CICEROSC

Excellent posts, Bill. I fully agree with your point, which according to my research is historically correct. Whenever I read the knee-jerk reaction that nulliification equals "civil war" or "revolution," and that therefore it can't even be contemplated, I just shake my head at how far we have fallen from the courage of the founders of this country. Here's an excellent article written by someone who was there at the time which traces traced the history of the development of the "Consolidation" problem. Thomas Cooper MD was an English immigrant and close friend of Thomas Jeffferson, and Cooper's work both on politics and religion was excellent. During the nullification crisis Cooper was one of the intellectual leaders, and later after the religionists forced him out as president of the University of South Carolina because he would not conform to the Calvinist orthodoxy, he was retained by the legislature to publish a new edition of the statutes of the state. He used the opportunity to include with that publication many outstanding documents that go into great detail about the history of the Constitutional period and the development of the federalist / antifederalist confrontation. That work is a great resource and is available free at google books here. But as an introduction to Cooper's work it's hard to be the first article I linked, "Consolidation." That article also serves as a great introduction to the history of why it is incredible that a number of Objectivists hold Alexander Hamilton in such high regard, as he is among the real villains of the "general welfare" argument that has led uss to Obamacare and many other disasters.

Thank you for your very businesslike post, Carlos! This probably struck a nerve with me this morning not so much because I have been looking for an opportunity to defend Pam Geller. I think what has been percolating in my mind is that I am seeing some tremendously good work from her, and also in particular from Ed Cline, on this topic, but perhaps not so much from other corners from which I would have expected more. But even now I'll just stop here rather than be critical of others' priorities, and I'll just repeat that I appreciate the good work that Ed Cline, Geller, Wilders, BareNakedIslam, and Gates of Vienna, etc are doing!

I have to come out of lurk mode to put in a word here in defense of Pamela Geller, whose blog I read daily. All issues of style aside, she is doing incredibly good work in educating people about the dangers of militant Islam, very likely at considerable risk to her own personal safety. I am quite surprised to see a general tone of negativity in some (not all) of these posts about her work. Betsy's posts have been very accurate in my reading, generally praising her for her work while expressing some reservations about her style of dress. Clearly Geller is not an Objectivist in that she is very religious - not even spelling out "god" in many of the posts that I see. Nevertheless, on the general issue of the threat of militant Islam, I see no inconsistency between her position and Objectivism. Edward Cline writes in almost exactly the same way about the issue. Leonard Peikoff has spoken directly and clearly on Islam in ways that are very similar to Pamela Geller's work. I therefore find it a little surprising that this issue seems to be on the back burner in Objectivist circles. For example, just scanning ARI's front page today I don't see any mention of Islam. Whether or not you think it's the most important cultural issue out there today, it certainly should rank pretty high. Again, I give credit to Edward Cline for some excellent writing such as these for example. And from what I can tell Geller's criticisms of Rick Perry are not out of line either. Even before reading these posts I emailed my local Rick Perry campaign workers about this Agha Khan connection, and have gotten nothing reassuring in reply -- actually, nothing at all. The whole issue seems to be developing as we post here, and so far as I can tell Geller deserves lots of credit for bringing it out of the shadows where some seem to want to keep it. I would like to think Rick Perry will handle it and explain it satisfactorily, but so far he has not. Now, back to lurk mode.

I searched for other mentions of this movie on the forum but did not find any, so this is just to note that this appears to be worth watching: http://www.agoralapelicula.com/ Be sure to select the English menu at the bottom, and watch the trailer under the multimedia section. Here is more info: Of the little that is known about Hypatia, the following account by Socrates Scholasticus, which was written about AD 450, is the best and most substantial. "There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not infrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in coming to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles [oyster shells]. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius [AD 415]." Ecclesiastical History (VII.15)

