It's more than passion.

I would like to take this time to analyze Dr. Woomer's passage on Ayn Rand. Good thing I have it, but first I want to get roomy with the little gem he put up as an excuse to begin speaking about a subject of which he is so ignorant. First we will start with a quote from the gem,

"The faculty at Meredith College in Raleigh struck a blow for academic freedom Friday, and in so doing, might've cost the college $420,000 from the BB&T Charitable Foundation. At issue: A grant from BB&T--$60,000 a year for seven years--for an honors program featuring, apparently at the bank's insistence, such right-wing texts as Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and Frederick Hayek's The Road to Serfdom."

There seems to be this massive confusion in political circles that Ayn Rand is some kind of right-winger, why this is so I have no clue anyone who has read any of her works knows this is an outright lie. Conservatives and "right-wingers" quote her when it suits them but the National Review makes it infinitely clear that she is no right-winger and that they do not support her philosophy. It maybe 50 some odd years old, but the attitude should be familiar, it's the same that men like Dr. Woomer show her. As for Hayek I have not read any of his work, but since Dr. Woomer doesn't agree with his views I could take it as a lot of what he has to say I might agree with.

"Thus, the faculty declined to approve the course, called "Global Capitalism and Ethical Values," unless it was clear to BB&T that "the faculty teaching this course now and in the future are free to design [it] with no pre-conditions."

Now I wonder why BB&T would want to include texts that teach about the applications of morality in the economic sphere in a class called "Global Capitalism and Ethical Values".

"Meredith College is not the first academic institution to confront these issues. Just last year, the UNC-Chapel Hill faculty balked when it was discovered that administrators were talking to the conservative John William Pope Foundation about money for a new "Western civilization" curriculum that would--if the foundation had its way--avoid bows to multiculturalism. (That's the idea that different people--the descendants of slaves, for example, as opposed to white men--might see the march of Western civilization quite differently.)"

Of course he doesn't quote how it would avoid multiculturalism, he asserts that it would avoid bows to multiculturalism like any reasonable history course should because what really happens isn't determined by who from what culture saw it, also multiculturalism isn't just the assertion that history can be viewed differently by different cultures but also that all cultures are morally equal and have their own downfalls and good things, except of course Western Civilization.

Apparently the author thinks no white man is the descendant of a slave, of course the origin of that word refers to a time when enslaved Slavic white people were so wide spread is actually where the word came from. What's also omitted is the fact that tribes in Africa were enslaving their own people and selling them to the slave traders, or that virtually everywhere else in the world, that is before America had unleashed the concept of individual rights into the moral sphere, were enslaving each other since the beginning of human time.

Since that morality was unleashed upon the earth by Western Civilization ultimately it lead to the freeing of slaves everywhere, though Americans waited a long time, we had a bloody war that freed them we also had freed them in the shortest time ever in history. The author of course was referring to black men but it's more politically correct to infer that only black men were ever enslaved and it's all white peoples fault, as for "white people" identifying us by a racial remark is ok. Sort of a reverse racism enacted verbally to make up for slavery right? Even though many us white people are descendants of people who moved here after slavery, that of course is irrelevant.

In the end the foundation caved (though the author didn't update to include it, but it is a pretty recent development) and gave it anyway.

"Nor is Meredith the first to entertain a gift from BB&T tied to the works of conservative thinkers like Ayn Rand. Far from it. Just last August, for example, the business school at UNC-Charlotte announced that it was getting $1 million from BB&T to create a program on the moral foundations of free enterprise. "The gift will also fund faculty research on the philosophical underpinnings of capitalism ... and establish an Ayn Rand reading room on campus," the school said."

Again you are confusing Ayn Rand with conservatism, every time you try to make that connection you only announce your own ignorace of her works. The foundation of this Ayn Rand reading room is a good thing, and I wish to visit it one of these days.

"Meredith's own saga began 14 months ago when, after some preliminary conversations, Hartford wrote to BB&T asking for money to help start a program on the moral and ethical foundations of business, to be developed jointly by Meredith's business and religion departments."

Ahhh now we get to why BB&T disagreed, religious morality is incompatible to human freedom since life is ultimately the result of gods will and we must abide the rules he sets for us which leads the way to moral subjectivism (which is a self contradiction) since which gods rules go is only based on interpretations and revelations since god never seems to want to consult how he wants earth to be run face to face. Of course religion covers more than just god, it is a hodge-podge of several types of subjective moralities (since they are based on belief and faith) and thus cannot be any kind of foundation for any solid ethical theory, which means they are bad for capitalism.

"According to a timeline developed by Mulvaney (and based in part on letters and information supplied by Hartford), that proposal was turned down by BB&T CEO John Allison, apparently because the bank was uncomfortable bringing religion into it. "Their interest was in a course to explore morality and capitalism," the timeline says of BB&T."

