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