From The Union "Hardhead List"

[JKSCHW at aol.com]

Yes, actually there are a few real philosophers who take Rand seriously, I was exaggerating: in addition to Hospers, there is Eric Mack, Douglas Den Uyl (sp?), and the Bowling Green libetertians; Nozick wrote a piece on Rand as a philosopher. Moreover my friend Chris Sciabbara, a libertarian student of Betell Ollman, is a actually a Rand scholar, and Chris is very smart. I still think Rand is a crackpot. I guess if what you say about Hospers is true, I mean about Tonga, he was a practical crackpot as well. He was a fine philosopher, though. --jks

In a message dated Tue, 9 May 2000 12:37:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sam Pawlett <rsp at uniserve.com> writes:

<< 

JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> 

 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. And Greenspan is part of it.
> 

 Except for John Hospers, a very good philosopher. I'm told that he and
Rand were good friends and she got a lot of ideas from him. In his
serious work though, you would be surprised to find that he is a
political crackpot. Apart from his tome *Libertarianism* he drops few
hints that he is in with Rand. He had a plan with Us real estate
developer Michael Oliver (who wanted to create the ultimate offshore
financial operation) to set up a libertarian paradise in one of the
Tonga islands. The local people showed up with spears and weapons and
turned them away violently. 

If you want to know what Greenspan thinks check out his essays in the
Rand edited collection *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal* (yes that's
right, capitalism is a moral ideal and we haven't had the real thing yet
but we're gonna get it and the Randians don't care how many people die.)
One of G's papers is a defence of the gold standard. The kind of ranting
you'd find in the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight or something.

Sam Pawlett

 >>