Hi, Just In,,, (returning the tweak)
My name is Reese, my email is reeza@, please get them straight.
My discussion may miss a point, yours misses the point I was addressing. Oh, and if you are going to reply to me, address me in the first person if you don't mind.
>It is a bit disturbing that the man in
>charge of the economy is a self-described "objectivist," a follower of the
>genuinely crackpot hard-libertarian philosophy of Ayn Rand.
This isn't really a criticism of me then, but of Greenspan and the man who appointed him.
>I am a believer
>in the virtues of the individual myself;
I'm with you so far,
>I admire John Stuart Mill and (gasp)
>Karl Marx (a considerable individualist, actually), F.A. Hayek (a more
>ordinary sort of libertarian), and other indivuidualist writers.
OK, go on,
> But Rand is a nut-case,
That's fairly apparent. Just look to Loompanics, Paladin Press, other extremist book sellers. Is this the major venue for sales of her books?
>The theme
>of her book Atlas Shrugged is that when the great capitalist genuises go on
>astrike, the rest of the worlf falls apart because we are so helpless and
>dependent on them.
I've not read it, my comments were not in defense of Rand, but of condemning a third party for knowledge of her. Condemn that third party if you will, but not for knowledge of someone else.
>Real philosophers (I used to be one, that is whatI did for a
>living before I was a lawyer) mainly do not take her work seriously. Her
>following is a scary cult.
Again, look to Loompanics, Paladin Press, etc.
>And Greenspan is part of it.
Again: I was addressing condemnation of someone for knowledge of someone else.
>No one is suggesting that his brain should be washed or that Rand's
followers
>should be deprogrammed by force.
I think my hyperbole ran afoul of your....
>But it should raise questions about
>Greenspan's intelligence and the political orientation he brings to his job
>that he subscribes to a cult that worships capital and hates labor, no?
Again, this is a criticism of Greenspan and the man who appointed him. I would agree, it is pause for thought - but the association with Rand, however she may be viewed, was inappropriate.
>Do we
>want that kind of person in that sort of position of power?
This is something we can only influence indirectly. Greenspans position is one of appointment, not of election. To change it, change the elected lackey who appoints him.
>And what do we
>think of those who do want that kind iof person in that kind of position,
>such as Clinton and Gore, not to mention Reagan and Bush?
What do we think of them? Are we back to judging people by the actions of others again?
>--jks
Reese
>In a message dated 5/6/00 2:30:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, reeza at flex.com
>writes:
>
><< One of my pals, a Teamstster posted this on the union "hardhead" list.
> Any >comments:
> >
> >
> >The unemployment rate here in the States is the lowest since 1970 and
> >Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, has been quoted to
> >have said he is worried about higher labor costs and the bargaining
> >power of the labor force. What are your thoughts? Is Mr. Greenspan
> >against us? I read where he was a good friend of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has
> >been known to write about the virtues of the individual rather than the
> >whole. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >^^^^^
>
>
> Yeah. Your friend makes that sound like it's a bad thing. It isn't,
> necessarily. The needs of the one vs. the many is an old debate, it seems
> clear which side that friend is on. Are we going to start condemning
> people because of who, or what they know also?
>
> Thought police. Open up. We're taking you for reeducation, you've been
> reading Ayn Rand and discussing individualism with others.
>
> At the next doorway, Open up, your neighbor reads Ayn Rand, this whole
> block is getting reeducated. Leave everything behind, get on the bus.
> Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated into our collective or be
> shot as a threat to it.
>
> The dichotomy presented by that one vs. many argument forces between one of
> two decisions, when there are invariably other alternatives, if they are
> looked for.
>
> What was your take on it Tom?
>
> Reese
>
> >>
>
>