Ohh wow I can't believe they refused, why would subjective morality be a problem when implementing a system based off the principle of objective morality?

"Negotiations continued, and in July, Hartford was writing again to BB&T, this time to propose an Honors Program colloquium "that will focus on the American ideals of democracy and capitalism (tentatively titled 'Democracy and Capitalism: The American Ideal')."

At least it's a good thing the thought didn't go forward on these terms, democracy (read: mob rule) is explicitly uncapitalistic.

"Students would be given "a solid understanding of capitalism," Harford assured Allison in her "Dear John" letter, and would be required to do extensive reading, including Atlas Shrugged and The Road to Serfdom."

Beautiful sounds like a great idea to me.

"Free enterprise" and "objectivism"--the latter Ayn Rand's pet theory--would both be central to the course, Hartford wrote."

Whereas you could barely detect his bias under most of this mans statements, since he takes a safe PC/average kinda liberal democrat stand on things the denigration of objectivism by calling it a "pet theory" is outrageous, command economy systems which were essentially created as a result of Karl Marx's philosophy (a.k.a. pet theory) are not referred to with such disrespect, even though they openly resulted in the combined death of around 100 million people this last century.

"Moreover, every student in the Honors program, whether in the colloquium or not, would receive a copy of Atlas Shrugged, which would serve to underscore its importance."

Indeed it is very important to understanding the foundation of a free enterprise system.

"In 1962, Rand described objectivism as the complete separation of government from the business world:

"Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life," Rand wrote.

"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders."

Rand continued: "In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

Hartford assured Allison that she would be personally involved in the colloquium and would use part of BB&T's money to lead trips to New York City, where students could visit the stock exchange and meet with business leaders that she'd help choose--with Allison's recommendations welcomed.

This was the application BB&T wanted, and the one it approved, contingent, however, according to the timeline, on the money being "used as outlined in the proposal" sent in July.

Those were contingencies the Meredith faculty decided it couldn't stomach."

I think it's very telling that the Meredith faculty couldn't stomach the idea of the basis of a free enterprise economy, which require the principles set forth in those quotes. Indeed the idea of a free enterprise requires that no government interference be injected. This is exactly what Ayn Rand's books state unequivocally, it's also for those of us who understand the philosophy, unsurprisingly supported by the massive success the free-market exhibits. In every aspect of mans life. Like our standard of living.

Now since we all know the substance of Dr. Woomer's source I feel free to discuss his assertions.

"Obviously, it's a terrible idea to let donors, instead of professors, decide what's taught in courses -- that's 'administrative correctness' run amok. But if you're an unprincipled administrator who's foolish enough to sell donors the right to impose readings of their choice on course syllabi, why not at least recognize the tactical benefits of retaining a semblance of dignity and keep out the stuff that has little to no credibility amongst professional scholars?"

A more accurate statement would be a terrible idea, if donors completely unrelated to the field being taught were made to set the standard for the curriculum. Here you will find no argument, of course unless they do it with the permission of everyone involved. However ethical bankers whose survival depends on the competence of it's potential work force has no say in what should be taught in a course that it pays for on capitalism and good ethics is "Obviously...a terrible idea"?

The reality is if a relevant field needs skilled works, investing in courses to improve their potential work force and help their work force understand the constraints in which they work and how to improve them is a great and intelligent idea. That is of course if you take into account the context of what is being done, the context which was completely removed.

Also this stuff has apparently has the credibility of professional scholars who work in business and enterprise (a.k.a. successful ethical businessmen), they are just too busy working to be teaching. Of course the relevance of Ayn Rand's work is expressed partially in the success and ethic of the business who supplied the money made with that philosophy as it's guide is of no consequence to those who don't take into account the entire story.

"I am no fan of F.A. Hayek, but I'll admit that his credentials as an economist are... pretty unimpeachable. Ayn Rand is a different story, however. Despite some recent scholarly attention (hardly all of it fawning), Rand remains justifiably ignored by university professors. It's particularly notable that Rand -- cast by her followers as one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century -- isn't taken very seriously in Anglo-American philosophy departments (or, I would guess, in any credible philosophy department anywhere)."

The purpose of including Ayn Rand into the course was to explain the ethical foundations of the economic system, as well as ethical action within the economy, not to illustrate current methods of statistical analysis and quantifying the success of the market, which may have been included in the course but did not cause enough controversy to mention. The attention of scholars hardly determine whether a book is relevant in the course, advancement in the understanding of things is not reached by consensus. The reality is many of the greatest advances in human understanding of the universe were blatantly ignored for a time before being recognized as relevant.