Sorry if this has been posted before, but if it has I for one missed it. Great title but a little disappointing overall. Nevertheless, probably deserves to be better known in these circles. But here are the lyrics: I'M NOT MY BROTHER'S KEEPER The Flaming Ember I'm not my brother's keeper, though he be strong or weaker Before you judge me, why not try to love me? I'll try to help you when he's wrongin' us Don't point your finger, sayin' it's all of us If a man yells "hate," will my voice be heard? Does he speak for me when he chooses one bad word? When wrong is done under one person's name Should all the people have to share the blame? I'm not my brother's keeper, though he be strong or weaker Before you judge me, why not try to love me? If I do wrong, then someone make me pay But if I'm right, don't try to block my way Don't judge the story without opening up the book The good you find inside it many times is overlooked Being militant don't mean peace ain't in your heart Though we're most impatient for freedom to start I'm not my brother's keeper, though he be strong or weaker Before you judge me, why not try to love me? Don't cut into me with your knives of doubt Before you judge me, why not hear me out? Whoa, brothers!! (I'm not my brother's keeper) 9X I'm not my brother's keeper, though he be strong or weaker Before you judge me, why not try to love me? I'll try to help you when he's wrongin' us Don't point your finger, sayin' it's all of us (repeat to fade)

Hard to be sure, but this movie looks like it deserves a word of mouth campaign. Check out THIS poster (a larger version is available here)

Mine just arrived and I see it's dedicated to Stephen! Congratulations Betsy!

Note that this is being published by stock market guru Robert Prechter of Elliott Wave fame, who is also a long time fan of Ayn Rand. In regard to Prechter, regardless of what else you think of his theories, he has NAILED the current economic situation and had it pegged as coming for years in such books as "Conquer the Crash." Some say he was too negative for too many years, but now that his predictions have come to pass it's easier to see how insightful he was. I've followed Prechter's work closely for more than ten years and as far as I am concerned he is a brilliant example of following logic and evidence in whatever direction they lead. Prechter's interest are wide and varied beyond the market, and he has published in the past on the parallels between his Elliott Wave theories and the Elementary Wave theory. That probably explains his getting behind this publication now. Here's the blurb from the Elliott Wave newsletter: Don't Be Surprised If Prechter Surprises You Quantum Physics For (Not) Dummies By Robert Folsom If asked to name the world's most complex topic, I'd probably say something like "quantum physics." Not that I have any expertise on the subject -- but the thought of studying matter so tiny that it's called "subatomic" is (so to speak) a challenge too minuscule for me to figure out. Maybe you feel likewise. If so, you can understand why "quantum physics" would NOT be my answer to the question, "Name a field of study where the most basic assumption has recently been proven wrong...." That's right. I don't mean a small miscalculation; I mean wrong in the way that the study of astronomy had it wrong before Copernicus -- massively, totally backwards. If this intrigues you in the slightest, please believe me when I say that my description is one small taste of an extraordinary meal that Bob Prechter revealed today in his just-published Elliott Wave Theorist for January. If you never imagined you would learn something truly interesting about quantum physics, please keep reading. I trust you won't be surprised that Bob is the guy who surprises you. Lewis Little’s long-awaited book, The Theory of Elementary Waves: A New Explanation of Fundamental Physics, is due off the press in three weeks. This book will revolutionize the science of sub-atomic physics. It is as ground-breaking as Benoit Mandelbrot’s Fractal Geometry and even more radical in overturning 80 years of bad science. Little writes for the intelligent layman, so you can follow his discussion of a field that has often posed as being too obscure and anti-intuitive for the common mind to grasp. But anything real can be explained, and Little spares no words in tearing down the edifice of magical thinking that permeates quantum mechanics and then erecting a new structure of reasoning from real, physical action and reaction that, as he puts it, “any 8th-grader can understand.” [T]his book provides more elegant revelations than any science book you have read. You should have a first-edition copy of this book on your shelf so when your grandkids ask about it you can say, “I was there.” I can't put it any better, though I am obliged to say that I've read a pre-publication release of Dr. Little's book: his explanations are indeed straightforward and written plainly. Yet, the insights are uniquely deep. Read it only if you're willing to be challenged about the way (literally) the world works. The book's Amazon page went up yesterday, and already it has climbed into the top 150 by sales rank -- that page is here: The Theory of Elementary Waves: A New Explanation of Fundamental Physics.

I posted recently about the following issue in the middle of a long thread on another topic, but I think the issue is so important that it merits a topic of its own. The current flap with Obama criticizing the virtue of selfishness screams for Ayn Rand's introduction to her book by that name to be sent out far and wide to everyone who can read. What would prevent that? I presume the current copyright situation. Phil Oliver brought up the point in relation to the Objectivist CDROM that he pioneered: If no one agrees that the copyrights need to be purchased and the work released to the public domain, then I'll just shut up! But I, for one, think Phil Oliver's point is correct and gets more important by the day. Anyone else thinking the same?

