Bidinotto

Dear friends: TODAY (FRIDAY) IS THE FINAL DAY TO VOTE... One more time for this appeal... -------------------- About a week ago, I asked you to help The New Individualist, the monthly magazine that I edit, win $10,000 to develop our new website. All you had to do was cast your vote for us in an online entrepreneurship contest. Well, you responded. And thanks to you, we won last week's semi-final competition, propelling us into the final round. Now, I'm asking you to please vote again, one last time, in the FINAL round of the competition...before MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME THIS FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30. Even if you voted in the previous round, you can vote again this week -- and we need every vote. I know many of you really like the magazine. Our new website will give us a huge boost over the ideological competition. Here's the deal: As I explained, we've entered an online entrepreneurship contest. We've submitted an idea of creating live, interactive news events for our forthcoming TNI website, which will go online at the beginning of 2008. If we win, the money will fund a cutting-edge "TNI TV" feature. This dazzling technology will present live, interactive shows that will feature our writers, editors, and special interview guests. Online audience members (like you) will get to participate by asking questions of the guests. Real-time polling will be conducted during the shows. And our advertisers will appear live, too, to share their wares. Even though we won the semi-final round, we know that hundreds of people visited our online voting page without actually casting a vote. Some people later told us that our voting instructions weren't clear. So, maybe you tried, and couldn't figure out how to do it. So here are the simplified instructions for online voting. If you have any problems, please call managing editor Sherrie Gossett at 800-374-1776 or on her cell at 571-926-0532. She'd be happy to walk you through the brief process. Please do the following right away: 1. Copy and paste the following URL into your browser: http://ideablob.com/ideas/527- Interactive-web- based-news-even (Note: you will see the name "MightyMouse" on this page. This simply the username managing editor Sherrie Gossett created. Also, the page make take some time to load up -- no doubt because many people are voting. PLEASE BE PATIENT FOR A MOMENT.) 2. If you previously voted last time, go to the top of the page and LOGIN. Then skip to step 5, below. 3. If you have not previously voted, go to the top of the page and click on "register." (You can opt out of any future "spam" contacts.) 4. Follow the registration instructions; it will only take a couple of minutes. You will be sent an email to confirm your identity; click on the URL to send it back. Then you'll be sent back to our voting page again. 5. To cast your vote, click on the green "thumbs up" box: it reads: "Like this idea? Vote for it now" That's all! Our victory in this final round will win us the grand prize. And it won't cost you a thing, except a couple of minutes of your time. But it will mean a great deal to us if we win. Thank you once again for your "vote of confidence" in The New Individualist. -- Robert Bidinotto Editor-in-Chief <I>The New Individualist</I>

Brava, Barbara! Outstanding post.

Since I've been quoted here, I thought I might draw from an entry I just posted over on the RoR site. (Incidentally, Joe Rowlands and I found that we reached a point of disagreement; but he was never incivil to me about it, and our debate ended quite amicably and respectfully, even though nobody cried "Uncle!" I think he has a first-rate mind.) The following pertains to the question of whether rights have a metaphysical or an epistemological status -- that is: whether "rights" exist in nature (as an aspect of human nature -- the traditional "natural rights" or intrinsicist view of rights) -- or whether rights are a human concept: an abstract identification of a moral principle that ought to be applied in social contexts (which is the view of rights that I hold). Let's first try to settle exactly what Rand's view of rights was. To do that, please follow her own chain of definitions, which are available in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. Here is the first chain of three interrelated definitions (I've underlined the key transitional words): "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." "A principle is 'a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.'" "Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality." Now, here's a second chain of Randian definitions: "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." "...[A] principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes." "Abstractions as such do not exist; they are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists--and that which exists is concrete." The implications of either of these two chains couldn't be clearer: For Rand, rights are principles; principles are truths; principles are also abstractions. Truths are human identifications of facts -- but they are not the facts themselves; abstractions are man's epistemological means of perceiving facts -- but they are not the facts themselves. Or, simplified even further: Rights = principles = truths = abstractions; but "abstractions as such do not exist." Therefore, the abstractions called rights "as such do not exist" -- at least not in nature, according to Rand. One way to assimilate this point of view about rights is to visualize or draw three concentric circles. The broadest circle, which includes the other two, is labeled "abstractions"; the second biggest circle is labeled "principles"; within it is the third and smallest circle, labeled "rights." In other words, rights are one kind of principle; and principles are one form of abstractions. Therefore, anything true of abstractions also must be true of both principles and rights; and anything true of principles must also be true of rights. So, if it is true that the widest category, abstractions, "as such do not exist," then it also must be true that principles, including the principles of rights, "as such do not exist," since they are only kinds of abstractions. You can do the same thing with the concepts "truths," "principles," and "rights." The broadest concept is "truths," so anything true of that concept must also be true of "principles" and "rights," which are subcategories or kinds of truths. So, if truths are "product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality," then rights, which are one form of "truths," must also be products of human identifications of facts of reality. Therefore, without those human identifications, rights do not arise and exist. This is just another way of affirming what was said above: "Rights" do not exist metaphysically in nature; they are epistemological constructions -- abstract principles -- based on human identifications of certain facts of reality. The belief that rights exist metaphysically, rather than only epistemologically, is what Rand referred to as intrinsicism -- the fallacies of which she spelled out in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (specifically, in her discussion of the Aristotelian concept theory of "moderate realism," which she explicitly rejected). If you still wish to argue that rights have a metaphysical status in nature, it's time to take up your argument with Rand, not me.

