Rose Lake

Amazingly good article in FORBES magazine

14 posts in this topic

Check out this article in a column called "Unsolicited Advice" in FORBES magazine.

Atlas Shrugs Again

Wow! I have never seen such a positive article on Objectivism in a mainstream magazine.

The cultural and political climate might be opportune for the objectivist movement. After all, a philosophy that celebrates reason as the only means of knowledge seems particularly appealing at a time when liberalism is preoccupied with preventing nightmares rather than promoting dreams, when neoconservatism has been widely discredited, and when standard-bearers for traditional values--such as Ted Haggard and Republican senators, David Vitter of Louisiana and Larry Craig of Idaho, have been found looking for love in all the wrong places.

Whether this revival is a flash in the pan or a lasting trend depends on marketing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Check out this article in a column called "Unsolicited Advice" in FORBES magazine.

Atlas Shrugs Again

Wow! I have never seen such a positive article on Objectivism in a mainstream magazine.

The cultural and political climate might be opportune for the objectivist movement. After all, a philosophy that celebrates reason as the only means of knowledge seems particularly appealing at a time when liberalism is preoccupied with preventing nightmares rather than promoting dreams, when neoconservatism has been widely discredited, and when standard-bearers for traditional values--such as Ted Haggard and Republican senators, David Vitter of Louisiana and Larry Craig of Idaho, have been found looking for love in all the wrong places.

Whether this revival is a flash in the pan or a lasting trend depends on marketing.

I just got the link in my email -- the article is absolutely wonderful.

I especially like this ideological marketing 'recommendation' laid out by the article's authors:

--Pick your controversies selectively, and don't be afraid to court the controversies you pick. Conservative Republicans have dominated presidential politics for over half a century by deftly capitalizing on wedge issues --the latest example being same-sex marriage. Objectivists would do well to steal a page from that playbook by picking a battle on a specific issue in the area of individual rights.

I think the first issue should be immigration. It is a very good wedge issue to begin with; the conservatives have captured a moral high ground they don't deserve on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the first issue should be immigration. It is a very good wedge issue to begin with; the conservatives have captured a moral high ground they don't deserve on the matter.

No - the issue should be taxation & patronage (aka "wealth redistribution") and emminent domain, things that resonate profoundly with many Americans, even those conflicted on why and how. Property rights are a very powerful concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean that theocracy is dead?

The cultural and political climate might be opportune for the objectivist movement. After all, a philosophy that celebrates reason as the only means of knowledge seems particularly appealing at a time when liberalism is preoccupied with preventing nightmares rather than promoting dreams, when neoconservatism has been widely discredited, and when standard-bearers for traditional values--such as Ted Haggard and Republican senators, David Vitter of Louisiana and Larry Craig of Idaho, have been found looking for love in all the wrong places.

I especially liked this one.

--Activate your natural supporters. Objectivism is a natural fit for businessmen because it not only tolerates, but extols them. Fortune 500 CEOs can become to objectivism what movie stars are to Scientology and Kabalah.

Imagine the results of ONE well-known businessman who would contribute to ARI what movie stars contribute to their irrational fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine the results of ONE well-known businessman who would contribute to ARI what movie stars contribute to their irrational fantasies.

Is not John Allison contributing in many ways already although he might not be "well-known."

On the lighter side, I am working as hard and as fast as I can! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine the results of ONE well-known businessman who would contribute to ARI what movie stars contribute to their irrational fantasies.

Is not John Allison contributing in many ways already although he might not be "well-known."

So has Monroe Trout and at least two other well-known multi-millionaires I am not at liberty to name.

On the lighter side, I am working as hard and as fast as I can! :D

Great! Intellectuals aren't the only ones helping to spread Objectivism. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine the results of ONE well-known businessman who would contribute to ARI what movie stars contribute to their irrational fantasies.

Is not John Allison contributing in many ways already although he might not be "well-known."

On the lighter side, I am working as hard and as fast as I can! :D

I was referring to one who had celebrity star status, like Trump or somone at that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If movies are a reflection of a societies values then I would also think so are it's stars. With that in mind and people such as the actors in the movies today that are glorified, we should be able to understand why there does not yet exist a "well known" businessman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If movies are a reflection of a societies values then I would also think so are it's stars. With that in mind and people such as the actors in the movies today that are glorified, we should be able to understand why there does not yet exist a "well known" businessman.

I wouldn't say that; there are well known businessmen (e.g. Bill Gates) that are either largely reviled or reluctantly acknowledged while criticized for the great wealth that they've earned, though there are various altruists who like his vast charitible largesse towards various 3d world causes.

In an earlier and saner age, men such as Andrew Carnegie, starting out as the penniless son of immigrants and ending up as the world's first billionaire through steel manufacturing, were likely both well known *and* generally respected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In an earlier and saner age, men such as Andrew Carnegie, starting out as the penniless son of immigrants and ending up as the world's first billionaire through steel manufacturing, were likely both well known *and* generally respected.

They were heroes to the American people but not to the intellectuals who reviled and condemned them as "Robber Barons." Carnegie tried to atone for the sin of being wealthy by donating huge sums to charity.

Things haven't changed all that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, I agree with what I think your general line of thought is. But the context was a "well known" businessman who would donate to ARI and that is something Bill Gates or people like him have not done, or if so, are not claiming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They were heroes to the American people but not to the intellectuals who reviled and condemned them as "Robber Barons." Carnegie tried to atone for the sin of being wealthy by donating huge sums to charity.

Sure, I know something about Carnegie's charitable donations. But I think there are two important differences - first and foremost, that today it's not just the intellectuals but also many non-intellectual Americans who revile e.g. Bill Gates, or at least many more than in the 19th century. Second, I think there are significant differences between Carnegie's donations and Gates': Carnegie did not really start to give away his money until he was 66, nearing the end of his life, and his personal values included funding many American libraries - there could be much worse goals than promoting the storage and dissemination of knowledge around America (e.g. from http://www.carnegie.org/: 'Carnegie Corporation of New York was created by Andrew Carnegie in 1911 [i.e. at age 76] to promote "the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding." Under Carnegie's will, grants must benefit the people of the United States, although up to 7.4 percent of the funds may be used for the same purpose in countries that are or have been members of the British Commonwealth, with a current emphasis on Commonwealth Africa.')

Gates by contrast is still a relatively young man and his focus is largely on third world cesspools, and seems to be much more motivated by appeasement of the altruists than was Carnegie. I don't think that a man giving away his money at the end of his life is necessarily altruistic; the old adage that "you can't take it with you" is true. And the thought occurs to me that "the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding" is not so different than ARI's goals, albeit in the delimited sense of Objectivism; and rational people donate, or plan to leave part of their estate, to ARI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the context was a "well known" businessman who would donate to ARI and that is something Bill Gates or people like him have not done, or if so, are not claiming.

Oh, ok. Yeah, it would be great if Gates understood ideas sufficiently to donate as much to the promotion of Objectivism as he does to, say, buying ex-Israeli greenhouses for millions of dollars so that Palistineans can dismantle it as a mob for parts then dig holes beneath the shattered remains for terrorists to invade Israel (which happened.) See the previous post I just made, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites