome Tucille, Albert Ellis, and many, many other books you'll
never find in the SRB catalog. I get a kick out of seeing new books about
Rand as a sign of her growing influence in our culture.
I am also heartened by the fact that criticisms of her are either based on
inaccurate descriptions of matters of fact (like what Rand's ideas
actually are) or the author's own wrong ideas. If that is the best the
opposition has to offer, we have already won.
Betsy Speicher
Ayn Rand's Ideas On Talk Radio Every Week--"Philosophy Who Needs It"
For stations, topics, and to send your comments:
Jim Klein
In <SteveReed.1...@earthling.net> Steve Reed
<Stev...@earthling.net> writes:
>Ever heard of "conflict of interest"? Or recusing yourself from a vote
>where you're an interested party? This is a boilerplate requirement
>for corporate bylaws,
Not hardly; I think it applies only in certain situations. Lordy,
would I be in trouble with a rule like that!
>and I'd be surprised if Pennsylvania corporate statutes (where ARI is
>incorporated) don't call for this as well.
They may or may not have laws against Directors voting on resolutions
in which they have "conflict of interest." I have no idea, but I'd
guess not. Either way, if the ARI is some kind of tax-exempt or
non-profit (tsk tsk if so), then I'm sure all sorts of public filings
are readily available. The members of the BofD on a certain date would
seem to be a simple one, but I really can't say for certain.
jk
Jim Klein
In <349734...@monmouth.com> Tony Donadio <tdon...@monmouth.com>
writes:
>Peter and Harry were empowered by myself, and every other person
>who donated money to the Institute, to use that money according
>to their judgement to advance Objectivism.
Finally! I've been asking for years...what the hell is your goal?
Thanks Tony, for answering.
NOW, it appears that we can finally identify the goal as being "not
accomplished," to put it mildly. Of course, in all fairness I guess
we've got to wait and see the P.O.D. entry for "advance"!
>Given what the Institute's accomplished over the last few
>years especially, I think the facts bear out our judgement.
Given what the Institute's accomplished over the last few years, I
think the facts are that your judgemet is bare.
jk
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>>Steve Reed writes:
>> Ever heard of "conflict of interest"? Or recusing yourself from
>> a vote where you're an interested party?
>I've heard of it. I don't believe in that conception of "conflict
>of interest" and I never have. The premise behind it is that a
>financial interest in the outcome of an issue prevents one from
>acting objectively with regard to it. That's not my idea of
>Objectivity.
It's not reality's idea of Objectivity either. It's too much to
expect a man to be objective when he's given the power to decide how
much to pay himself.
Tony Donadio lacks common sense.
>Peter and Harry were empowered by myself, and every other person
>who donated money to the Institute, to use that money according
>to their judgement to advance Objectivism. I certainly don't
>think they overpaid themselves, given what their time was worth
>and what they were being asked to do. Any contributor who did
>had and still has the option of not contributing further.
This is why the ARI will likely go on forever. Suckers like Tony
Donadio can rationalize damn near ANYTHING. It's like listening to a
Scientologist.
Time for another episode of Wolf's Fabulous Fables:
************
Once upon a time there was a mighty hunter named Peter Schwartz. One
day, Schwartz went hunting for food, and he took along his faithful
dog, Tony D. The two friends headed for Contributor Mountain, where
game was said to be plentiful, and tender to tooth.
Alas, after many days of wandering, they failed to find any game.
Finally, when Schwartz grew hungry, he pulled out his knife, whacked
off Tony D's tail, and roasted and ate the tail.
His hunger satisfied, Schwartz threw the tail bones to the dog. Tony
D was so grateful to be fed, that he licked Schwartz's hand in
grateful appreciation.
And that, boys and girls, is a true story of fundraising at The Ayn
Rand Institute.
J. Kendrick McPeters
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>It's not reality's idea of Objectivity either. It's too much to
>expect a man to be objective when he's given the power to
>decide how much to pay himself.
No shit. Just look at Congress!
>Tony Donadio lacks common sense.
Don't forget about decency and loyalty to his friends!
>This is why the ARI will likely go on forever. Suckers like Tony
>Donadio can rationalize damn near ANYTHING. It's like listening to a
>Scientologist.
Yes, I've been noticing a lot of parallels between Scientology and
Objectivism. For instance, there are now Scientologists who reject
the "church" and its leadership, but continue to practice the "tech."
Of course, when all is said and done, Scientology is about 10,000%
more effective than ARI Objectivism! Perhaps Peikoff might try and
lure away some of Scientology's top management?
>Time for another episode of Wolf's Fabulous Fables:
<fable snipped>
Hilarious! I love it. More "Fabulous Fables," please!!!
---Kendrick
Chris Wolf
Tym Parsons writes:
>On 16 Dec 1997, David Friedman wrote:
>> Do you have any evidence that Schwartz and Binswanger actually command
>> that price--fifty thousand dollars apiece for seven weeks of teaching--on
>> the open market? That anyone other than an organization whose board of
>> directors they were on was willing to pay it to them?
>This is a rigged question if there ever was one. The only "open market"
>involved here is non-profit organisations competing for tax-deductible
>contributions. If contributors think that ARI is paying Schwartz and
>Binswanger more than they're worth, then they're free to take their
>money elsewhere.
That's what I did. I'm damned if I'm going to contribute money, just
so Schwartz and Binswanger can vote to pay themselves ten times what a
college professor would make for a similar amount of work.
Tony Donadio
> That's what I did. I'm damned if I'm going to contribute money, just
> so Schwartz and Binswanger can vote to pay themselves ten times what
> a college professor would make for a similar amount of work.
In other words: the preparation and teaching of an entire semester
of full-time coursework by two highly experienced and accomplished
Objectivist intellectuals has a fair market value of about $4,000
-- travel and expenses included.
Yep. That makes sense.
Tony Donadio
Betsy Speicher
On 12 Dec 1997, Jason Lockwood wrote:
> I am also tremendously insulted by the view that Objectivist conferences
> are for "country club types." I attend them for the same reasons Tony
> and John do: they offer me the chance to learn something valuable that I
> can apply to *my* life in benevolent, happy surroundings. I attended the
> Lyceum conference in Irvine, California this past August and *had the
> time of my life*. I learned a lot, I laughed a lot and I experienced the
> joy of a world that can and ought to be. If that's a "country club,"
> count me as a member.
I had a wonderful time too -- as usual -- with challenging ideas,
wonderful people, music, dancing, art, partying and talking until the wee
small hours. I also enjoyed watching the singles mingle and flirt.
(There are about four or five marriages per year of people who met at
Objectivist conferences.) I like to see how so-and-so's kids have grown
since I saw them last year or two years ago. I also met several old
friends (from the 'net) for the first time (in person). I can't think of
a more fantastic way to spend a summer vacation.
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
Especially since there were two Objectivist PhDs already in the area,
plus several Objectivist grad students, who would have been happy to
teach the course for about $4,000. Also, since these alternate
teachers already live in the area, they would not have needed expenses
for travel, housing, food, rental cars, etc., which Schwartz and
Binswanger needed.
Of course, this wouldn't have put any money in the pockets of Schwartz
or Binswanger, so it was promptly vetoed.
Tony Donadio
Chris Wolf wrote:
> Especially since there were two Objectivist PhDs already in the area,
> plus several Objectivist grad students, who would have been happy to
> teach the course for about $4,000.
Really? Now where does Wolf get THAT information from? I presume he
gets it from George Reisman's letter, which says "*I'm sure they
would all be delighted* [emphasis added] to give regular semester-
length courses at rates competitive with the part-time rates
prevailing in higher education--i.e., at $4,000 per course or less."
Did Reisman (or Wolf, who is doing an admirable job of acting as
his unthinking stooge in this matter) in fact know anything about
the willingness or availablility of the local Objectivist PhDs to
teach these courses at those rates? NO.
> Also, since these alternate teachers already live in the area,
> they would not have needed expenses for travel, housing, food,
> rental cars, etc., which Schwartz and Binswanger needed.
Wolf evades the following, which I wrote in an earlier post:
>Furthermore, as I understand it, the few local Objectivist graduate
>students that would have been qualified to teach some of these
>courses (such as Gary Hull) were not available to do so at the time.
>
>Wolf, are you so stupid that it never occurred to you that ARI's
>Board of Directors might have already explored that other option?
I won't hold my breath waiting for Wolf to address this question,
rather than evade it. After all, there's no anti-ARI propaganda
capital to be made from it.
Second point to note: Reisman is talking about $4k *PER COURSE*.
When you multiply this by the half-dozen or so courses that
comprise a semester at the OGC, you're already talking over $20k
-- over half the amount discussed for paying Peter and Harry.
THIS is what liar Wolf dishonestly calls "ten times what a college
professor would make for a similar amount of work." You might make
an argument for two or at most two and a half times (which I think
is appropriately generous, particularly considering the instructors'
credentials and how underpaid people are in academia) -- but ten?
And this creature has the gall to accuse others of speaking half-
truths. I think the question of just who is distorting the facts
in this matter, and for what agenda, should be pretty clear to
the readers here.
Tony Donadio
Tony Donadio
One further comment on the following assertion:
> > Especially since there were two Objectivist PhDs already in the area,
> > plus several Objectivist grad students, who would have been happy to
> > teach the course for about $4,000.
At the time, at least one, and I'm pretty sure both, of the PhD's
in question had university teaching positions and were working hard
to get tenure. Does it seem reasonable that they would be willing
to blithely drop those efforts to accept a teaching position at an
experiment like the proposed OGC? The principals who were selected
to teach at it, on the other hand, were both more qualified for the
job and were free to accept it.
As for the grad students: even if any of them were free to take
on a full-time teaching position at university wages, which I
would question, were any of them really qualified yet to teach
the intended program? I don't think so.