I do not believe you will find in these or any other of my posts any hostility toward Leonard Peikoff or ARI, and nothing here was intended as such. It is my professional experience that last wills and testaments are public and generally intended by their authors to be recorded by the probate court for purposes of seeing that their instructions are carried out. There is nothing sinister involved in asking the question as to what were the last statements and instructions of the person whose work we all on this board care so much about --- ESPECIALLY since Ayn Rand would have been well aware of the public nature of the document and therefore expected that those instructions would be public. Since most things she wrote were so insightful, anything she wrote for the public record is of interest. If she wrote one line saying "I leave everything to Leonard Peikoff" or if she somehow had her will sealed from the public, those facts are themselves both of interest to those who are "fans of Ayn Rand" and seek to apply her examples and thoughts to their own lives. And certainly I am not demanding anyone produce anything -- if it's available on the internet then it would be of interest, if it's not then so be it -- I'm certainly not driving to New York to look it up. If it's not available on the internet I'll likely never read it and it will never have any effect on me one way or the other -- which is also the point why it's desirable to make all of Ayn Rand's work as easily available as possible. Also, as to Phil, I have never met him nor spoken to him -- my cite to his comment was purely to attribute the idea and avoid the implication that I was passing it off as my own. I have great respect for the work he has done and the value that his CDROM has been to me, and I agree with the thoughts he has expressed before on this subject and the need to expand computer access to Ayn Rand's work. Obviously if Leonard Peikoff or others own the copyrights through will or otherwise, then as stated originally it would be a matter of attempting to purchase those copyrights for a price acceptable to him.

And as to my question about what Ayn Rand's will said about the subject? A copy of that showing Ayn Rand's full intent as to the future of her work is available where on the internet?

Darn I pushed the button too fast and was unclear. Of course my question as to "is that a known and established fact" refers to the part about whether it "helps fund the ARI operations". Does it really? Is ARI now the copyright holder for all of the work of Ayn Rand?

Is that a known and established fact? Does anyone know what the last will and testament of Ayn Rand says about this? Anyone ever seen a copy of her will posted on the internet? Presumably it is a public document in the probate files of the county in which she lived in New York(?)

I have no clue who owns these copyrights or the background of that ownership, but Phil Oliver is making a hugely important point here. If a fund-raising campaign needs to be undertaken to buy out the copyrights, so be it. It ought to be a prime focus of organized Objectivism to get the work of Ayn Rand freely available and organized on the internet in its fullest possible extent, in as many languages as possible, as soon as possible. If this is not near the top of the agenda for ARI, I wish someone would explain why it isn't so we can get to work and deal with the problem! One more thought -- I think I've read comments like this from Phil before, and yet I've never seen much followup from others. Phil, I want to publicly volunteer to sign on and contribute to any effort you might decide to put together to carry on this effort, and I publicly challenge others on this board to do the same! This goal is too important, and time is too short, for this issue to remain in the shadows.

