Last Wednesday, I presented a talk on capitalism for the A&M Objectivism Club. My speech was fairly awful, but afterwards, I converted my outline into an essay to add to this site. After finishing the first part, I noticed an unread copy of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" sitting on my bookshelf � one of a dozen books I bought for my recent birthday. I decided to hold off writing the last part until I finished it, but that will take at least two weeks because I�m participating in the business school�s CASE competition. Big bucks and lucrative job offers are at stake, so not much bloggin� this week, I�m afraid. However, if you�re interested in a design for an enterprise-level email marketing system, let me know.
Back it up. I GAVE you my copy of 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal' a few years ago. Are you confessing that you never read the book I gave you? Didn't you tell me you read it and then give it to your mom to read?
It contains the famous article by Alan Greenspan in which he argues in favor of the gold standard and against the Federal Reserve. I love the irony.
Posted by: Laurel at November 5, 2003 01:39 PMOn second thought, I got the book before my birthday, but I'm sure that it was sometime this semester because I had to borrow it for a class last year. I think you're thinking of "For the New Intellectual." I did read it, but I never gave it to my mom..
Posted by: David at November 5, 2003 03:27 PMHm, maybe you're right. My memory is perplexingly bad.
Well, your mom certainly SHOULD read it.
(BTW, why am I not on the top of your friends & neighbors list? I initiated your conversion from the Darkside!)
Posted by: Laurel at November 5, 2003 10:19 PMBecause the blog at the top of my list also happens to be a *paying* customer...
Btw, I remember reading the copy of FNI you gave me with a flashlight while camping with my dad. That, and the times I finished reading AS and the Fountainhead are the intellectual highlights of my life. Judging by your notes between the lines, you certainly seemed to share my excitement, which is why I fail to understand why you kept your conservative ways...
Posted by: David at November 5, 2003 10:55 PMIf by 'conservative ways' you mean 'non-atheist ways', I simply don't find Rand's hardline atheist arguments convincing. I think this area is her greatest philosophical weakness. I also believe that objectivist principles need not assume the absence of God, but rather, rationality and logic. However, most Objectivists insist that atheism is a core assumption to Oism, and Rand certainly felt this way. I believe it has been demonstrated otherwise. If you take away atheism while maintaining the structure of the philosophy, the philosophy doesn't crumble at all. It is not true that 'if there is reason, then there is no God. There exists reason. Therefore there is no God.'
Other than issues related to God, I am no more 'conservative' than you. We both embrace capitalism, individual freedom, and limited government. We're both moral absolutists who believe firmly in defining our values and acting accordingly. How else am I more 'conservative'?
Posted by: Laurel at November 6, 2003 01:48 PMUpon more reflection I conclude that the word 'moderate' would better fit your meaning that 'conservative', for I am a pragmatist while you are a radical.
Posted by: Laurel at November 6, 2003 01:57 PM