Tony Donadio
J. Kendrick McPeters
Tony Donadio <tdon...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>As for the grad students: even if any of them were free to take
>on a full-time teaching position at university wages, which I
>would question, were any of them really qualified yet to teach
>the intended program? I don't think so.
What are Peter Schwartz' "qualifications" to teach about economics or
psychology? None that I'm aware of. Now, if he were to teach a
course in "hatchet job journalism," that would be a different story!
---Kendrick
Tony Donadio
Here's another quote from George Reisman's letter:
>Of course, along with Leonard, Harry has to have a leading
>role in any ARI program. After Leonard, he is presently the
>foremost Objectivist philosopher. He also has extensive
>teaching experience, and in a more rational world he would
>certainly be a professor of philosophy. I do not object to
>the overall level of compensation being requested for him.
Even George Reisman agrees that Harry, at least, wasn't
being overpaid. Do you think he would have said that if the
compensation in question really amounted to *ten times* the
university rate, as liar Wolf would have you believe?
As for Peter Schwartz: I have a great deal of respect for
his knowledge of Objectivism, and particularly his skill
as a writer and as a writing editor. I do not agree with
Reisman's assessment of him, and neither, apparently, do
the Institute's other contributors. In particular, I have
nothing but contempt for the view that his writing classes
amounted to "remedial composition" (especially considering
that that remark was coming from someone who is notorious
for being a less than clear and skilled writer himself).
I know many of the current and past OGC students, and
they all RAVE about the value of these writing classes.
Tony Donadio
Jim Klein
In <349D31...@monmouth.com> Tony Donadio <tdon...@monmouth.com>
writes:
>I think the question of just who is distorting the facts
>in this matter, and for what agenda, should be pretty clear to
>the readers here.
Indeed it is. Unfortunately, less clear to them is exactly what such
an appeal on your part represents!
jk
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>Chris Wolf wrote:
>
>> Especially since there were two Objectivist PhDs already in the area,
>> plus several Objectivist grad students, who would have been happy to
>> teach the course for about $4,000.
>
>Really? Now where does Wolf get THAT information from? I presume he
>gets it from George Reisman's letter, which says "*I'm sure they
>would all be delighted* [emphasis added] to give regular semester-
>length courses at rates competitive with the part-time rates
>prevailing in higher education--i.e., at $4,000 per course or less."
That's where I got it.
>Did Reisman (or Wolf, who is doing an admirable job of acting as
>his unthinking stooge in this matter) in fact know anything about
>the willingness or availablility of the local Objectivist PhDs to
>teach these courses at those rates? NO.
And how does Donadio know this? No answer.
Presumably Reisman knew all the principals involved, and had a pretty
good idea of who was available to do what. I doubt if he would have
even suggested it, otherwise.
>> Also, since these alternate teachers already live in the area,
>> they would not have needed expenses for travel, housing, food,
>> rental cars, etc., which Schwartz and Binswanger needed.
>Wolf evades the following, which I wrote in an earlier post:
>
>>Furthermore, as I understand it, the few local Objectivist graduate
>>students that would have been qualified to teach some of these
>>courses (such as Gary Hull) were not available to do so at the time.
Donadio's "understanding" seems to differ from Reisman's
understanding. Given Donadio's track record, I think I'll stick with
Reisman's understanding.
In any case, Donadio's point, even if true, is immaterial. Reisman's
objection was over the fact that local alternate teachers, at much
lower cost, hadn't even been considered by the ARI. Reisman simply
wanted this option to be considered before Schwartz and Binswanger
voted to spend fifty thousand dollars to hire Schwartz and Binswanger
as teachers.
>>Wolf, are you so stupid that it never occurred to you that ARI's
>>Board of Directors might have already explored that other option?
Sure, it occurred to me. But then I realized that if they had done
so, all they had to do was tell Reisman, and that would have been the
end of the matter. Since they didn't, I think we're relatively safe
in assuming that the ARI did NOT explore that other option. Certainly
there has been no mention, from any of the principals involved, that
ARI made the slightest effort to explore this option.
Of course, if you really think the ARI did explore this option, why
don't you ask them? But I sort of doubt that you will do this, since
you already know the answer just as well as I do.
>I won't hold my breath waiting for Wolf to address this question,
>rather than evade it. After all, there's no anti-ARI propaganda
>capital to be made from it.
If there is one thing that every living soul on HPO should know by
now, it's that I NEVER evade a question.
Once again we see the fantasy world that Tony Donadio lives in.
Unlike Donadio, getting to the truth is my first priority. While I
have many strong opinions and agendas, I will NEVER subordinate the
truth, just to push an opinion or agenda. This is where I differ from
Donadio.
>Second point to note: Reisman is talking about $4k *PER COURSE*.
>When you multiply this by the half-dozen or so courses that
>comprise a semester at the OGC, you're already talking over $20k
>-- over half the amount discussed for paying Peter and Harry.
Sounds like creative accounting to me. Split one course into six (at
least on paper) and then submit six invoices. In any case, it's
guaranteed to cost much more to hire Peter and Harry, than to hire the
local talent. The local talent does not need to be transported across
the country, and does not have to be compensated for food, housing,
and transportation.
>THIS is what liar Wolf dishonestly calls "ten times what a college
>professor would make for a similar amount of work." You might make
>an argument for two or at most two and a half times (which I think
>is appropriately generous, particularly considering the instructors'
>credentials and how underpaid people are in academia) -- but ten?
This is idiot Donadio's idea of a lie. I say it's ten times as much;
he says it's only two and a half times as much, therefore I'm lying.
I think we've identified Donadio's problem.
Is it too much? Here's what Dr. Jerry Kirkpatrick, a college
professor (and an Objectivist) has to say about it:
"I do not think many contributors would agree to spending
approximately $6400 per student as this proposal suggests. (The figure
is based on a starting class of seven students and includes the
proposed expenses for the two faculty.) On an annual basis, this
amounts to $12,800 per student! The California State University, (CSU)
an educational system not known for frugality, spends only $7500 per
student annually."
>And this creature has the gall to accuse others of speaking half-
>truths. I think the question of just who is distorting the facts
>in this matter, and for what agenda, should be pretty clear to
>the readers here.
Indeed. I think it's clear that Donadio is simply unable to identify
the essence of this situation. It really doesn't matter if the ARI
was proposing to pay ten times too much, or only twice as much. The
point is, they have a fiduciary obligation not to waste the
contributors' money. If there's a cheaper way to get the job done,
they have an obligation to check it out. Reisman's complaint is that
they did not bother to check out a cheaper alternative.
The fact is, Schwartz and Binswanger voted to pay themselves very
large salaries, did not bother to investigate a cheaper option, and
did not even attempt to avoid the appearance of an obvious conflict of
interest.
This one doesn't even pass the sniff test. However I'm sure we're all
touched by Donadio's blind loyalty.
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>One further comment on the following assertion:
>
>> > Especially since there were two Objectivist PhDs already in the area,
>> > plus several Objectivist grad students, who would have been happy to
>> > teach the course for about $4,000.
>At the time, at least one, and I'm pretty sure both, of the PhD's
>in question had university teaching positions and were working hard
>to get tenure. Does it seem reasonable that they would be willing
>to blithely drop those efforts to accept a teaching position at an
>experiment like the proposed OGC? The principals who were selected
>to teach at it, on the other hand, were both more qualified for the
>job and were free to accept it.
I rather imagine that the Objectivist PhDs, in question, would have
taught the OGC on a part-time basis. Certainly they would not have
resigned their academic positions to do so, and I doubt if there would
have been any need to do so. I think it's very unlikely that Reisman
would have overlooked such an obvious objection.
I could contact Reisman, and ask him for the details, but I think it's
immaterial. The important point, which Donadio ignores, is that ARI
did not bother to check out this cheaper alternative before hiring
Schwartz and Binswanger. Of course, this may have something to do
with the fact that Schwartz and Binswanger were on the Board of
Directors that voted to hire Schwartz and Binswanger.
Of course, if I was Donadio, I too would be grasping at any straw to
get Schwartz and Binswanger off the hook.
>As for the grad students: even if any of them were free to take
>on a full-time teaching position at university wages, which I
>would question, were any of them really qualified yet to teach
>the intended program? I don't think so.
They were certainly as qualified as Peter Schwartz. Probably more so.
Tony Donadio
Chris Wolf wrote:
> Presumably Reisman knew all the principals involved, and had a pretty
> good idea of who was available to do what. I doubt if he would have
> even suggested it, otherwise.
>
>...
>
> Sure, it occurred to me. But then I realized that if they had done
> so, all they had to do was tell Reisman, and that would have been the
> end of the matter. Since they didn't, I think we're relatively safe
> in assuming that the ARI did NOT explore that other option.
Wolf presumes a great deal about situation that he obviously doesn't
know anything about. It's been a few years, but I remember reading a
written comment from one of the principals to the effect that the
George's suggestion wasn't viable because the PhDs in question
were not available. I don't see how he could have known that if
ARI had not inquired about the matter.
> >Second point to note: Reisman is talking about $4k *PER COURSE*.
> >When you multiply this by the half-dozen or so courses that
> >comprise a semester at the OGC, you're already talking over $20k
> >-- over half the amount discussed for paying Peter and Harry.
>
> Sounds like creative accounting to me. Split one course into
> six (at least on paper) and then submit six invoices.
Jesus, will Wolf stop at nothing to invent excuses to attack
these people? This is transparent, muckraking bullshit, and
it's not worth the dignity of commenting on further.
Tony Donadio
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>Here's another quote from George Reisman's letter:
>
>>Of course, along with Leonard, Harry has to have a leading
>>role in any ARI program. After Leonard, he is presently the
>>foremost Objectivist philosopher. He also has extensive
>>teaching experience, and in a more rational world he would
>>certainly be a professor of philosophy. I do not object to
>>the overall level of compensation being requested for him.