I have gathered over the years that some others who post here share an interest in Roman and Greek history that goes beyond the respect that Ayn Rand paid to Aristotle. Lately I have been doing some reading on Epicurus and thought I would post a couple of items I found interesting. I now see that my own past notions about the teachings of Epicurus were wrong, and that I had been influenced by the mainstream distortion that Epicurus stood for nothing more than "eat drink and be merry..." I thought others might enjoy the following references and have comments that would further my own study. It is my understanding that because the early Christians showed their usual competency at suppressing dissenting ideas by burning Epicurus’ books, most of his original work has been lost. There is some hope, however, that scrolls of some of those lost works may still be found at the excavation of the library in Herculaneum, and more fragments of the Epicurean “wall inscription” will be found at the site of ancient Oinoanda in Turkey. Before posting this I did a search of previous references to Lucretius and Epicurus on this board, and saw the several references to the phrase “death is nothing to us.” Taken in context, it seems clear that this phrase was not meant to deprecate the joy and importance of life, and it should not be off-putting to a fan of Ayn Rand. Rather, the phrase was intended squarely to meet the claims of mystical religions that man will suffer eternal punishment in an afterlife for sins on earth. It was for that reason – to show that consciousness stops at death and no eternal punishments are forthcoming - that the phrase was considered important by the Epicureans. As Lucretius said in what may be the definitive surviving statement of Epicureanism, his poem On The Nature of Things: You will yourself some day or other seek to fall away from us, overborne by the terrific utterances of priests. Yes, indeed, for how many dreams can they even now invent for you, enough to upset the principles of life and to confound all your fortunes with fear! And with reason; for if men saw that a limit has been set to tribulation, they would have strength to defy the superstititions and threatenings of the priests. But, as it is, there is no way of resistance and no power, because everlasting punishment is to be feared after death. …. This terror of mind therefore and this gloom must be dispelled, not by the sun’s rays or the bright shafts of day, but by the aspect and law of nature. (Book I, De Rerum Natura, Smith translation) Lucretius’ poem is very impressive, with many parts of its scientific descriptions surprisingly modern, such as his description of the infinite universe, other worlds besides ours, formation of matter from atoms, and natural explanation for life on earth. Based on the general observation that (1) nothing comes from nothing and (2) nothing goes to nothing, he advocates of study of universe based purely on reason and observation. But his philosophical attacks on mysticism are particularly good, such as this section (I note that the translator’s use of the word “idiotic” is probably a poor choice of words, and that Lucretius meant it is OK to be wrong so long as you as it stems from an error of knowledge rather than from abandoning reason): "And if your reasoning faculties can find no explanation why a thing looks square when seen close up, and round when farther off, even so it might be better for a man who lacks the power of reason to give out some idiotic theory than to drop hold of all basic principles, break down every foundation, and tear apart the frame that holds our lives, or welfare. All is lost, not only reason, but our very life, unless we have the courage and the nerve to trust the senses and to avoid those sheer downfalls into the pits of nonsense." If a building were planned by someone with a crooked ruler or an inaccurate square, or a spirit-level a little out of true, the edifice, in consequence, would be a frightful mess -- warped, wobbly, wish-wash, weak, and wavering -- waiting for complete collapse. So let your rule of reason never be distorted by errors of sense, lest your logic prove a road to ruin." (Book IV, De Rerum Natura, Humphries translation) [emphasis added] There is an interesting in-depth article entitled “Epicurus and Rand” written apparently in 1990 or thereabouts by Ray Shelton and available for free at http://www.objectivity-archive.com/volume2_number3.html#1 (Note: I have no information about the credibility of the author of the journal in which this was printed, but the article is well-sourced and stands on its own.) This article as best I can determine is the most detailed treatment anywhere of parallels between the ideas of Ayn Rand and those of Epicurus. A followup article is posted here: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/parallel-metaethics.html. Another interesting web site is http://www.epicurus.info, which posts the letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Short with Jefferson’s statement: “I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/Jefferson.html To me, it appears that Jefferson was making an argument similar and expanding on the point Lucretius made in the excerpt above when he wrote: "We certainly are not to deny whatever we cannot account for. A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain; but where facts are suggested bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us, their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty. A cautious mind will weigh well the opposition of the phenomenon to everything hitherto observed, the strength of the testimony by which it is supported, and the errors and misconceptions to which even our senses are liable." --Thomas Jefferson to Daniel Salmon, 1808. ME 11:441 [emphasis added] There is also this article entitled “The Epicurean Roots of Some Classical Liberal and Misean Concepts” available here: http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/050415-14.htm which focuses on Ludwig von Mises’ affection for Epicurus, with this statement from Human Action: “The historical role of the theory of the division of labor as elaborated by British political economy from Hume to Ricardo consisted in the complete demolition of all metaphysical doctrines concerning the origin and the operation of social cooperation. It consummated the spiritual, moral and intellectual emancipation of mankind inaugurated by the philosophy of Epicureanism.” The two best websites on Epicurus appear to be http://www.epicurus.info/ and http://www.epicurus.net/ For anyone who decides to dive into Lucretius’ poem, I highly recommend the Audible.com reading by narrator Charlton Griffin of the Humphries translation. As a closing thought I should mention that of course any parallels between the ideas of Ayn Rand and those of Epicurus takes nothing away from Ayn Rand. Rather than being concerned that any of Rand's ideas derive from Epicurus, the great benefit of knowing about those who had similar ideas in the past is to learn from their example. Based on my initial reading, it appears a case could be made that, through 100 AD at least, significant sections of the educated classes of the Roman world were well on their way toward developing a non-Platonic reason-based philosophy of life on earth, and they were making significant progress against the superstitions of the prior periods. (For the reaction in Athens by the Epicureans to Paul, see Acts 17:18 “Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him. And some said, ‘What will this babbler say?’”) It is sad that they failed, but learning more about the Epicureans' history and the suppression of their work by the establishment church may well be of interest as we promote the work of Ayn Rand. Preserving their memory also in a small way vindicates the mission they undertook for themselves to fight superstition and error. In studying Epicurus I found this from Seneca, who often quoted Epicurus, and was here writing about the need to spread correct philosophy rather than play games with words: Would you really know what philosophy offers to humanity? Philosophy offers counsel. Death calls away one man, and poverty chafes another; a third is worried either by his neighbor's wealth or by his own. So-and-so is afraid of bad luck; another desires to get away from his own good fortune. Some are ill-treated by men, others by the gods. Why, then, do you frame for me such games as these? It is no occasion for jest; you are retained as counsel for unhappy men, sick and the needy, and those whose heads are under the poised axe. Whither are you straying? What are you doing? This friend, in whose company you are jesting, is in fear. Help him, and take the noose from about his neck. Men are stretching out imploring hands to you on all sides; lives ruined and in danger of ruin are begging for some assistance; men's hopes, men's resources, depend upon you. They ask that you deliver them from all their restlessness, that you reveal to them, scattered and wandering as they are, the clear light of truth. Tell them what nature has made necessary, and what superfluous; tell them how simple are the laws that she has laid down, how pleasant and unimpeded life is for those who follow these laws, but how bitter and perplexed it is for those who have put their trust in opinion rather than in nature.

