Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: net.women,net.sci,net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why are there so few [female|black] physicists? Message-ID: <2165@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Sat, 12-Jul-86 12:48:12 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2165 Posted: Sat Jul 12 12:48:12 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jul-86 03:10:36 EDT References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> <320@rtech.UUCP> <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> <627@mhuxr.UUCP> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) Followup-To: net.politics Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 129 Xref: watmath net.women:11248 net.sci:1226 net.politics:17308 In article <627@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel-Franck Simon) writes: >Indeed, the idea that a racially and sexually balanced work force is >desirable is no longer much in debate, is it? In fact, I challenge the emphasis on this and not on the real cause of the problem, as explained in another note I just posted about the logical fallacy that disturbs me. I hope nobody thinks that I like the historically-evolved state of affairs. I detest unfair discrimination as much as anybody I know. I differ in what I consider to be appropriate action and in my reasons therefor. >Government *cannot* reject its responsibility to these citizens and push >the search for a solution onto philosophers. This is the Libertarian fallacy. Someone else asked me why I did not consider the ideas I espouse as Libertarian. This seems like a good opportunity to explain this; if you don't care, please skip the rest of this article. Many years ago, I was a student of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. I found it to be a breath of fresh air in the fuzzy-thinking culture I grew up in. Although she made mistakes and antagonized a lot of well- meaning people, I agree with perhaps 98% of what she had to say. As an undergraduate from 1966 to 1971, I was actively involved in what turned out to be the Libertarian movement, and therefore know how it developed. Since then, I have checked up on it from time to time, and am no longer in sympathy with it at all, although I'm a staunch advocate of liberty. The following excerpts from Objectivist publications tell the story the same way I saw it evolve: from The Objectivist Newsletter, Apr-1965, "A Message to Our Readers" by Nathaniel Branden (author of several books on psychological theory and "biocentric" psychotherapy): Some allegedly pro-capitalist groups, it appears, have been impressed with the size and quality of the Objectivist following, and -- succumbing to what can only be described as delusions of grandeur -- have decided to launch a special effort to "convert" Objectivist students. Having no understanding of what has made the growth of Objectivism possible, dismissing philosophy as irrelevant, they seek to cash in on the effects while remaining unconcerned with the cause. ... I refer to any organization or school which professes to be fighting for laissez-faire capitalism, but which *in fact* (though seldom by admission) advocates political *anarchism* -- and, which seeks to enlist students of Objectivism under the guise of a common cause. (A brief expose of these anarchists may be found in Miss Rand's article, "The Nature of Government", which appeared in the December 1963 issue of this NEWSLETTER and is reprinted in *The Virtue of Selfishness*.) from The Objectivist, Sep-1971, "Brief Summary" by Ayn Rand: "Objectivism is a philosophical movement; since politics is a branch of philosophy, Objectivism advocates certain political principles -- specifically, those of laissez-faire capitalism -- as the consequence and the ultimate practical application of its fundamental philosophical principles. It does not regard politics as a separate or primary goal, that is: as a goal that can be achieved without a wider ideological context." ... In summing up this publication's record, I shall say that I am not *primarily* an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not *primarily* an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. ... The hierarchical structure cannot be reversed, nor can any of its levels hold without the fundamental one -- as those who have tried are beginning to discover. ... More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called "hippies of the right", who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. from The Intellectual Activist, 10-May-1985 Vol. III No. 19&20 (double issue), continued in 25-Jun-1985 Vol. IV No. 1, 04-Dec-1985 Vol. IV No. 3, "Libertarianism" (cover article): It is the fact of this public recognition that makes Libertarianism such an insidious ideology. For it has managed to delude a wide audience into believing that it upholds the inviolability of individual rights. People accept Libertarianism's claim to being an uncompromising advocate of freedom and an unwavering foe of any initiation of force. As a result, Libertarianism has succeeded in drawing the support of many genuine advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, who regard Libertarianism as an intellectual ally. Conversely, it has attracted the antagonism of many who smear capitalism in the belief that Libertarian doctrine epitomizes the pro-laissez-faire viewpoint. Both sides are grievously mistaken. On the pages that follow, we offer our evidence. followed by the three-part article "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz: The Libertarian movement has been the target of some unjustified criticism. Conservatives complain that, with its opposition to such social controls as drug and pornography laws, Libertarianism values liberty above order and tradition. Liberals complain that, with its opposition to such government benefactions as food stamps and the minimum wage, Libertarianism values liberty above compassion and humanitarianism. The truth is, however, that Libertarianism deserves only one fundamental criticism: *it does not value liberty*. The article goes on to defend this statement and does a superb job of demolishing Libertarianism's pretensions to being a proponent of liberty. That article is now available as a 64-page booklet ($4.95). If you are interested in rational analysis of current events and suggestions for concrete actions that can be taken to help to establish similar ideas, you may benefit from a subscription ($44 for 20 issues in U.S. and Canada, $64 elsewhere, past issues $2.50 each) to this publication (ISSN 0730-2355): The Intellectual Activist 131 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 New York, NY 10003 Please, if you have any silly flames about Ayn Rand, keep them to yourself. This was an attempt to be helpful and you don't have to respond.