>
>Even George Reisman agrees that Harry, at least, wasn't
>being overpaid. Do you think he would have said that if the
>compensation in question really amounted to *ten times* the
>university rate, as liar Wolf would have you believe?
Reisman also said, "At the same time, however, even with his
[Binswanger] inclusion on these terms, I think it is obvious that a
much more substantial program could be launched for the same cost as
is presently being contemplated."
In other words, "We can get a lot more for out money, elsewhere."
What Donadio fails to mention is that salaries paid to Schwartz and
Binswanger were only part of the cost. There was also the cost of
transporting Schwartz and Binswanger across the country, then housing
and feeding them for many weeks, providing them with rental cars, etc.
As I've said before, it really doesn't matter if the cost was ten
times, or only twice as much. The point is that ARI did not even
consider a lower-cost alternative. And this is what Reisman was
objecting to.
>As for Peter Schwartz: I have a great deal of respect for
>his knowledge of Objectivism, and particularly his skill
>as a writer and as a writing editor. I do not agree with
>Reisman's assessment of him, and neither, apparently, do
>the Institute's other contributors.
When truth is determined by vote, that claim might mean something.
>In particular, I have
>nothing but contempt for the view that his writing classes
>amounted to "remedial composition" (especially considering
>that that remark was coming from someone who is notorious
>for being a less than clear and skilled writer himself).
>I know many of the current and past OGC students, and
>they all RAVE about the value of these writing classes.
No doubt they were very happy to have their composition skills
remedied.
Tony Donadio
Chris Wolf wrote:
> I rather imagine that the Objectivist PhDs, in question, would have
> taught the OGC on a part-time basis. Certainly they would not have
> resigned their academic positions to do so, and I doubt if there would
> have been any need to do so. I think it's very unlikely that Reisman
> would have overlooked such an obvious objection.
Wolf's limitless faith in George Reisman is touching. I point out
obvious issues that Reisman's remarks overlook, which Reisman has
never addressed publicly, and Wolf can only repeat variations on
the theme of "Oh, I'm sure George Reisman would never have said
what he said unless he had taken those things into account."
His naivete is equally touching. A tenure track philosophy
professor has a limited amount of time in which to build up
a large resume of publications and other work acceptable in
academia, or he's history. Ever hear the phrase "publish or
perish?" Is it reasonable to blithely assume that these people
could have taken on the additional responsibilities of teaching
part-time courses at the OGC, when those courses would have
been useless to their pursuit of tenure?
> ...ARI did not bother to check out this cheaper alternative
> before hiring Schwartz and Binswanger.
I will point out, again, that Chris Wolf does not know this.
I will also add that he might know better if he actually tried
reading the handwritten remarks on the mailings he transcribed,
and which he so conveniently neglected to include in his web
site.
Tony Donadio
Betsy Speicher
On 21 Dec 1997, Chris Wolf wrote:
> >>Chris Wolf writes:
> >> That's what I did. I'm damned if I'm going to contribute money, just
> >> so Schwartz and Binswanger can vote to pay themselves ten times what
> >> a college professor would make for a similar amount of work.
>
>
> Of course, this wouldn't have put any money in the pockets of Schwartz
> or Binswanger, so it was promptly vetoed.
I don't know if you are aware of it, but Harry Binswanger is independently
wealthy -- VERY wealthy -- as the heir of Binswanger Glass of Richmond,
VA. He has also been a huge financial supporter of the Ayn Rand
Institute. While it is only justice that he be paid for his teaching, the
net result is that he has put far more money into ARI's pockets than they
have ever put into his.
Chris Wolf
Betsy Speicher writes:
>On 21 Dec 1997, Chris Wolf wrote:
>
>> >>Chris Wolf writes:
>> >> That's what I did. I'm damned if I'm going to contribute money, just
>> >> so Schwartz and Binswanger can vote to pay themselves ten times what
>> >> a college professor would make for a similar amount of work.
>>
>> Of course, this wouldn't have put any money in the pockets of Schwartz
>> or Binswanger, so it was promptly vetoed.
>I don't know if you are aware of it, but Harry Binswanger is independently
>wealthy -- VERY wealthy -- as the heir of Binswanger Glass of Richmond,
>VA. He has also been a huge financial supporter of the Ayn Rand
>Institute. While it is only justice that he be paid for his teaching, the
>net result is that he has put far more money into ARI's pockets than they
>have ever put into his.
So it is claimed. Of course we will never know for sure, since the
ARI does not make the details of its financial operations, public.
For all we know, Binswanger has taken out far more than he has put in.
Given the fact that Binswanger voted himself a huge salary, and then
failed to justify it when Reisman objected to it, we have to assume
that any sort of financial impropriety is possible at the ARI.
Yes, I'm quite aware that Binswanger is very wealthy. Perhaps he has
contributed a great deal of money to the ARI. I also know that he is
a qualified teacher, certainly quite capable of teaching at the OGC,
and I agree that he should be paid a fair market value for any
teaching that he does.
But all that is quite immaterial to the point. And the point is, that
Binswanger voted to pay himself a nice fat salary for teaching at the
OGC, and then completely failed to answer George Reisman's claim that
the teaching could have been obtained elsewhere for far less money.
If you're on the Board of Directors of a non-profit organization like
the ARI, begging for contributions, and you vote to pay yourself a
nice fat salary, you'd better be prepared to prove squeaky clean when
someone objects. You'd better be prepared to prove, beyond the shadow
of a doubt, that you were the best-qualified for the job, that there
were no acceptable, lower-cost alternatives, and that you were paid a
reasonable, fair-market wage.
Otherwise, the rest of us are fully justified in assuming that you're
simply lining your pockets with our hard-earned contributions.
And THAT'S the point.
And that's why I don't contribute to the ARI.
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>Chris Wolf wrote:
>
>> Presumably Reisman knew all the principals involved, and had a pretty
>> good idea of who was available to do what. I doubt if he would have
>> even suggested it, otherwise.
>>...
>> Sure, it occurred to me. But then I realized that if they had done
>> so, all they had to do was tell Reisman, and that would have been the
>> end of the matter. Since they didn't, I think we're relatively safe
>> in assuming that the ARI did NOT explore that other option.
>Wolf presumes a great deal about situation that he obviously doesn't
>know anything about. It's been a few years, but I remember reading a
>written comment from one of the principals to the effect that the
>George's suggestion wasn't viable because the PhDs in question
>were not available. I don't see how he could have known that if
>ARI had not inquired about the matter.
Maybe he didn't know it. Maybe this was just a convenient excuse, in
an attempt to justify the fat salaries paid to Binswanger and
Schwartz. It's just the sort of convenient excuse that guys like
Donadio are willing to accept, in lieu of proof.
But if it's true, then let the ARI publicly state it. Let them prove
that they looked into George's suggestion, and determined that it
wasn't viable. Let them obtain signed statements from Darryl Wright,
Gary Hull, Linda Reardan, and Dave Harriman, that these people were
not available to teach at the OGC (at a much lower cost), instead of
hiring Binswanger and Schwartz. And then let them also prove that the
salaries paid to Binswanger and Schwartz were reasonable when compared
to fair-market salaries for similar work.
Until the ARI DOES do this, the rest of us are justified in assuming
that Reisman's suggestion was ignored, and that Binswanger and
Schwartz were simply trying to line their pockets.
>> >Second point to note: Reisman is talking about $4k *PER COURSE*.
>> >When you multiply this by the half-dozen or so courses that
>> >comprise a semester at the OGC, you're already talking over $20k
>> >-- over half the amount discussed for paying Peter and Harry.
>> Sounds like creative accounting to me. Split one course into
>> six (at least on paper) and then submit six invoices.
>Jesus, will Wolf stop at nothing to invent excuses to attack
>these people? This is transparent, muckraking bullshit, and
>it's not worth the dignity of commenting on further.
I don't have to invent excuses. Everything done by the ARI is
automatically suspect. The ARI has already demonstrated that it is
quite willing to allow Binswanger and Schwartz to vote themselves fat
salaries, and then refuse to justify such salaries when questioned by
reputable and credible opponents (George Reisman & Jerry Kirkpatrick).
By being willing to tolerate the appearance of financial impropriety
and conflict of interest, EVERYTHING done by the ARI is automatically
suspect, and the rest of us are entitled to assume the worst in every
case.
That's what happens when you lose your credibility. That's what
happens when you allow the appearance of financial impropriety to go
unanswered.
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>Chris Wolf wrote:
>
>> I rather imagine that the Objectivist PhDs, in question, would have
>> taught the OGC on a part-time basis. Certainly they would not have
>> resigned their academic positions to do so, and I doubt if there would
>> have been any need to do so. I think it's very unlikely that Reisman
>> would have overlooked such an obvious objection.
>Wolf's limitless faith in George Reisman is touching.
I have faith in George Reisman's common sense. Nothing more is
needed.
>I point out
>obvious issues that Reisman's remarks overlook, which Reisman has
>never addressed publicly, and Wolf can only repeat variations on
>the theme of "Oh, I'm sure George Reisman would never have said
>what he said unless he had taken those things into account."
George Reisman is not on trial here. The ARI is. The ARI is the one
that permitted two members of its Board of Directors (Binswanger &
Schwartz) to vote themselves fat salaries, and then refused to justify
those salaries when challenged by reputable and credible opponents
(Reisman and Kirkpatrick).
All Reisman has to do is raise the objection that lower-cost
alternatives were not considered by the ARI. It is then up to the ARI
to prove that Reisman's alternative is unworkable. Reisman is not
required to address every conceivable side issue that Tony Donadio can
dream up.
If it turns out that Reisman did not check on the availability of the
Objectivist PhDs, before proposing that they be hired to teach at the
OGC, then Reisman merely looks stupid. If the ARI refuses to prove
that it checked out Reisman's proposal, then the ARI looks dishonest.
