The chances of implementing full-blown Objectivism in the political sphere are nil. However, there are opportunities to move either further away from and towards the Objectivist model. This is true in electoral politics, but increasingly, lawyers and interest groups are using the courts to achieve political ends. Lawsuits as a political strategy are being used both for capitalistic and anti-capitalistic agendas. For example, MA lawyers are now suing schools for offering snack foods in vending machines, and D.C. lawyers sued McDonalds for causing people to be obese. I will discuss the mixed results of the judicial process, but if some of you want to look up the topics below, so much the better.

NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE IS ASSUMED. I simply listed the cases in case you wanted to look them up on the internet. I'll be sharing insights I learned from a libertarian professor last semester. Possible topics include Gonzalez v. Raich (medicinal marijuana), Lawrence v. Texas (antisodomy laws), Gratz v. Bollinger (affirmative action), Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (vouchers for religious schools), Granholme v. Healde (wine sales on the internet), U.S. vs. Lopez (interstate commerce), and Coker v. Forti (tobacco cartel whoops I mean settlement). Other suggestions are welcome

A lot of abbreviated decisions are listed here, so they are short and sweet.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html

This should be a good salon, and we may have some newcomers. Amanda will post this to a Harvard libertarian club list and I'm passing this on to the meetup group. On Saturday, we have a terrific setting in a million-door penthouse in an MIT skyrise! How fitting for fans of Howard Roark. With the MIT, Cambridge, location, it has

1. easy access to students and others in Boston
2. easy access to the red line (Kendall/MIT)
3. ample parking on a Saturday night
4. a gorgeous view of Boston skyscrapers

Directions are listed on the websites below. We're in bldg E55, so you'll want to take Memorial Drive to Wadsworth st. From Wadsworth, if you're driving, take a right onto Broadway and immediate right into the parking lot. Friendly MIT students will generally let you into the building as long as you let them frisk you and pat you down. Alice will hopefully post an emergency number to the list and give directions from the elevator if it's not obvious.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
http://whereis.mit.edu/map-jpg?section=directions

http://whereis.mit.edu/map-jpg?zoom=level2¢erx=712303¢ery=496106&oldzoom=level3&map.x=283&map.y=140

Anyone can park in tHe Sloan Parking lot off of Broadway on a Saturday night.
Cheers,
Chris

Report

Last night, we discussed how waging politically motivated lawsuits has both helped and harmed capitalists/libertarians. On the plus side, lawsuits have banned public school prayer, struck down anti-sodomy laws, allowed abortion, allowed voucher systems*, and struck down restrictions on ordering wine via the web. Capitalists tried and failed to allow the EPA to consider costs in regulating air pollution, and allow medicinal marijuana in CA. On the minus side, lawsuits have created a tobacco company cartel, allowed governments to seize property for economic growth, immunized the states from lawsuits (unless they consent to be sued!)*, and now threaten to say that society is responsible for what individuals eat. ADA and air pollution regulations are so tough that virtually everyone is in danger of violating them all the time.

So, are we better off with a system that makes it very difficult to create political change through the judicial system? In other words, to try to create some sort of constraint on how judges and courts can rule? Arguably, the lawsuits we like were not creating change but merely preserving liberties that are in an original or textual understanding of the Constitution - and thus are restoration, not change. This probably isn't always the case - an original understanding of the first amendment would allow states (though not the national govt) to have state-funded religion. All of the Bill of Rights was intended to restrict Congress, not the state governments. Your understanding of the 9th amendment probably determines whether the Constitution protects abortion and sodomy. And last night, I tried to point out that bureaucratic regulations are often more specific and less vague than the courts, so people at least now when they are and aren't complying with the law. Is the! re a generalization we can make, or is the answer so indeterminate that we should leave the courts as they are - free to legislate from the bench either in our favor or against us? Also, any ideas for the next salon would be appreciated.
Best,
Chris
*We actually didn't go into that last night

---

In the spirit of Howard Roark's defiance of tradition, we are congregating for a salon on the first saturday of the month in what looks to be (by consensus) a permanent trend.

Oists usually mind the world by using the five senses and integrating evidence logically into their body of knowledge. Is there a point to tampering with this process, as many others do, through meditation, yoga, incense burning, exercise (release of endorphines), candle burning, and other mind-altering techniques? If so, why? Can we generalize about optimal amounts of diverting our senses from our normal conscious experiences?

If people wish, we could carry over some topics from the last salon, perhaps discussing mood enhancers, hormone supplements, etc. If happiness is the telos, why not enhance it with such technology? Presumably, it might prevent you from correcting harmful aspects of your life by papering it over with a cheery mood, but what if you're reasonably satisfied that you've maximized your external situation? At what point can you know that?