Glad that you all enjoyed the video. The person who posted it had some exasperating problems with the formatting, which is why an early version didn't quite work and had to be re-posted. The name-spelling error was discovered after the posting, at which time nothing could be done about it, alas. But the most important thing is that Barbara's great tribute is now out there for the world to appreciate. It was one of the most moving experiences I've ever known at a conference; her words touched me deeply.

Now archived on YouTube are the remarks made by Barbara Branden during the 50th anniversary celebration of Atlas Shrugged. Her personal recollections of Ayn Rand's struggle, her achievement, and the depth of her disappointment at the critical response, were profoundly moving. .The continuation, .The event was sponsored by The Atlas Society.

Elizabeth, I especially like what Roger and Jim said here. To me, Objectivism is like a road map to the world. But it is not the world. If you consult it for guidance, as you would a map, rather than treat it as its own pseudo-universe, you'll be just fine. --Robert

Barbara, thanks. We both know how challenging it will be to do justice to Rand's story, and that no film can possibly be a line-by-line transcription of the novel. But it IS possible to take Rand's plot and characters and translate them to the screen in a way that EMBODIES rather than PREACHES her ideas. In this regard, I invite readers to reread Rand's essay "The Goal of My Writing" (in The Romantic Manifesto). Those who are complaining, in advance, that the film won't be didactic enough about Objectivism entirely miss the point of what Rand was trying to accomplish with her fiction. Read her own words on this subject -- then ask yourself: How would SHE have approached this film? As I've said elsewhere, too many fans of Rand's work view her fiction as mere propaganda for Objectivism, and her characters as little more than "premises with feet." They just don't GET Ayn Rand. But alas, that's a common affliction within the Objectivist community.

Hey, Mike, Thanks for that. I'm sure you'll enjoy the seminar lectures. We get first-rate speakers and great topics every year.

Roger, I've been compared with many things. But a baby seal? Yeesh. Anyway, the analogy falls apart, because when attacked, I club back. --Robert

Jim, let me add that I have always particularly valued your own insights and (always constructive) criticisms. We're keenly aware of the need for more professionalism in various areas, and we have been working extra hard to refine our focus and implement better practicies. You're seeing some happy results of these efforts, and you'll see many more in the coming year. Again, constructive input and feedback are always welcome. Contact us anytime. If the feedback pertains to the magazine, contact me at: rbidinotto(at)atlassociety(dot)org

Dear Mike R, I appreciate your clarification about this, Mike. Look, I would be the LAST to declare either that TAS has been without flaw, or that ARI has been without virtue. We have done some things very poorly, and ARI has done some things exceedingly well. But the reverse has been the case, too. I just ask that people exercise a bit of proportion. We're making major efforts to improve in areas where we've been weak, and I think the results of those efforts are visibly manifesting themselves. In this, we welcome constructive criticism and offers to help, which we'll accept in a spirit of good will.

Thank you, Jordan and Michael. Personally, I would like to point out an interesting phenomenon. Observe that certain people criticize TAS for what it supposedly hasn't done or isn't doing or isn't doing well. Then, as this past year indicates, we accomplish all sorts of impressive things: * laying down a high-profile challenge to the leadership of the conservative movement about their basic philosophical premises, right at their own major annual conference, with huge success in terms of media and public notice (e.g., newspapers in Pittsburgh and Minneapolis, national talk shows such as "Air America," etc.) * helping to bring Rand's Atlas Shrugged to the big screen by giving consulting assistance to the production * building a once-tiny, in-house publication into a significant, nationally circulated Objectivist consumer magazine that, in less than two years, took home the magazine industry's top award...for an article endorsing Objectivism as the alternative to conservatism (!) * hosting a high-visibility conference in Washington, DC, attended by leading members of the media and public-policy groups, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged * generating attention to Rand and her novel with articles in such major media outlets as The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, The Conference Board Review, and (for nearly five hours) on nationwide TV via C-SPAN. So what happens? Objectivists continue to criticize us for not doing enough. I can only hope that we continue this record of "failure" in 2008.