>His naivete is equally touching. A tenure track philosophy
>professor has a limited amount of time in which to build up
>a large resume of publications and other work acceptable in
>academia, or he's history. Ever hear the phrase "publish or
>perish?" Is it reasonable to blithely assume that these people
>could have taken on the additional responsibilities of teaching
>part-time courses at the OGC, when those courses would have
>been useless to their pursuit of tenure?
Seeing as how Gary Hull is a featured speaker at almost every
Objectivist conference (which does nothing to advance his pursuit of
tenure), and since Hull is one of the people that Reisman proposed as
a lower-cost alternative to Schwartz and Binswanger, I think it's a
very reasonable assumption that someone like Hull could have taken on
the additional responsibility of teaching part-time courses at the
OGC, even though such courses would have been useless to his pursuit
of tenure.
Donadio is REALLY starting to grasp at straws.
>> ...ARI did not bother to check out this cheaper alternative
>> before hiring Schwartz and Binswanger.
>I will point out, again, that Chris Wolf does not know this.
It's a reasonable, justified assumption, given the fact that the ARI
has never attempted to address the appearance of gross financial
impropriety that resulted from permitting Schwartz and Binswanger to
vote themselves fat salaries. Especially when you consider that the
objection to this activity was raised by George Reisman; a member of
the ARI Board of Advisors at the time
>I will also add that he might know better if he actually tried
>reading the handwritten remarks on the mailings he transcribed,
>and which he so conveniently neglected to include in his web
>site.
When I transcribed the documents, in question, onto my web site, I
very carefully examined the handwritten remarks in the margins. Most
of the remarks were illegible. The remarks that were legible, added
nothing of any significance. I also asked several other people to
examine the handwritten remarks, to see if they could catch (or
translate) anything important that I might have missed. They found
nothing.
Now if Donadio thinks he has discovered something that I overlooked,
then let him put up or shut up.
Chris Wolf
Betsy Speicher writes:
>On 21 Dec 1997, Chris Wolf wrote:
>
>> >>Chris Wolf writes:
>> >> That's what I did. I'm damned if I'm going to contribute money, just
>> >> so Schwartz and Binswanger can vote to pay themselves ten times what
>> >> a college professor would make for a similar amount of work.
>>
>> Of course, this wouldn't have put any money in the pockets of Schwartz
>> or Binswanger, so it was promptly vetoed.
>I don't know if you are aware of it, but Harry Binswanger is independently
>wealthy -- VERY wealthy -- as the heir of Binswanger Glass of Richmond,
>VA. He has also been a huge financial supporter of the Ayn Rand
>Institute. While it is only justice that he be paid for his teaching, the
>net result is that he has put far more money into ARI's pockets than they
>have ever put into his.
So it is claimed. Of course we will never know for sure, since the
ARI does not make the details of its financial operations, public.
For all we know, Binswanger has taken out far more than he has put in.
Given the fact that Binswanger voted himself a huge salary, and then
failed to justify it when Reisman objected to it, we have to assume
that any sort of financial impropriety is possible at the ARI.
Yes, I'm quite aware that Binswanger is very wealthy. Perhaps he has
even contributed a great deal of money to the ARI. I also know that
he is a qualified teacher, certainly quite capable of teaching at the
OGC, and I agree that he should be paid a fair market value for any
teaching that he does.
But all that is quite immaterial to the point. And the point is, that
Binswanger voted to pay himself a nice fat salary for teaching at the
OGC, and then completely failed to answer George Reisman's claim that
the teaching could have been obtained elsewhere for far less money.
If you're on the Board of Directors of a non-profit organization like
the ARI, begging for contributions, and you vote to pay yourself a
nice fat salary, you'd better be prepared to prove squeaky clean when
someone objects. You'd better be prepared to prove, beyond the shadow
of a doubt, that you were the best-qualified for the job, that there
were no acceptable, lower-cost alternatives, and that you were paid a
reasonable, fair-market wage.
Otherwise, the rest of us are fully justified in assuming that you're
simply lining your pockets with our hard-earned contributions.
And THAT'S the point.
And that's why I don't contribute to the ARI.
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>I will also add that he might know better if he actually tried
>reading the handwritten remarks on the mailings he transcribed,
>and which he so conveniently neglected to include in his web
>site.
"Conveniently neglected to include"?
Apparently Donadio hasn't studied my web site very carefully, or he
would know better than to say something so incredibly stupid.
Here's what I have to say about these handwritten remarks (as posted
on my web site: http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/ari/about.html).
BEGIN QUOTE:
"I have made every effort to reproduce these documents as accurately
and fully as possible (including misspelled words and bad grammar).
Some of the documents were originally handwritten. Some of the
original documents apparently contained handwritten notes by Leonard
Peikoff. Most of these notes were too illegible for me to read, and
the ones I could read seemed to convey no important information. I
have made no attempt to include these handwritten notes in this web
site collection. If you want your own original copy of the documents
(complete with handwritten notes), you may be able to get it by
writing to The Jefferson School. The address is:
The Jefferson School
P.O. Box 2934
Laguna Hills, CA 92654"
END QUOTE
Now for somebody who supposedly "conveniently neglected to include"
the handwritten remarks on the documents I transcribed, I sure as hell
went out of my way to explain why I did not include the handwritten
remarks. And then I told anyone, who might be interested, where they
could get their own original copy of the documents (complete with
handwritten remarks). I included this information, specifically so
that no one would be forced to take my word on the handwritten
remarks, and could examine them for themselves.
But according to Tony Donadio, I "conveniently neglected to include"
these handwritten remarks in my transcriptions.
I think it's rather clear that Tony Donadio is either badly out of
touch with reality, or else he's incredibly sloppy when it comes to
checking the facts. In any case, his opinions and evaluations are
obviously not to be trusted.
WAGreeley
All this wrangling about how much teachers should be paid leads us astray from
the essential point. And that is that Peikoff made a disastrous mistake -- if
not a breach of morality -- when he denounced the Reismans as immoral. Nothing
in any of the documents in question backs up this charge.
After Peikoff's judgment, the Reismans responded in self-defense by letting the
world see the evidence. Donadio says George Reisman issued a vicious personal
attack on Schwartz, but we should keep in mind that Reisman was attacked first.
As I understand the timeline, it wasn't until some months after this that ARI
moderated its message by calling the dispute "personal" and not philosophical.
ARI's mission is to promote the philosophy of Ayn Rand. But when they ignore
_Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics_, the most important application of Ayn
Rand's philosophy to economics, they fail at their mission.
Objectivists have long railed at the stupidity of a culture that could ignore
Rand's greatness. And yet, that is precisely what ARI is doing to Reisman's
greatness. ARI's oafish blindness is made all the more ironic by the
Objectivist virtue of justice, which holds that rewarding the good is as
important as punishing the bad. ARI has acted most unjustly.
Bill Greeley
.............................................................................
"We preach wisdom to the deaf, and we are still far indeed from the age of
wisdom."
-- Denis Diderot, 1769
"It is earlier than you think."
-- Ayn Rand, 1964
Tony Donadio
I'm sorry, but I have nothing more to say on this topic.
Chris Wolf has demonstrated what his agenda is: to resort
to any means necessary, including baldfaced lying, to twist
any information he can into an excuse to attack ARI. Judge
him for yourself. I'm through wasting my time on his kind
of human trash.
And by the way, for the record, I do regard misrepresenting
two times an (inadequate) salary as ten times it to be a LIE
-- particularly when two times brings that salary back within
a reasonable range, and ten times puts it way past. Whatever
his other faults, Wolf isn't stupid enough not to have known
the nature of his mischaracterization full well when he made
these remarks. Again, judge his motive for yourself.
Tony Donadio
Tony Donadio
WAGreeley wrote:
> All this wrangling about how much teachers should be paid leads us astray from
> the essential point. And that is that Peikoff made a disastrous mistake -- if
> not a breach of morality -- when he denounced the Reismans as immoral. Nothing
> in any of the documents in question backs up this charge.
My thanks to Bill Greely for getting back to the real issue in this
situation
(rather than trying to manufacture accusations of financial malfeasance
from
Reisman's materials that even Reisman didn't agree with).
My first comment would be to point out that you are ONLY seeing
materials
distributed by the Reismans and their supporters. Dr. Peikoff did not
publicly present documents to back up his judgement of the Reismans
because
he never made a public declaration of his judgement of the Reismans. One
does not make a public presentation of evidence to support a declaration
that one is not making publicly.
The break in question was a private matter of Dr. Peikoff and others
severing their personal and professional association with certain people
that they no longer wanted to deal with. It was the Reismans who turned
it
into a public circus by circulating their package.
> After Peikoff's judgment, the Reismans responded in self-defense by letting the
> world see the evidence. Donadio says George Reisman issued a vicious personal
> attack on Schwartz, but we should keep in mind that Reisman was attacked first.
Where? When? By whom? Please cite your evidence of this, Bill. All
Peikoff et al
did was to pass a personal judgement of the Reismans, break their
personal and
professional associations with the Reismans, and have enough respect for
colleagues who also had dealings with the Reismans to explain thier
decision to
them.
> As I understand the timeline, it wasn't until some months after this that ARI
> moderated its message by calling the dispute "personal" and not philosophical.
That is flatly untrue. ARI NEVER referred to the dispute as
philosophical. When
did you think they did, and on what basis did you think this?
> ARI's mission is to promote the philosophy of Ayn Rand. But when they ignore
> _Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics_, the most important application of Ayn
> Rand's philosophy to economics, they fail at their mission.
Who said they were ignoring it? I know of at least one ARI speaker who
is
currently working on a detailed analysis of it.
> Objectivists have long railed at the stupidity of a culture that could ignore
> Rand's greatness. And yet, that is precisely what ARI is doing to Reisman's
> greatness.
No one at the Institute denies that Reisman is a superlative economist.
That
doesn't change the fact that the man stabbed them in the back and that
they
don't want to deal with him any longer.