She was not cast by her students as one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, she cast herself as the greatest philosopher of all time with her works. As time will tell, whether philosophy departments (whether Anglo or not, whatever that's ment to imply) recognize it now is of no consequence. Why would it not be accepted by any credible philosophy department anywhere? My only guess would be what they talk about in those classes is hardly philosophy.

"I'm sure Rand's many disciples account for her absence from philosophy courses by blaming the political biases of the current crop of philosophy professors. The problem with this all-too-convenient stance is that "political bias" doesn't explain the relative prominence of other libertarians like Robert Nozick on philosophy course syllabi throughout the English-speaking world. Couldn't it just be that Nozick was just a far more competent and interesting philosopher?"

Actually we account for her absence not because of the political bias, but the philosophical ones. The reality is most philosophy courses, as well as any humanities course is dominated by a belief that subjective morality is the only moral basis for anything. Since philosophy is ultimately where the bias lies throwing a name like Robert Nozick out to dismiss the idea of a bias doesn't accomplish anything.

Liberitarian thought is an attempt to steal Ayn Rand's "non-initiation of force" principle without the underlying philosophy, and therefore of objective context. The subjectivity of that political view can be summed up by the content of their political party, which ranges from anarchists (who can't support any free market since there is no universally enforced law to protect men from those who use force) to Christians to a range of semi-lassiez faire capitalists who want to avoid the philosophical complications of understanding the ethical basis of the very ideal they attempt to fight for.

You always seem to assert that some philosopher is better than Rand without explicitly stating the criteria of judgment. I would love to be enlightened, but my suspicion is that like your assertion that the morality of a theft is determined by who did it and what their life was like, it will be based only on your feelings.


"The fact that real philosophers aren't very interested in Rand doesn't mean that her followers are dumb (not by a long stretch) but it does indicate a certain philosophical illiteracy on their part -- and that's not necessarily the Rand-philes' fault. For those Rand fans who eventually undertake a formal study of philosophy, Rand is a decent"gateway philosopher" to vastly superior thinkers like Locke or Nozick or Nietzsche."

What is more real than a philosopher that states "existence exists"? How can something that doesn't exist be "real"? Yes obviously we must be philosophically illiterate because we enjoy Rand's work, infact that's the definition of philosophically illiterate right? Give me a break. I was reading Nietzsche and Kant before I touched Rand in an attempt to understand philosophy and fell on my face constantly tripping in a forest full of dead trees. When originally immersing yourself in their works you become easily confused, originally I thought because of how complex and intricate their thoughts were, but in reality because there was nothing to learn, as Rand later taught me.

While no other philosopher explicitly stated the validity of ideas and their use in my life and understanding it Ayn Rand did and she did so explicitly, and simply because in reality her ideas are simple and explicitly derived from a valid basis, all consequences of the acceptance of the axioms.

"My experience has been that those who take a genuinely "deep" interest in Rand's work don't have much of a background in the humanities. Rather, they tend to actively regard themselves as pretty smart and go into mathematically demanding fields like economics, engineering, computer science, and architecture. So it's easy to see why a thought system like Rand's is so appealing to these types: It offers a compellingly elegant ethics for the intellectually well-situated (basically, "negative rights") and a "common sense," "rational," "objective" epistemology and metaphysics."

I guess Dr. Leonard Peikoff... wait what is the Dr. for again? Ohhh right his doctorate in philosophy, doesn't have a deep interest in Rand then? I don't regard myself as pretty smart, just honest. But your right on the money, I am a math major, who's probably going to work on nano-materials science with an emphasis on computer applications. Nice guesswork. I don't know what you mean to imply by us being a certain "type" I know at least 1 other (well the only other objectivist I know) objectivist who is an avid reader of good literature, I also make a tour of those readings as well.

I largely avoid humanities classes because in public school we are not rigorously taught how to write well, in fact as you may have noticed I have a tendency to produce run on sentences and other grammatically incorrect errors, I have had to drop out of a class as simple as Composition 101 twice because of my terrible foundation in gramatics. (Yet I made it in high school english with A's and B's go figure)

As a result I must take several remedial classes before I can even begin to make any progress in humanities since they require writing skills. When I attempted to take a humanities class what I found was an atmosphere openly bias against logical thinking, in which the curriculum of the class known as "The Great Human Question" were divided in 3 parts "Truth vs. Beauty", "Freedom vs. Responsibility" and "Good vs. Evil" only one of those is actually a valid statement, for example how can something that is beautiful and untrue still be beautiful? Or why do we have to have responsibility if we are free? Any human is more than able to let his life waste away foolishly but as long as no ones rights are violated (i.e. they are still free) there is no need for you to be responsible in any way should you choose not to be.

We don't necessarily avoid humanities because we are a "type" of person. For me it's because I don't have the skillset, for many it's because it's a miasma of irrationality.

