Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:04:54 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
Subject: What's Wrong With Objectivism?
Cc: "David Kelley" <dkelley@objectivistcenter.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

[Note from Matthew Gaylor:  I'm not really asking what's wrong with 
the philosophy founded by novelist Ayn Rand-  But I've noticed for 
many years that many of the adherents of Objectivism somehow manage 
to hold beliefs contrary to freedom.  In the mid 80's I attended a 
talk given by Dr. Harry Binswager, a leading Objectivist scholar, 
where I posed a question on gun control to him during the Q&A:  His 
answer was that he thought semi-automatic firearms should be banned 
as nobody should have any use for such weapons.  Then shortly after 
the Oklahoma City bombing Dr. Leonard Peikoff, perhaps the leading 
disciple of Ayn Rand, mentioned that every militia unit should be 
infiltrated from top to bottom by the FBI and he voiced similar calls 
for gun control.  He also advocated that Objectivists vote for Bill 
Clinton.  My friend's at the time referred to him as Police State 
Peikoff.  Now we have The Objectivist Center, founded by David 
Kelley, calling for a national ID card.  I'm at a loss to determine 
what is the moral philosophical basis for requiring US citizens to 
have a national ID?]


To: freematt@coil.com
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:59:45 -0400
Subject: TOC & Robbins advocacy of national ID
From: David M Brown <dmb1000@juno.com>

To the Editor:

So now, per James Robbins's article "What Will Happen Now," TOC 
supports a national ID card and other assaults on my privacy and 
liberty?

<http://www.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/jr_what_will_happen_now.asp>

Question: Exactly how would a national ID card have prevented the 
events of September 11? Will the ID card say: WARNING: THIS IS A 
TERRORIST HEAH?

And exactly how many of our personal liberties and rights are we 
supposed to throw away now?

"Since last Tuesday, some of my 'go to the wall' libertarian views, 
such as opposing a national ID card, have seemed trivial," Robbins 
writes. "The potential for government abuse is present, but the need 
for providing security is actual." The potential for abuse is 
"great"? Yeah, I'd say so.

"So long as there are actual checks and balances..." Robbins advises. 
Great. What are the "checks" and the "balances" going to be, and what 
_are_ the risks? Robbins supplies no discussion whatever of what's 
involved.

Any chance whatever that the government will use the additional 
information and means provided to it to via a national ID card to do 
anything besides combat terrorism? What's the history, for 
example, of the social security number? Anybody at TOC remember the 
fact that it was never supposed to be used as a means of 
identification? What was the "check" and the "balance" there? Any 
idea over at TOC privvy as to the content of the various 
"anti-terrorism" bills now before Congress? Take a look. Then take 
another look at what gets passed.

Robbins also seems to support the idea of cameras, 
cameras, everywhere, too. I just love the idea of living in Patrick 
McGoohan's Village.

Those who want to control and monitor us are leaping on this event 
like a pack of hyenas. It is very, very sad and disturbing to find 
TOC joining the pack. Meanwhile, of course, it's precisely when we 
enter into public situations in which our personal safety is most 
jeopardized by potential terrorism and other random thuggery, that we 
are supposed to be in particular disarmed so that we have no chance 
of adequately defending ourselves, if assaulted. Not unless 
fisticuffs will suffice.

Most of the TOC-sponsored analysis about these horrific events has 
been sound. I assume not everyone at The Objectivist Center joins in 
Robbins's ill-considered sentiments.

But on the other hand, there can't have been very fundamental and 
vocal opposition to them either, as I assume that anything that gets 
published in Navigator has to pass some minimal gauntlet. Isn't the 
editor, at least, required to peruse any articles that are slated for 
publication? And TOC's recently posted "position statement" does seem 
to endorse a Robbins-style tradeoff. "Measures that limit the [rights 
to liberty, property, and privacy] are justified only if they are 
objectively required for security and are tailored to minimize 
restrictions on other rights." (Oh. And who is going to be the 
tailor, prithee? Cathy Young and James Robbins? I am not reassured.)

What really bothers me is that I have found the perfect solution to 
the problem of security on airplanes, but it has yet to be 
implemented, even though, as I write, this is Day 32 of the crisis. 
Handcuff all passengers as they take their seats and don't remove the 
handcuffs until the plane has landed. That way, there will be no need 
for anybody to be armed, the pilot or anybody else. I am sure Robbins 
will endorse this, as it will enhance security. Sure, there are risks 
to this approach, but let's just make sure there are checks and 
balances too.

Guys, it is conceivable that our "security" will be enhanced if we 
are all locked up in a giant cage and nobody can do anything without 
first filling out a form in triplicate. Food -- carefully screened in 
advance for poison by the Almighty Bureaucrats -- could be extruded 
to us through various tactically placed tubules. We'll all die 
slowly, sure, but at least we won't die fast. Except maybe those who 
are really, _really_ bothered by this sort of thing. Those pesky 
Howard-Roark types.

But in the spirit of unity, yeah, okay, for the sake of my 
"security," bring on the fascism. And I'll check my "checks and 
balances" at the door.

David M. Brown

>[Writes Robbins:] Speaking for myself, however, the recent assault 

>on America has had a significant clarifying effect. Since last 

>Tuesday, some of my "go to the wall" libertarian views, such as 

>opposing a national ID card, have seemed trivial. The potential for 

>government abuse is present, but the need for providing security is 

>actual. So long as there are adequate checks and balances, so long 

>as the enabling legislation is circumscribed and directed, the 

>measures currently being touted seem a reasonable cost.



Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/