> ARI's oafish blindness is made all the more ironic by the Objectivist virtue
> of justice, which holds that rewarding the good is as important as punishing
> the bad. ARI has acted most unjustly.
What you say about the importance of justice is true, but in this case
you're
applying it to the wrong party. It is the Reismans who have perpetrated
an
injustice against ARI and its principals -- and that is the only reason
why
many of us who support the Institute have condemned them, rather than
just
acknowledging the break and continuing to deal with both sides. (Before
the
Reismans' package came out, this was precisely what most of us, myself
included, were planning to do.)
Bill, check your premises and your understanding of the facts of this
case.
You'll find that at least one of them is mistaken.
Tony Donadio
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>I'm sorry, but I have nothing more to say on this topic.
>Chris Wolf has demonstrated what his agenda is: to resort
>to any means necessary, including baldfaced lying, to twist
>any information he can into an excuse to attack ARI. Judge
>him for yourself. I'm through wasting my time on his kind
>of human trash.
Typical Donadio cop-out. When confronted with the facts, he folds
like an accordion.
You really have to wonder what kind of a fantasy world Donadio lives
in that allows him to write such nonsense.
>And by the way, for the record, I do regard misrepresenting
>two times an (inadequate) salary as ten times it to be a LIE
>-- particularly when two times brings that salary back within
>a reasonable range, and ten times puts it way past.
Keep in mind that this "two times" is Donadio's own estimate. Neither
he nor I have any way of knowing what the actual amount is. (It's
easy to "prove" that your opponent is "lying" when you get to define
what the "truth" is.) All we know for sure is that both George
Reisman AND Dr. Jerry Kirkpatrick were convinced that the ARI was
paying far too much to Schwartz and Binswanger to get the job done.
>Whatever
>his other faults, Wolf isn't stupid enough not to have known
>the nature of his mischaracterization full well when he made
>these remarks. Again, judge his motive for yourself.
When George Reisman wrote his original memo to the ARI, he commented
that Schwartz and Binswanger were to be paid $45,000, plus expenses.
Later, he described how local Objectivist PhDs could give the same
courses at rates competitive with those prevailing in higher
education; $4,000 per course. That's where I got the claim of "ten
times what a college professor would make for a similar amount of
work."
Now obviously this "ten times" claim is only a rough guess, based on
limited data. The actual figure might be ten times, it might be
twelve times, or it might only be twice as much. Without knowing the
actual figures involved, we really don't know. If the ARI doesn't
like my "ten times" claim, then let them provide me with more accurate
figures. I'll be glad to publish them on my web site. The important
point, of course, is that the local Objectivist PhDs could do the job
for MUCH LESS than Schwartz and Binswanger, and George Reisman wanted
to know why this option had not been considered by the ARI.
The "ten times" claim was the best estimate I could come up with,
based on the available data. If the claim is too extreme, then blame
it on the ARI for refusing to answer George Reisman's objections by
providing the actual numbers involved. I did the best I could, with
the data I had, to make a point, and the validity of that point does
not change, no matter what the actual numbers end up being.
For Tony Donadio to claim that I "lied" about the numbers, simply
shows how far out of touch with reality he is. It's only the latest
in a long string of examples that clearly shows how Donadio will twist
and distort the facts of reality in an effort to get the ARI off the
hook.
I invite everyone to read the material available at my web site (see
below), and judge my honesty for yourself. If anyone wants to make
more accurate figures available to me, I'll be happy to use them.
(Provided they're not simply made up out of Tony Donadio's head.) If
ARI wants to issue their own statment/explanation regarding the
Schwartz/Binswanger hiring scandal, I'll be happy to publish it on my
web site.
Let everyone have his say, and let the chips fall where they may.
Tony Donadio
Regarding Chris Wolf dismissing "Donadio's estimate" --
just keep in mind that all I did was pay attention to
the fact that Reisman, right in his letter, said that
his $4k figure applied PER COURSE, while the $45k was
a total cost figure -- and then pointed out the obvious
fact that a semester at the OGC consists of a lot more
than just one course.
Wolf's incredible reply to the latter, let me also
remind everyone, was to dismiss it as "sextuple
billing" for one course! Now THIS is grasping at straws
to try to preserve the unraveling threads of an obvious
rationalization. (I have talked to many of the students
at the OGC about the GRUELLING coursework there, and
they would laugh in the face of anyone who tried to
dismiss it this way as "just one course.")
The evidence that you could not just multiply the $4k
figure by ten to get the total cost figure was right
there in black and white in Reisman's letter. Even if
you accept Reisman's figures as accurate, Wolf's lie
doesn't hold up. Wolf evaded what was right in front
his face, and it doesn't take much of an "estimate"
from me or anyone else to see that.
Judge him and his lies for yourself.
Tony Donadio
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>> >Second point to note: Reisman is talking about $4k *PER COURSE*.
>> >When you multiply this by the half-dozen or so courses that
>> >comprise a semester at the OGC, you're already talking over $20k
>> >-- over half the amount discussed for paying Peter and Harry.
Chris Wolf wrote:
>> Sounds like creative accounting to me. Split one course into
>> six (at least on paper) and then submit six invoices.
Tony Donadio wrote:
>Jesus, will Wolf stop at nothing to invent excuses to attack
>these people? This is transparent, muckraking bullshit, and
>it's not worth the dignity of commenting on further.
Oh really? Well according to Reisman's letter, Schwartz and
Binswanger were teaching a total of TWO courses, not half a dozen.
Furthermore, ALL of the courses added up to a total of about twelve
weeks of instruction. So between them, Schwartz and Binswanger would
have taught barely one semester of instruction, to a total of seven
students. According to Reisman, out in the world of academia this
amount of instruction goes for about $4,000. However Schwartz and
Binswanger were to receive $45,000!
When I said "ten times as much as a college professor makes," I think
I was being charitable.
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>Regarding Chris Wolf dismissing "Donadio's estimate" --
>just keep in mind that all I did was pay attention to
>the fact that Reisman, right in his letter, said that
>his $4k figure applied PER COURSE, while the $45k was
>a total cost figure -- and then pointed out the obvious
>fact that a semester at the OGC consists of a lot more
>than just one course.
But Schwartz and Binswanger were only teaching two courses. (See
Reisman's letter at my web site.)
>Wolf's incredible reply to the latter, let me also
>remind everyone, was to dismiss it as "sextuple
>billing" for one course! Now THIS is grasping at straws
>to try to preserve the unraveling threads of an obvious
>rationalization. (I have talked to many of the students
>at the OGC about the GRUELLING coursework there, and
>they would laugh in the face of anyone who tried to
>dismiss it this way as "just one course.")
Donadio's obvious mistake was to equate an entire semester at OGC with
the two courses being taught by Schwartz and Binswanger. Typical
Donadio sloppiness.
>The evidence that you could not just multiply the $4k
>figure by ten to get the total cost figure was right
>there in black and white in Reisman's letter. Even if
>you accept Reisman's figures as accurate, Wolf's lie
>doesn't hold up. Wolf evaded what was right in front
>his face, and it doesn't take much of an "estimate"
>from me or anyone else to see that.
>
>Judge him and his lies for yourself.
Unfortunately for Donadio, Reisman's letter also states that
Binswanger and Schwartz would only be teaching a total of TWO courses.
A typical semester at OGC may involve half a dozen courses, but
Schwartz and Binswanger weren't teaching that much. Furthermore,
Binswanger and Schwartz's teachings, combined, amounted to a total of
twelve weeks of teaching (7 weeks for Binswanger, 5-6 weeks for
Schwartz) to a total of seven students
Now twelve weeks barely adds up to one semester of instruction.
Reisman says that one semester of instruction goes for about $4,000 in
the academic market. Yet Binswanger and Schwartz were to be paid
$45,000!
Looks like ten times as much to me. If Donadio wants to prove that
I'm a liar, he's going to have to do much better than this.
WAGreeley
My thanks to Tony Donadio for his temperate but hard-hitting response to my
post. Here is our difference in a nutshell: I maintain that the Reismans acted
in self-defense against ARI, whereas Tony holds that they turned the affair
into a "public circus" and that George "stabbed them in the back."
I base my argument on this passage from George Reisman's letter of November 15,
1994: "We've been told that people calling up the Ayn Rand Institute are told
simply that there is a moral conflict between them and us. The specific nature
of the conflict is not stated and no evidence of any kind is offered."
This is what I meant when I wrote that the Reismans were attacked first. After
this, the Reismans had the right -- the responsibility even -- to state their
case to the world and defend their reputations. It was later that ARI changed
its story from a "moral conflict" to a "private matter." (I erred when I wrote
that ARI first called the dispute "philosophical"; they first called it
"moral.")
Tony makes this point:
>...you are ONLY seeing
>materials
>distributed by the Reismans and their supporters.
I understand the danger in this and I would be glad to hear ARI's side of the
story.
>Dr. Peikoff did not
>publicly present documents to back up his judgement of the Reismans
>because
>he never made a public declaration of his judgement of the Reismans. One
>does not make a public presentation of evidence to support a declaration
>that one is not making publicly.
>
But ARI initially called the dispute a "moral conflict." This is a public
declaration.
Furthermore, I would argue that even if ARI had said nothing about morality,
but had merely kicked the Reismans off their board, the Reismans would have
every right to take their case to the world. ARI thinks that calling the
matter "private" and "personal" means the other side has to keep its mouth shut
to outsiders. I find it fascinating that what Tony and ARI most object to is
open discussion of the matter. If ARI is right, why would they want to hide
it?
I also argued that ARI is ignoring _Capitalism_. Tony countered that "at least
one ARI speaker is currently working on a detailed analysis of it."
When _Letters of Ayn Rand_ was published, ARI noted that fact in their website
and their mailings. If Leonard Peikoff published a book, ARI would do the
same, and rightly so, as he is brilliant philosopher. When _Capitalism_ was
published... nothing. The failure to promote the book is ignoring it. I'm not
saying that Reisman is as important to Objectivism as Rand or Peikoff, but I do
think his book is revolutionary and will change the world. I believe that
posterity will have a dim view of ARI's pettiness.