Here is one more particularly apt quote from Lucretius I meant to include (De Rerum Natura Book IV, line 449). Ayn Rand fans should find the argument familiar: Moreover, if someone thinks that he knows nothing, he also does not know whether this can be known, since he admits that he knows nothing. So I shall not bother to argue with him, since he is standing on his head already. But nevertheless, conceding that he does know this, I would also ask the following question: since he has never before seen anything true in the world, how does he know what it is to know and what it is not to know? What could have created the conceptions of truth and falsity, and what could have proven that the doubtful is distinct from what is certain? You will discover that the conception of truth was originally created by the senses, and that the senses cannot be refuted. For one must find something with greater authority which could all on its own refute what is false by means of what is true. But what should be given greater authority than the senses? Will reason which derives from a false sense perception be able to contradict them, when it is completely derived from the senses? And if they are not true, all of reason becomes false as well. Will the ears be able to criticize the eyes, or the eyes the touch? Furthermore, will the taste organs of the mouth quarrel with the touch, or will the nose confute it, or the eyes disprove it? In my view, this is not so. For each sense has been allotted its own separate jurisdiction, its own distinct power. And so it is necessary that we separately perceive what is soft and cold or hot and separately perceive the various colours and see the features which accompany colour. Similarly the mouth's taste is separate, and odours come to be separately, and sounds too are separate. And so it is necessary that one set of senses not be able to refute another. Nor, moreover, will they be able to criticize themselves, since they will at all times have to command equal confidence.

Thanks very much for posting these links. The photos and the site linked are fascinating.

