Hello Fellow Secular Humanists!
Wow, I am still amazed at how much discussion Dr. Bernstein's article has generated - this is great!
There is a wealth of information available on objectivism from the Ayn Rand Institute's website, which can be easily found by querying any major search engine.
All the best,
Erika B. Hedberg
ASHS Coordinator
(716) 636.7571 ext. 218
erikahedberg@hotmail.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
from Gerry Dantone
The article cited was good as far as pointing out the incompatability of religion and capitalism, but it somewhat took for granted that unfettered capitalism is a good thing.
Rather than argue economics, I always note that basing a philosophy on a method of obtaining a goal (capitalism), as opposed to the goal itself (human well being) leads to dogmatism and nonsense. I think this is the error that followers of Ayn Rand may be prone to. I'm for capitalism as long as it works, no longer. I'm for regulation as long as that works.
* * * * * * *
from Mimi C. Cerniglia:
I too subscribe to listserve of the Ayn Rand Institute and found this view of religion and capitalism very interesting. I forwarded it to some young people because I chaired an Ayn Rand discussion at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University several month ago. Some of the young people, who are looking for answers that are not found in religion, embrace some of Ayn Rand's Philosophy.
* * * * * * * *
from John Arents:
Your "Objectivist" responses include one from Sally Morem, whose address I do not know. I shall be grateful if you will forward the following message to her.
To Sally Morem:
Among the responses to Andrew Bernstein's "objectivist" article was one from you beginning: "Religion, specifically Christian theology, includes two peculiar political stands with which I disagree: (1) Pacifism and (2) Anti-wealth. I'll leave discussions on pacifism for another time."
I may want to publish your remarks as an article in a future issue of our newsletter, Pique. I shall be grateful for your permission to do so and for any emendations you may wish to make before publication.
John Arents
Secretary, Treasurer, and Editor Secular Humanist Society of New York
53 Southfield Rd., Mt. Vernon, NY 10552-1337
(914)699-9124, jarents@bestweb.net
* * * * * * * * * *
from Harley Brown:
Enjoyed Sandy Morem's thoughts. I suspect her view of why Christianity is anti-wealth is probably correct. I think that she has failed to bring her view of individuality and wealth in historical perspective up to the modern world.
Wealth is power. Wealth with no government control means power over all other individuals. As wealth is concentrated in a capitalist system, so is power and the loss of individual rights to control one's life. Therefore one is faced with the paradox that more freedom to make money free from government control means less freedom for everyone who missed the ring. The argument that everyone, if they work hard, can catch the ring is just nonsense. The welfare state is certainly a questionable economic and moral fabrication; however, not all government is a welfare state. Certainly it doesn't take much historical perspective or common sense looking at the future to see that we need government to make sure that a few people don't use their concentration of wealth to the disadvantage of those who worked hard but missed the ring.
All my life I gave up pleasures for the future so I could graduate from an Ivy League college. I gave up to get money to start a business, and I struggle to keep my business afloat. I am quite aware how the real business system works.
Hard work isn't everything. Inheriting money is nice. Having a lucky break like coming up with an idea and having a way to capitalize it, before someone else does, is good. The fact is that even if everyone works hard, only a few can make it big. That's just the way it is. I marvel at the wealth of those who succeed. I do not see any reason, however, why I should hand over my wealth to them so they can lord it over me. I want to be free to reach for my ring, and I want to be left free by those who got their ring.
Libertarianism as it appears today does ask some good questions and challenges some bad old assumptions, but it does not have a very good answer.
* * * * * * * * *
from Daniel Strain:
I don't know about all the other groups out there, but I'm seeing a good deal of hooplah about Objectivism among our members in discussion groups. Based on what little I'm up to speed on, there seems to be some compatibility with Humanism, but clearly seems to be some distict differences with certain interpretations on both sides as well.
It would be nice to see FREE INQUIRY present a nonjudgemental exploration of Objectivism and some different aspects of it, such as: a general overview, how it relates to Humanism, and the history and current state of both movements in America and how they interact and/or overlap.