>
>Bill, check your premises and your understanding of the facts of this
>case.
>You'll find that at least one of them is mistaken.
>
Okay, I've checked. I stand by my argument. Your turn.
Tony Donadio
WAGreeley wrote:
> I base my argument on this passage from George Reisman's letter of November 15,
> 1994: "We've been told that people calling up the Ayn Rand Institute are told
> simply that there is a moral conflict between them and us. The specific nature
> of the conflict is not stated and no evidence of any kind is offered."
>
> This is what I meant when I wrote that the Reismans were attacked first.
This is not really an accurate characterization of what people who
called the Institute were being told. (I should say that although I
did not call myself, I discussed thoroughly what they had been told
with several fellow Objectivists who did call, and their answers were
consistent).
Essentially, what they were told was that there were irreconcilable
differences between them and the Reismans, and that the principls
at ARI had broken their personal and professional associations with
them. When asked whether the break was over a philosophic issue,
they said NO. When asked if they morally condemned the Reismans,
they said that the reasons for the break were personal and private,
but that they did involve a moral judgement of the Reismans. When
asked whether they expected supporters to stop dealing with the
Reismans, they said NO. Since the reasons for the break were based
on a private conflict, they knew that others who were not a party
to that conflict did not have the context or evidence to make the
same judgement.
Based on this understanding, many of us resolved to accept the break
as a personal matter and to continue dealing with both parties. All
that changed after the Reismans' mailing came out.
> After this, the Reismans had the right -- the responsibility even
> -- to state their case to the world and defend their reputations.
> It was later that ARI changed its story from a "moral conflict"
> to a "private matter." (I erred when I wrote that ARI first
> called the dispute "philosophical"; they first called it "moral.")
You erred both times, Bill. ARI has always characterized the conflict
as a private matter. When asked, they chose not to lie -- they stated
that the private matter did involve a moral judgement of the Reismans
and left it at that. They went out of their way to keep accusations
out of the break, and to keep it from getting ugly. It was the
Reismans who did THAT.
> Tony makes this point:
>
> >...you are ONLY seeing materials distributed by the Reismans
> >and their supporters.
>
> I understand the danger in this and I would be glad to hear
> ARI's side of the story.
But you see, that's the point. ARI doesn't HAVE a side, because
they are not the ones making allegations and denunciations here.
All they did was try to break their association with people who
they judged had acted immorally in their personal dealings with
them.
> But ARI initially called the dispute a "moral conflict." This
> is a public declaration.
The principals told the truth to contributors who asked -- that
the break involved a moral judgement of the Reismans on their part.
Should they have lied and said no? Should they have told the truth,
but made the break into a public circus by airing dirty laundry to
people who were not parties to the dispute and did not have the
evidence to judge it?
Tony Donadio
Tony Donadio
Regarding what Wolf claims is George Reisman's assertion
that Harry and Peter were only to be teaching "two courses,"
here is the line in question from Reisman's letter:
>No indication is given of what is to follow the two courses.
The OGC was supposed to consist of courses of full-time
instruction. I don't know the details of the original plan
to start it in LA, but it sounds from Reisman's letter as
though what they may have been considering was to have each
of the two instructors come out and teach half the semester.
In his letter, Reisman obviously referred to each of these
halves as "courses." He did not say was that they were not
full time courses. If anyone has any SOLID evidence to the
contrary, I'd be happy to hear it.
(By the way, even if you accept Wolf's "two course" two-
step here, that STILL means that his "ten times" remark
is a lie by a factor of two. (Two courses at $4k each =
$8k; do the math.) If you assume that a full time semester
consists of the equivalent of four courses (a conservative
estimate), then that makes the lie by a factor of four.
And all of this, of course, presumes that you even accept
the accuracy of Reisman's figures.
I would also like to point out that Reisman stated, in
his letter, that he DID NOT OBJECT to the overall level
of compensation being considered for Harry Binswanger.
Is it reasonable to have expected him to have said this
if the compensation really amounted to ten times the
unversity rate? Isn't this the same George Reisman that
Chris Wolf has been going out of his way to laud as a
reasonable person whose word should be taken and who
"would never have said such things if he hadn't taken
all the issues into account?" Where does Wolf think
Reisman's sense went with respect to this issue?
Now, we could go on like this indefinitely, but as I
said before, I don't think there is any point to it.
Chris Wolf can go right on inventing distortions and
rationalizations in response to each of my postings, and
I can go right on pointing out those rationalizations
and distortions. I think the pattern is clear by now,
though, so my purpose in commenting on this thread is
accomplished.
WAGreeley
I take this to be Tony Donadio's most important point:
>... ARI doesn't HAVE a side, because
>they are not the ones making allegations and denunciations here.
>All they did was try to break their association with people who
>they judged had acted immorally in their personal dealings with
>them.
>
>
What if someone said, "I judge Tony Donadio to be immoral and I break my
association with him, but the issue is private and I won't discuss it"? If you
thought you were unjustly accused of immorality, wouldn't you want to get the
facts of the case out into the open? Or would you stay quiet and let people
think you were immoral because your accuser said the matter is private?
>The principals told the truth to contributors who asked -- that
>the break involved a moral judgement of the Reismans on their part.
>Should they have lied and said no? Should they have told the truth,
>but made the break into a public circus by airing dirty laundry to
>people who were not parties to the dispute and did not have the
>evidence to judge it?
>
The principals of ARI shouldn't have gotten themselves in the mess in the first
place. Once they did, it was obvious that the facts made them look stupid and
petty so they called the matter private in order to keep the facts from the
light of day. Thank goodness the Reismans did not give ARI the sanction of the
victim.
Jim Klein
In <19971223220...@ladder01.news.aol.com> WAGreeley
<wagr...@aol.com> writes:
>I believe that posterity will have a dim view of ARI's pettiness.
About all I can think of is, "It had better, else our troubles are even
worse than they seem!"
Helluva post. Important too, if put into context.
jk
Tony Donadio
WAGreeley wrote:
> What if someone said, "I judge Tony Donadio to be immoral
> and I break my association with him, but the issue is
> private and I won't discuss it"?
If the issue *were* private, I would agree, and let people
judge according to my reputation and the reputation of my
accuser. I certainly wouldn't insult everyone in Objectivism
that I had an address for by sending them a mass mailing,
airing selected parts of my dirty laundry to misrepresent the
nature of the conflict as something OTHER than a personal and
private one.
> If you thought you were unjustly accused of immorality, wouldn't
> you want to get the facts of the case out into the open?
But the Reismans did nothing of the kind. The principals broke
their association over what they viewed as a long-standing
pattern of personal behavior on the part of the Reismans. The
specific events they cite were not the reasons for the break;
they clearly were just part of the straw that broke the camel's
back. The fact that the Reismans tried to represent a personal
break as something else, when the letters in their own package
gave the lie to their assertion, was why many of us subsequently
DID judge them when we had not intended to before.
And more to the point: the people at ARI went out of their way
to tell contributors that they didn't think people should stop
dealing with the Reismans. Is that the behavior of someone who
is making an accusation of immorality?
> Or would you stay quiet and let people think you were immoral
> because your accuser said the matter is private?
It was not a matter of the accuser saying that the matter was
private. The matter WAS private, and the Reismans did little
or nothing in their mailing to discuss the actual reasons for
the break. That was part of the problem.
> >The principals told the truth to contributors who asked -- that
> >the break involved a moral judgement of the Reismans on their part.
> >Should they have lied and said no? Should they have told the truth,
> >but made the break into a public circus by airing dirty laundry to
> >people who were not parties to the dispute and did not have the
> >evidence to judge it?
Before I say anything else, I want to note for the record that you
did not answer the above questions. If you want to continue this
discussion, then I must insist that you do so. They're important.
> The principals of ARI shouldn't have gotten themselves in the mess
> in the first place.
WHAT mess? The mess of dealing with people that the later came to
realize that they no longer wanted to associate with?
> Once they did, it was obvious that the facts made them look
> stupid and petty so they called the matter private in order
> to keep the facts from the light of day.
I've already addressed this. The underlying reasons for the
break were not what the Reismans asserted. That was clear
just from reading the letters they distributed.
You know, I really think that ARI can't win with some people.
If they had made public denunciations and a big public fuss
over the issue, you would just have accused them of another
"excommunication." Why don't you just say that you're going
to denounce ARI no matter what they do and be done with it?
Tony Donadio
------------
STOP the Persecution of Microsoft
http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft/home.html
WAGreeley
Tony wants me to answer these points before he'll go on:
>
>> >The principals told the truth to contributors who asked -- that
>> >the break involved a moral judgement of the Reismans on their part.
>> >Should they have lied and said no? Should they have told the truth,
>> >but made the break into a public circus by airing dirty laundry to
>> >people who were not parties to the dispute and did not have the
>> >evidence to judge it?
>
>Before I say anything else, I want to note for the record that you
>did not answer the above questions. If you want to continue this
>discussion, then I must insist that you do so. They're important.
>
Moreover, I don't accept ARI's characterization of them as private. The issues
the Reismans raised were not about sexual improprieties or personal problems;
they were about the legal and financial problems of ARI.
You state earlier in your post:
> The principals broke
>their association over what they viewed as a long-standing
>pattern of personal behavior on the part of the Reismans. The
>specific events they cite were not the reasons for the break;
>they clearly were just part of the straw that broke the camel's
>back.
How do you know this? It is not clear to me.
> The fact that the Reismans tried to represent a personal
>break as something else, when the letters in their own package
>gave the lie to their assertion, was why many of us subsequently
>DID judge them when we had not intended to before.
>
The letters show that the break was mainly about how to run ARI. The Reismans
had to print them in order to defend themselves against a baseless charge of
immorality .