Just adding this comment for a last-minute "bump" to the current page, so that people who haven't yet seen this announcement and are interested can be notified before today's broadcast.

Chris, we had our phone number and website URL plastered right up on the podium. You'll note, though, that the tight C-SPAN camera angles on the speakers' heads and shoulders usually cut off any view of the podium. However, the organization's name WAS mentioned repeatedly by speakers and displayed on the stage backdrop. As for the inspired phone number, Ed Hudgins is responsible -- one of his first acts upon setting up what was then our Washington office.

Oh yeah... Just in case C-SPAN 2 doesn't get their "for more information" blurb right THIS time, the group hosting this event was actually The Atlas Society. The real URL is: www.atlassociety.org. And the phone number is 202-AYN-RAND. Okay? That's what we've told the producers this week, repeatedly. So, let's see if they get it right this time.

Chris, now don't go "Sally Fields" on us.

Chris, somehow I knew YOU would reliably watch this. You always show up for our events and activities. It was nice seeing you at this one.

On Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 3:00 pm Eastern time, and on Sunday, October 21 at 3:00 am Eastern, C-SPAN-2 will broadcast the third panel from the 50th anniversary celebration of the publication of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, the gala event hosted on October 6 by The Atlas Society. Yours Truly was pleased to be the moderator for this stellar panel, which discussed Rand's thinking on economics, business ethics, and entrepreneurship. The panelists were Edward Younkins, professor of economics at Wheeling Jesuit University, speaking on "Atlas and Economics"; Ed Snider, chairman of Comcast Spectacor, addressing "Atlas and the Entrepreneur"; and Rob Bradley, Jr., president of the Institute for Energy Research, on "Atlas and Business Ethics." I lead off with brief remarks on the reasons for the widespread hostility toward business and businessmen, and how Rand's philosophical ideas not only repudiated that popular view, but led her to romanticize businessmen in Atlas Shrugged. Younkins gives a superb presentation on the brilliant economic insights that Rand incorporated into her visionary novel. Ed Snider reads revealing correspondence between himself and Ayn Rand, in which he first approached her with the idea of setting up a new organized effort to promote her ideas. Rob Bradley takes on modern university teaching of "business ethics," as seen through the filter of Rand's own ethical thinking, and then demonstrates exactly what ideas led to the collapse of the Enron corporation, where he used to work. It's a fascinating hour-long overview of the appeal and applicability of Rand's ideas to the world of business. Check your local listings for the exact time of the broadcast in your area, and be sure to set your recorder.

One of the film producers -- I can't remember which, but I think it might have been Michael Burns -- said to me that on the DVD, there could be a "director's cut" considerably longer than the theatrical version.

I have to say, if you didn't see the entire event -- including Panel #3 (the business panel with Rob Bradley, Ed Younkins, Ed Snider, and Yours Truly), and the presentations by Charles Murray, John Stossel, Barbara Branden, Nathaniel Branden, and the movie director/producers, you missed out on about 80% of the value of the event. Regardless, when the DVD set becomes available, I have a couple words of advice: GET IT.

Selene, I'm delighted that you enjoyed what you saw. Believe me, there was a LOT more (and, in my opinion, even better stuff) that didn't make it onto C-SPAN. It was an amazing event. Still, even excerpted, I'm glad it convinced to you attend our future events. The only challenge for us is to try to figure out how to top this one!

Well, C-SPAN misspelled David Kelley's name ("Kelly"), and they put up a link to the wrong organization. Not a very efficient crew. But this event wasn't about some kind of competition. It was about Ayn Rand and her great novel. Besides, The Atlas Society name was plastered all over the place, as were the names of our speakers -- and most importantly, the word about Rand's novel and its importance. So, not bad. Not bad at all.

The extraordinary media coverage this week of the golden anniversary of Atlas Shrugged continues today with a second op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal -- this one penned by Brian Doherty, an editor of Reason magazine and author of the recent history of the modern libertarian movement, Radicals for Capitalism (a descriptive label he borrowed from Rand). Titled "Rand and the Right," Doherty's essay explains why conservatives ought to stop mocking Rand's work and pay closer attention to her principled case for capitalism. Doherty isn't an Objectivist, but as fellow travelers go, he did quite a nice job -- and his piece is a fine companion to David Kelley's tribute to Atlas, published in the Journal's October 10 edition. Ayn Rand's ideas appear to have reached a tipping point: They are becoming mainstream. That doesn't mean everyone agrees with them; far from it. But it does mean that rather than generating unremitting mockery, they have stood the test of time to become at least a respectable intellectual position -- one to be debated on equal terms with other philosophical alternatives.

I agree with what you said about "memes." And this week, we're witnessing a major "tipping point": a host of Randian "memes" are going mainstream.

Hahahaha. Good for you, Selene! You lasted longer in higher education than I did. And I've never looked back with regret.