I am posting here because I am curious about the recent republication of the works of author Garet Garrett (1878-1954) over at Mises.org. Some over there (not surprising for a Libertarian-oriented site) are jumping on the opportunity to disparage Ayn Rand by arguing that Atlas Shrugged is a plagiarism of Garrett’s 1922 book The Driver. I have recently discovered the PDF’s that Mises.org has published of all Garrett’s novels, and have now finished reading The Driver myself. My own view is that the plagiarism charge is ridiculous. Both books involve the railroad industry, and The Driver’s main character is similar in temperament and talent to Dagny Taggart or Hank Rearden, but Garret makes no effort to delve into philosophy, and the narratives are completely different. However, after reading both books and reading more about Garrett, it seems likely that Ayn Rand was very familiar with this work and presumably Garrett himself. Of several parallels the detractors will use to yell plagiarism, perhaps most deserving of a reply is that the hero in both books is named GALT. Though Garrett’s hero’s first name is Henry, rather than John, Garrett also employs the question “Who is Henry Galt?” as a literary device. The coincidence now tempts me to believe that Galt’s name in Atlas Shrugged comes from this source, more than likely as a tribute to Garrett rather than from any negative aspects. I was hoping to read more of Garrett’s work before posting this question, but I just started The People’s Pottage and when Garrett cited Aristotle I decided to proceed. So far as I can tell, Garrett’s personal story seems to be a heroic figure of resistance against the New Deal. He was apparently very well known in the 1920's and 1930's as an editor of the Saturday Evening Post and a writer whose works were published by Caxton, who I understand also to have been a printer of one or more Rand works. It also seems to me that the great majority of what I have read so far in Garrett’s work is fully compatible with the views of Ayn Rand (i.e. it is not based on religion, utilitarianism, or other superficialities.) For the same reason I find information about the early influences on Ayn Rand interesting, I am now curious to know to what extent she was in contact with Garet Garrett, and whether she ever made any direct commentary about his work. The person at Mises.org who is coordinating the posting of Garrett’s work is evidently himself sympathetic to the views of Ayn Rand, but from the comments on that page it seems clear that Ayn Rand’s detractors will think they have been handed a major weapon to use against her. (The charge has evidently been leveled in the past, but the new availability of The Driver on the net will probably spread it further.) I think it would be a service to the memory of Ayn Rand if those who have any information about her contacts or views of Garet Garrett would relate those publicly, so a body of information can be compiled to derail the slanderers before they get started. Perhaps this is a subject that is already well known to others and I have just missed it. Does anyone have good information about this? Is there a place where this question could be posted so those who knew Ayn Rand personally would see it? Regardless of this issue, based on what I have read so far, Garrett’s life and work deserve to be remembered. I think most readers of Ayn Rand’s works will find Garrett's works (especially The Driver) to be good reading.

It will be interesting to see if they make any special note in print about the 50th anniversary. They could (1) ignore it, (2) repeat and expand on Chamber's slander, or (3) make some fair observations such as were in the Wall Street Journal 12/13 op-ed about "Rand and the Right." Probably Buckley's magazine will never have the guts to back off the slanders he permitted when he was editor so long as he's still alive.

Was this online, in the print version, or both? I did a quick look over at nationalreview.com and couldn't find it. Seems like in the past I saw that they had a version online, but I'm wondering if they've stored up enough ill will to reprint it in the paper version.

This weekend I read "A Time is Born" that Garrett wrote in 1944. As with the Blue Wound, the book is a strange mix mostly focused on international trade. If someone were (like me) looking for common threads in Garrett's viewpoints, be sure to read the LAST chapter. It turns out that the phrase A Time Is Born apparently refers to his observation that world history was about to take a revolutionary turn, in that science was going to make it possible for nations to become more and more self-reliant and less dependent on others for vital supplies. As a result, he seems to be concluding that while the economic conflicts in the past may have been an inevitable result of the European social systems (at least to some degree), the future held the promise of less conflict through greater self-reliance. I am developing a working hypothesis about why some of this is so confusing as I try to compare it to the work of Ayn Rand. Although I thought his commentary in Blue Wound was intended to be of universal application, I now think what Garrett was focused on then (and clearly so in A Time is Born) was not so much "international trade" in the sense of Free Trade / Capitalism but specifically EUROPEAN trade theories such as colonialism and mercantilism. Maybe this is because Garrett had just lived through two world wars, but I think his examples of the rise and fall of cities, and the inherent tension between manufacturing and agriculture/mining/manual labor, is more a commentary on the ancient world and colonialism than on what we think of as free trade between free nations today. For example, the constant use of the "rise and fall of cities" that Garrett refers to doesn't really have a parallel in the history of the United States. It's much more applicable to ancient civilizations and the competition between colonial powers that was evidently largely a cause of World War I. Further, we know from his other writings that Garrett was VERY opposed to the US bailing out the war debt of the European countries, so he was obviously spending a lot of time thinking about how European mercantile ideas (evidently adopted by Japan as well) were so destructive. Maybe on this point there's a relevance to the fact that when Ayn Rand left Russia, she didn't stop and settle in Berlin, or Paris, or London. When I think of the passion with which she adopted and defended the AMERICAN sense and way of life (such as her defense of the US agaisnt charges of racism, genocide, etc. in the West Point QA session) I suspect that something similar is behind Garrett's viewpoint. He's specifically defending AMERICAN concepts of justice, freedom. and free trade between equals, against EUROPEAN colonial economic views that tolerated slavery and similar use of force to settle trade disputes. If there's any truth to that, then what Garrett was really opposing was not free trade between free people as a concept -- nowhere do I see him advocating trade barriers between New York and New Jersey. Rather I suspect he was advocating self-reliance rather than dependence upon enemies for vital resources. As I commented above with cites to Ayn Rand, that's certainly a legitimate perspective in time of war, and a matter for serious debate between men of good will in times that seem to be moving in that direction.