>And more to the point: the people at ARI went out of their way
>to tell contributors that they didn't think people should stop
>dealing with the Reismans. Is that the behavior of someone who
>is making an accusation of immorality?
>
No, it's not. The contradiction is ARI's, because Peikoff did in fact make an
accusation of immorality and ARI did in fact call the dispute moral.
>You know, I really think that ARI can't win with some people.
>If they had made public denunciations and a big public fuss
>over the issue, you would just have accused them of another
>"excommunication." Why don't you just say that you're going
>to denounce ARI no matter what they do and be done with it?
>
You're right, ARI can't win with some people -- but I am not one of them. I
agree with Peikoff, Schwartz and Binswanger about the libertarians and Kelley.
I avidly read everything they write, I buy tapes from 2R, and I listen to
Peikoff's show every Sunday. I supported ARI until the Reisman affair. Just
because Peikoff, Schwartz and Binswanger are wrong in this matter does not mean
they stop being thinkers of great value. Please don't classify me with Chris
Wolf and so many others who regularly appear on hpo. I get no thrill from
attacking ARI.
Will be gone a few days for the holiday. Merry Christmas,
Jim Klein
In <34A11A...@monmouth.com> Tony Donadio <tdon...@monmouth.com>
writes:
>Why don't you just say that you're going to denounce ARI no matter
>what they do and be done with it?
Okay, I'll do that---I'm going to denounce the ARI no matter what they
do, since no matter what they do they'll be open to a charge of either
improper action, or inconsistency with prior action!
I do leave open the possibility that future action will be decent, thus
meriting high kudos following any denunciation for inconsistency. I'd
rate that likelihood at about 0.01%.
jk
Premise Checker
Note to Tony:
My experience has been that those who loosely toss the word liar about,
without properly distinguishing intent to deceive from merely being
mistaken, are themselves altogether too casual about the truth and must be
handled with suspicion.
--
Tony Donadio
WAGreeley wrote:
> I don't accept your characterization of the issues involved
> as dirty laundry. Moreover, I don't accept ARI's character-
> ization of them as private.
Then we don't have anything else to discuss.
> >The principals broke their association over what they viewed as
> >a long-standing pattern of personal behavior on the part of the
> >Reismans. The specific events they cite were not the reasons for
> >the break; they clearly were just part of the straw that broke
> >the camel's back.
>
> How do you know this? It is not clear to me.
As I said, many supporters contacted the Institute and have
talked to others about it. This is fairly common knowledge.
Leaving that aside, though, this is abundantly clear from the
letters that the Reismans themselves distributed (without
permission). These letters make reference to a history of
behavior, within the context of which they are making their
judgement. The details are not presented because these were
short notes addressed to someone that they were taking for
granted was familiar with the actions in question.
This is one reason why distributing these letters was so
objectionable. If accurate, these letters could only have
made sense to someone who was familiar with the behavior
in question; to anyone else, they would appear irrational
and arbitrary. The Reismans deliberately presented them
out of context to third parties who did not have the
personal experiences with them that would allow them to
evaluate them objectively.
> You're right, ARI can't win with some people -- but I
> am not one of them... Please don't classify me with
> Chris Wolf and so many others who regularly appear on
> hpo. I get no thrill from attacking ARI.
Well said, and fair enough -- even though I do think
you're mistaken in your judgement on this matter.
--
Tony Donadio
Premise Checker wrote:
I agree completely. If you think my use of this word was
casual, though, and done without consideration to this
issue, then you're mistaken.
Chris Wolf
Premise Checker writes:
>Note to Tony:
>
>My experience has been that those who loosely toss the word liar about,
>without properly distinguishing intent to deceive from merely being
>mistaken, are themselves altogether too casual about the truth and must be
>handled with suspicion.
Truer words were never spoken.
Chris Wolf
WAGreeley writes:
>>Tony Donadio writes:
>>You know, I really think that ARI can't win with some people.
>>If they had made public denunciations and a big public fuss
>>over the issue, you would just have accused them of another
>>"excommunication." Why don't you just say that you're going
>>to denounce ARI no matter what they do and be done with it?
>You're right, ARI can't win with some people -- but I am not one of them. I
>agree with Peikoff, Schwartz and Binswanger about the libertarians and Kelley.
>I avidly read everything they write, I buy tapes from 2R, and I listen to
>Peikoff's show every Sunday. I supported ARI until the Reisman affair. Just
>because Peikoff, Schwartz and Binswanger are wrong in this matter does not mean
>they stop being thinkers of great value. Please don't classify me with Chris
>Wolf and so many others who regularly appear on hpo. I get no thrill from
>attacking ARI.
I get no "thrill" from attacking the ARI, per se. I do get a major
thrill from seeing that justice is done.
Bill Riggins
> I'm sorry, but I have nothing more to say on this topic.
Sure Tony. Like we haven't heard that one before. Let's take a sample
of how much more you had to say...
---------------------------------
In Mr. Donadio's continuing posts to this thread:
> Regarding Chris Wolf... blah, blah, blah...
This, after stating flatly that you had nothing further to say on the
topic, and especially stating that "trash" like Mr. Wolf was not worth
responding to any further.
At this juncture your credibility would need to climb to get up to grab
the sewer grate.
---------------------------------
In his next post to this same thread regarding this same subject...
> Regarding what Wolf claims... blah blah blah
Thought you were "finished" with this topic? Since you can't resist,
here's a new topic for you Tony. It's a very relevant one, supplied by
my grandpappy:
They's two kinds o' people in the world. Them that does what they say
they's gonna and them that don't.
Do you really think landing so squarely in the latter group is the
result of objective thought?
---------------------------------
and the beat goes on...
> Now, we could go on like this indefinitely, but as I
> said before, I don't think there is any point to it.
If you didn't think there was any point to it several posts ago then
why...
---------------------------------
This was just a sample of the posts ~after~ Mr. Donadio had "nothing
more to say on this topic". There were others, but I think we all get
the idea. Hey Tony, you really think it's objective to blather on and
on and on and on after point blank stating that you're done with a
topic?
Tony Donadio
I would comment on Bill Riggins' post, but as I wrote earlier,
I don't really have anything more to say on this topic.
Doesn't this fool have anything better to do with his time
than try to make propaganda capital out of a couple of
postscript remarks on a topic?
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>WAGreeley wrote:
>
>> What if someone said, "I judge Tony Donadio to be immoral
>> and I break my association with him, but the issue is
>> private and I won't discuss it"?
>If the issue *were* private, I would agree, and let people
>judge according to my reputation and the reputation of my
>accuser.
When someone publicly calls you "immoral," then the issue is no longer
private. Only a fool like Donadio would try to pretend otherwise.
>I certainly wouldn't insult everyone in Objectivism
>that I had an address for by sending them a mass mailing,
>airing selected parts of my dirty laundry to misrepresent the
>nature of the conflict as something OTHER than a personal and
>private one.
George Reisman, a member of the ARI Board of Advisors, accuses the ARI
of spending too much money on Schwartz and Binswanger, is promptly
kicked out of the ARI, and Donadio wants to claim that it's merely a
"personal and private matter."
Bullshit. Anyone with common sense knows better.
>> If you thought you were unjustly accused of immorality, wouldn't
>> you want to get the facts of the case out into the open?
>But the Reismans did nothing of the kind. The principals broke
>their association over what they viewed as a long-standing
>pattern of personal behavior on the part of the Reismans. The
>specific events they cite were not the reasons for the break;
>they clearly were just part of the straw that broke the camel's
>back. The fact that the Reismans tried to represent a personal
>break as something else, when the letters in their own package
>gave the lie to their assertion, was why many of us subsequently
>DID judge them when we had not intended to before.
It's always fascinating to see the sort of fantasy world that
Randroids like Tony Donadio inhabit.
>And more to the point: the people at ARI went out of their way
>to tell contributors that they didn't think people should stop
>dealing with the Reismans. Is that the behavior of someone who
>is making an accusation of immorality?
The ARI DID make an accusation of immorality. Has Donadio forgotten
this already?
>> Or would you stay quiet and let people think you were immoral
>> because your accuser said the matter is private?
>It was not a matter of the accuser saying that the matter was
>private. The matter WAS private, and the Reismans did little
>or nothing in their mailing to discuss the actual reasons for
>the break. That was part of the problem.
The problem was that ARI accused the Reismans of immoral behavior, but
wasn't willing to back it up with evidence. If the ARI thinks the
Reismans misrepresented the actual reasons for the break, then let the
ARI tell their side of the story. Until they do, I'm willing to take
the Reisman's story at face value. The fact that the Reismans are
willing to tell their side of the story, but the ARI is not, simply
indicates that the ARI hasn't a leg to stand on, and that the Reismans
are telling the truth.
>> The principals of ARI shouldn't have gotten themselves in the mess
>> in the first place.
>WHAT mess? The mess of dealing with people that the later came to
>realize that they no longer wanted to associate with?
The mess of accusing someone of immorality, but being unwilling to
provide the evidence to prove it.
>> Once they did, it was obvious that the facts made them look
>> stupid and petty so they called the matter private in order
>> to keep the facts from the light of day.
>I've already addressed this. The underlying reasons for the
>break were not what the Reismans asserted. That was clear
>just from reading the letters they distributed.
Maybe in Tony Donadio's fantasy world.
>You know, I really think that ARI can't win with some people.
Not with anyone with a sense of justice.
>If they had made public denunciations and a big public fuss
>over the issue, you would just have accused them of another
>"excommunication."
That's right. Given the evidence so far presented, that's exactly
what it was; an excommunication.
>Why don't you just say that you're going
>to denounce ARI no matter what they do and be done with it?
Why don't you just say that you're going to support the ARI, no matter
what they do, and be done with it?
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>(By the way, even if you accept Wolf's "two course" two-
>step here, that STILL means that his "ten times" remark
>is a lie by a factor of two.