As for the elegant ethics, we don't follow them because they are elegant we follow them because they are true. Summing up our philosophy as "basically negative rights" confesses a gross misunderstanding on your part, partially because you have not examined what fundamentally entails a right, and partially because you never cared to find out. For those who don't know what a negative or positive right is, a negative right is the right not to have something done to you, while a positive right is something that requires force to be implemented to give someone something. A "positive" right is no right at all since it requires that someone be made to give another their "right".

The self contradicting aspect of a positive right is that no one has the right to enslave another. That abolishes the entire principle of rights. The foundational rights men are born with are not the right not to be disturbed but a right to pursue his own happiness with his own mind, this requires men be stopped from forcing other men to do their bidding. A profound ignorance of the concept of mans nature is required to create the dichotomy of "positive" vs. "negative" rights.

"For Rand's disciples, the correctness of her philosophical stances is self-evident. Take this guy, who responded to a column I wrote last year for the Minnesota Daily on his blog:

His article is so full misinformation, and he just appears to be totally ignorant of his subject (Rights), yet he expresses knowledge of both Ayn Rand and John Locke, which is somewhat a dilemma, and I don't know whether to believe that he's just being extremely dishonest, or he's simply very intellectually retarded.

He's just flabbergasted -- no, flabbergasted and shocked... shocked -- that someone can know about Ayn Rand and nevertheless take political positions contrary to the Mistress'."

Let's see if I can figure out why he would make such a statement and affirm it self evidently since I like to think most of us disciples do a pretty good job of backing up what we say. Here's what this guy had to say,

"here's what I believe to be the most interesting part of the article:

Freedom for the vast majority of us means that we should all be entitled to live at a certain level of comfort in spite of how the economy is doing: We should be guaranteed access to health care, to decent unemployment compensation, to be able to retire at a certain age and to have a say in our workplaces.

Ok, We should be guaranteed and entitled to this at whose expense? Or has Mr. Woomer found a way to get "something for nothing", or is it "something out of nothing"? Because the last time I checked--which is very recently--wealth, health care, medecine, employment, education did not grow in the wild; people actually have to work to PRODUCE them.

But of course, what Woomer wants is to get FREE access to the product of the labor of OTHERS by force, i.e.: theft--and to cash-in on the dishonesty, he calls it "freedom". He doesn't even seem care to hide this, the very facts of reality be damned, he wants looted benefits, therefore he must have them."

It looks like this man saw the same thing I did, specifically that Dr. Woomer has no understanding of the subject of rights, there is no right to enslave others for your desires even if you attempt to force an irrational definition of rights into the equation by ignoring the very foundation of rights.

Dr. Woomer could only make him look like what he was spouting was self-evident if he didn't care to quote what his criticisms were. This also cuts to the core of his understanding of the concept theft, apparently if it's for a cause he deems benevolent it is less wrong to do it, or even right in the case of the government doing it. He infact sums of Dr. Woomer in much the way I see him,

"Woomer's fantasy is to be a parasite with the 'right' to enslave."

Indeed that is his fantasy, but it's only because it is an altruistic one. For those who are interested they may read his full post and note not once do the terms flabbergasted or shocked come up in his blog. He was just curious as to whether you intentionally pretended ignorance of if it really was ignorance. Something is telling me he knew all along. Just like me.

As for knowing anything about Ayn Rand you have only time after time after time, much like the men you quote and the assertions you make announce your ignorance on the subject of knowing anything about her or her philosophy in any sense what-so-ever, it is not a philosophy based off of elegant ethics or negative rights but an understanding much further down of where rights and ethics come from as well as how and why we need them. It is much deeper then you ever even cared to realize Dr. Woomer.

We are not surprised by people pretending to know who Ayn Rand is and what her philosophy represents then not following the principles laid down in her philosophy. We know anyone who doesn't follow her philosophy either doesn't know it or refuses to acknowledge its validity. We already announced that you were ignorant. This is a perfect explanation of why you don't follow the principles.

Onto your last paragraph Dr. Woomer,

"Not unlike David Horowitz, Rand's self-appointed intellectual scions take themselves oh so seriously. And again, not unlike Horowitz, they have serious money behind them to buy intellectual respect if they can't earn it the old fashioned way."

Indeed we take ourselves seriously because we take ideas seriously, because we do not think they are subjective playthings to be interchanged in certain situations to satisfy random whims. Expect us to have more money, the result of our honest work which is the result of our consistent practice of ethical and practical philosophy. We do not care about your respect or any self-declared intellectuals respect. We also do not require it, soon enough we will make our own Universities where investors are free to demand requirements for curriculum and we are free to deny them or implement their ideas. The old fashioned way of gaining respect is outdated, we will reinvent the way respected is gained, not through consensus but through work and truth.

We will also succeed.