If this were a poll, I'd vote with Betsy on this one. Coulter's statements here are what most every Christian in the United States prior to about 1950 would have stated as a truism and thought nothing further about it. They would have presumed that those of Jewish faith would have rejected the position, but no one (Jew, Christian, or atheist) would have been shocked at such a fundamental article of the faith of a major religion. In general Coulter is right on most of the time. She's far from right ALL of the time, but most of her statements that enemies make so much of are mainstream American 1950 viewpoints. (In some cases maybe mainstream 1910's). In virtually every case reported in the media (a very important caveat) Coulter's enemies are Objectivism's enemies. PS - I will promptly drop any disposition toward kind words about Coulter if someone has a cite to where she has personally slandered Ayn Rand in the way that National Review and Weekly Standard like to do.

Kitty: If I have read your posts correctly, you and I have read the same two books (The Driver and Blue Wound). Maybe once I read more I will change my mind, but for now I think much of the difficulty stems from the "parable" format: It seems to me that Garrett does not intend Mered to be representative of Garrett's own views. Based various references throughout the book, on the similarlty of the scenario (flying around; looking down at the world from a mountaintop-like place; supernatural powers), and the inference that Mered had himself caused the WWI, I interpret Mered to be a Lucifer / Satan character. Rather than being Garrett's mouthpiece, Mered seems to be more representative of the common superficial religious viewpoint. I think it's also important that standard procedure for a Satan character is that he will employ trickery to make his points -- the cliche is that Satan will say things that seem reasonable, and may even have a grain of truth in them, but distort the truth and tempt toward incorrect and disasterous conclusions. This is another example where I believe Garrett is employing the Biblical analogy (such as he did in naming "The Peoples' Pottage" which makes no sense to those who do not know the story of Jacob and Esau). In my view he has placed these observations you quote in the mouth of Lucifer. Do we in fact agree that the snake is blessed because he can crawl around and eat what is at hand, and man is cursed because he must work to live? ;-) I don't think Garrett would put his own views directly in the mouth of a Lucifer character who had already been responsible for WWI and was about to start the future world war, without also intending that the reader separate the truth from the misdirection. Some of what Mered says is presumably Garrett's position, but the part that IS his position is probably found in the chapter entitled "The Answer", in a scene just prior to the second world war. There, Mered says that the way out of the cycle of class warfare is that "Man must embrace the curse." (page 121) Mered says, "Once man has embraced the curse, he would no longer take pride in shirking the drudgery which is inseparable from existence." Given all we know about Garrett's career, this has got be "apocryphal" - work is of course not a "curse" but a "blessing," and it is in fact essential to man's life that he support himself through productive work (I'm thinking here of the Roark formulation especially). Garrett knew that; it's what The Driver is all about. OK, I completely admit that this is a long way around the path to get to a destination, but this is also why it's laughable for the libertarians to say that Atlas Shrugged plagiarized The Driver. Garrett simply wasn't dealing at the same deep level as was Ayn Rand (especially in this book). Seems to me he was using a literary device to make a limited point, and maybe also attempting to reach people who might follow his point better in a familiar semi-Biblical analogy. Stripped of the parable / fantasy context, the argument is that self-reliance is the way to avoid dependence on others, and thereby to avoid the friction that generally arises because both the depender and the dependee end up resenting each other. It would have been a lot clearer to use a scenario where a character came right out and clearly explained the point, but then that wouldn't be the way a Lucifer character would operate, and wouldn't have made for as challenging a parable.

Just today I came across this page http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.c...s/posts/default and the work of this person named "J. R. Nyquist." The only reason I take the time to type these words is that he seems unusually prolific and motivated to spread anti-Ayn Rand propaganda around the internet. I gather, but am not sure, that his motivation is a combination of Libertarianism and Nietzsche-worship and perhaps Christianity(?) Without wasting too much time on this, does anyone know anything about this guy's background? He seems to be spending a lot of time attacking Founders College and Objectivist initiatives of many sorts. So for that reason, on the theory of "know your enemy" .... my question is: does anyone know the story on this guy? I did a search for "Nyquist" on the forum first and didn't get hits, so I hope this hasn't already been covered.