Yeah, that would mean that Schwartz and Binswanger were only being
paid FIVE times too much, rather than ten times too much.
What's important, of course, is not how much Schwartz and Binswanger
were actually overpaid, but the fact that a man with George Reisman's
credibility said they WERE being overpaid, and was kicked out of the
ARI for saying so.
This is the point that Donadio continues to evade.
>(Two courses at $4k each =
>$8k; do the math.) If you assume that a full time semester
>consists of the equivalent of four courses (a conservative
>estimate), then that makes the lie by a factor of four.
It doesn't really matter if Schwartz and Binswanger were paid ten
times too much, or only two times too much. The point is, according
to Reisman, they were being paid TOO MUCH, and Reisman was kicked out
of the ARI for saying so.
This is the point that Donadio continues to evade.
>And all of this, of course, presumes that you even accept
>the accuracy of Reisman's figures.
Since Reisman was on the ARI Board of Advisors, it seems like a
reasonable thing to accept. Especially since no one from the ARI has
ever publicly challenged Reisman's figures.
>I would also like to point out that Reisman stated, in
>his letter, that he DID NOT OBJECT to the overall level
>of compensation being considered for Harry Binswanger.
But he also said (in the very next sentence) that for the same amount
of money, a much more substantial program could be purchased
elsewhere.
>Is it reasonable to have expected him to have said this
>if the compensation really amounted to ten times the
>unversity rate?
As I have said repeatedly, the "ten times" claim is merely my own
estimate. It may very well be in error. But until the ARI chooses to
publish more definitive figures, I plan to stick with it.
What's important is that George Reisman said it was too much, and he
was certainly in a position to know. And for that he was kicked out.
And THAT'S the important point. Donadio's feeble attempts to prove
that my "ten times" claim is too high, is merely an attempt to divert
attention from the real point.
>Now, we could go on like this indefinitely, but as I
>said before, I don't think there is any point to it.
No, there isn't. It doesn't matter if Schwartz and Binswanger were
paid ten times too much, or only two times too much. The point is,
George Reisman, a man who was in a position to know, said they were
being overpaid, and was kicked out for saying so. Until ARI takes the
trouble to prove Reisman wrong, Reisman's accusation stands. (Along
with Donadio's evasion.)
>Chris Wolf can go right on inventing distortions and
>rationalizations in response to each of my postings, and
>I can go right on pointing out those rationalizations
>and distortions.
Only in Donadio's fantasy world.
>I think the pattern is clear by now,
>though, so my purpose in commenting on this thread is
>accomplished.
Yes, the pattern is quite clear. It doesn't matter how outrageous the
behavior of the ARI is; Tony Donadio will defend them, no matter what.
Schwartz and Binswanger can vote themselves huge salaries, refuse to
justify these salaries, and Donadio doesn't care. George Reisman can
be kicked out of the ARI for saying that the plan was too costly, and
Donadio doesn't care. Donadio only cares when Reisman makes public
the shameful actions of the ARI, and then he condemns Reisman.
Draw your own conclusions as to Tony Donadio's motivation.
George Reisman is not some crank off the street. He's a respected,
accomplished man who was on the Board of Advisors of the ARI. If he
says that ARI funds are being misspent, then that accusation has to be
taken seriously. However, instead of demonstrating that there was no
financial malfeasance, ARI simply kicked Reisman out, then made no
attempt whatsoever to demonstrate that the salaries paid to Schwartz
and Binswanger were reasonable and proper. THIS is the fact for which
Tony Donadio has no answer, and cannot justify. And since he can't
justify it, he seeks to divert attention from the real issue by
debating over just how much Schwartz and Binswanger were overpaid.
Even if it turned out that Schwartz and Binswanger were not overpaid
at all, that still wouldn't change the fact that the ARI failed to
answer a legitimate challenge that was issued by a man who was in
position in the organization to know what he was talking about.
Instead, the ARI kicked him out. These are the facts that Randroids
like Tony Donadio and Betsy Speicher continue to ignore.
Or as Harry Binswanger said to George Reisman and Edith Packer in
September 1993, "I don’t care about the opinions of the Board of
Advisors or of the contributors. I can do what I want because I have
the power and deserve to have it."
Anyone who would continue to contribute to the ARI, after the
expulsion of a whistleblower like Reisman, is a fool who deserves to
be fleeced by corrupt leaders like Harry Binswanger.
Tony Donadio
I don't intend to read or respond to any more of Chris
Wolf's postings on this topic. I think I've made my case
clearly. Anyone who may still be honestly confused by
his misrepresentations and is interested in pursuing the
issue offline is welcome to email me.
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>WAGreeley wrote:
>
>> I base my argument on this passage from George Reisman's letter of November 15,
>> 1994: "We've been told that people calling up the Ayn Rand Institute are told
>> simply that there is a moral conflict between them and us. The specific nature
>> of the conflict is not stated and no evidence of any kind is offered."
>>
>> This is what I meant when I wrote that the Reismans were attacked first.
>This is not really an accurate characterization of what people who
>called the Institute were being told. (I should say that although I
>did not call myself, I discussed thoroughly what they had been told
>with several fellow Objectivists who did call, and their answers were
>consistent).
>
>Essentially, what they were told was that there were irreconcilable
>differences between them and the Reismans, and that the principls
>at ARI had broken their personal and professional associations with
>them. When asked whether the break was over a philosophic issue,
>they said NO. When asked if they morally condemned the Reismans,
>they said that the reasons for the break were personal and private,
>but that they did involve a moral judgement of the Reismans. When
>asked whether they expected supporters to stop dealing with the
>Reismans, they said NO. Since the reasons for the break were based
>on a private conflict, they knew that others who were not a party
>to that conflict did not have the context or evidence to make the
>same judgement.
Yet this did not stop the ARI from making their judgment public. The
ARI told the public that they had broken with the Reismans, and that
it involved a "moral judgment."
This constitutes a public attack. It is NOT a "personal and private
matter."
>> After this, the Reismans had the right -- the responsibility even
>> -- to state their case to the world and defend their reputations.
>> It was later that ARI changed its story from a "moral conflict"
>> to a "private matter." (I erred when I wrote that ARI first
>> called the dispute "philosophical"; they first called it "moral.")
>You erred both times, Bill. ARI has always characterized the conflict
>as a private matter.
It's hard to say which is dumber: An organization like the ARI
attempting to characterize such a conflict as "private," or Donadio's
willingness to support such obvious nonsense.
When two members of the ARI Board of Advisors are kicked out, it is
NOT a "private matter," no matter how much the ARI would like to
pretend otherwise. The attempt by the ARI to characterize it, as
such, either shows the utter dishonesty of the ARI, or the depth to
which they fail to live in the real world.
When Peter Schwartz refuses to talk to George Reisman, that's a
private matter. When George Reisman is kicked out of the ARI because
of a "moral judgment," that is NOT a private matter.
>When asked, they chose not to lie -- they stated
>that the private matter did involve a moral judgement of the Reismans
>and left it at that.
Yes indeed. That way the Reismans stood accused of moral impropriety,
without the need for the ARI to provide any details or proof. It's
called character assassination.
>They went out of their way to keep accusations
>out of the break, and to keep it from getting ugly. It was the
>Reismans who did THAT.
The Reismans had no choice. The ARI was basically telling everyone
that the Reismans had behaved immorally. At that point, the Reismans
had no choice but to make the details of their story public, in order
to defend themselves.
Only a moron like Donadio would expect the Reismans to remain silent,
and fail to defend themselves.
>> I understand the danger in this and I would be glad to hear
>> ARI's side of the story.
>But you see, that's the point. ARI doesn't HAVE a side, because
>they are not the ones making allegations and denunciations here.
What utter bullshit! The ARI accused the Reismans of being immoral.
That's both an allegation AND a denunciation.
>All they did was try to break their association with people who
>they judged had acted immorally in their personal dealings with
>them.
All they did was accuse the Reismans of being immoral, and then expect
the Reismans to fail to defend themselves. The ARI made the
accusation public, but expected the details to remain "private."
>> But ARI initially called the dispute a "moral conflict." This
>> is a public declaration.
>The principals told the truth to contributors who asked -- that
>the break involved a moral judgement of the Reismans on their part.
>Should they have lied and said no? Should they have told the truth,
>but made the break into a public circus by airing dirty laundry to
>people who were not parties to the dispute and did not have the
>evidence to judge it?
How fucking stupid can Donadio get? Merely by kicking the Reismans
out, and saying it involved moral judgment, the ARI DID make the break
into a "public circus." There is NO WAY to kick the Reismans out of
the ARI, and not have it become a "public circus."
If the ARI truly felt that it had done no wrong, it should have
explained, in complete detail, why the Reismans where being kicked
out. Then the Reisman's could have responded, and the rest of us
could have judged the situation, based on all the evidence.
Instead, they tried to emmulate Ayn Rand's break with the Brandens, by
trying to hide the most important evidence.
You really have to wonder about the basic honesty of people who act
this way.
Chris Wolf
Tony Donadio writes:
>WAGreeley wrote:
>
>> What if someone said, "I judge Tony Donadio to be immoral
>> and I break my association with him, but the issue is
>> private and I won't discuss it"?
>If the issue *were* private, I would agree, and let people
>judge according to my reputation and the reputation of my
>accuser.
When someone publicly calls you "immoral," then the issue is no longer
private. Only a fool like Donadio would try to pretend otherwise.
>I certainly wouldn't insult everyone in Objectivism
>that I had an address for by sending them a mass mailing,
>airing selected parts of my dirty laundry to misrepresent the
>nature of the conflict as something OTHER than a personal and
>private one.
George Reisman, a member of the ARI Board of Advisors, accuses the ARI
of spending too much money on Schwartz and Binswanger, is promptly
kicked out of the ARI, and Donadio wants to claim that it's merely a
"personal and private matter."
Bullshit. Anyone with common sense knows better.