Best,
Chris

---

WHAT: BON's July salon, followed by Chris and Scott's housewarming party
WHEN: Saturday 7/26 back to 7PM, so feed yourselves!
WHERE: 100 Memorial Drive #2-20A, Cambridge
WHY: SHMEGALAMONGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." George Bernard Shaw

The Foundation for Teaching Economics defines Public Choice Theory as follows: "The realization that elected officials, like private citizens, are motivated by perceived self-interest. Officials whose self-interest lies in re-election are especially sensitive to the desire of special interest groups because of their ability to influence election outcomes through financial contributions and voter participation."

I would add that Economist Mancur Olson, in his seminal 1965 work, The Logic of Collective Action, provides a framework for understanding how concentrated energy interest groups could have exerted such a powerful interest on legislation aimed at benefitting the general public. He argues that in conflicts of interest for public goods, there is a "surprising tendency for the 'exploitation' of the great by the small."

It is a critique of democracy because it shows that the majority doesn't rule, even though it isn't being oppressed. Though Olson was not a libertarian, libertarians tend to be sympathetic to public choice theory - because if the dynamics of democracy make it difficult for people to check the government, then that suggests we should keep government to a minimum.

Many people on the list will think all of this is irrelevant, when you know libertarianism is the morally right choice anyway. But a) this will show why it is against anyone's self interest to advocate government programs even when one is the beneficiary; b) as David Friedman points out, moral philosophy seldom persuades people as well as consequentialist grounds; and c) I think the subject is just plain interesting, even if it has no practical use (like science fiction!).

Chris will liven this salon up with an interest group role playing game and an interview by John Stossels of Archer Daniel's Midland (assuming he can break into his workplace and get his tape out of the closet).

Recommended Reading:

Mancur Olson The Logic of Collective Action

Another classic work is by a libertarian - James Buchanan, and is available online http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv3Contents.html. Buchanan won the Nobel Prize at one point.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoiceTheory.html http://www.pbs.org/powergame/files/campaign97.html (Especially the sugar piece)

---

WHO: All curious and active minds of BON
WHAT: BON's June Salon -- Exploring and Expanding Objectivism
WHEN: June 21 at 5pm (this month's Salon will be a week early due to TOC's Summer Seminar)
WHERE: New location...100 Memorial Drive #2-20A, Cambridge
WHY: To share your thoughts and gain new perspectives.

Two months ago, we talked about how objectivism helped and hindered us. This month, we'll discuss how objectivism might improve our lives even further.

What are the philosophical questions on your mind? What are the topics that affect your life, or society in general, that are just outside the reach of objectivism (either as you understand it, or as it has been developed)?

I'd like everyone to give a quick presentation on this, though I won't require everyone to speak. You don't have to be thorough (since our topic is philosophical frontiers), and you certainly don't have to have the answer.


I also hope this topic will generate some future salon topic ideas, and maybe get some of you thinking about presenting on these topics. More importantly, this salon may help you guys figure out what lectures you want to see at Rand Camp, and what you want to discuss with other attendees. My experience is that Rand Camp is much more mentally stimulating if you go in with questions you want to answer.



EARLIER TIME AND DINNER
-----
We're meeting at 5pm again. We'll decide at the salon whether we want to order in or go out to eat, but regardless, there will be food at around 6:30-7.

---

WHO: Your meat bodies and, if existent, mental counterparts.
WHAT: The May 'Danielle Strachman Memorial' Salon, brought to you by the Boston Objectivist Network.
WHEN: 5 PM, including a break for dinner
WHERE: 520 Beacon St #4D
WHY: TBD


Last time, we ordered dinner part way into the salon and took a break when the food arrived. Other than poor timing, it worked pretty well, so we'll do it again. Bring money for food if you plan to eat. There probably will not be snacks, and BYOB.

>From Herr Jason: -----

Friends,

Okay, so several days have passed, and nary a one of you have expressed any interest in presenting anything for the next Salon on free will, leaving your gracious and unpretentious co-moderator, yours truly, holding the bag. So be it. But I better not hear any complaints about how, well, "Jason didn't let others speak all that often," or "Jason seems under-prepared," because y'all had your chance.

So here's the deal. I'm a compatiblist on the issue of free will, and I will present a version of compatibilism that I think better suits Objectivism than Rand's own, half-baked quasi-libertarian ("libertarian" in the metaphysical sense) theory. Compatibilism, for those not in the know, rejects both libertarian free will and hard determinism, on the basis that there is no conflict between agential freedom and causality. I'm largely cribbing my notes from Daniel C. Dennett's new book on free will called, _Freedom Evolves_ (2003), which, as some as you may recall, has my name in the Acknowledges page. (See page xiii if you don't believe me).

I will argue, first, that Rand seems to want all of the advantages of libertarian free will, but none of the disadvantages. Second, compatiblism seems to fulfill the needs of her theory, as well as better account for human agency as a physicalist phenomenon.

Then, I will present the essentials of Dennett's compatiblism. In a nutshell, Dennett argues that libertarian versions of free will are not varieties of freedom "worth wanting." It's a mistake, he argues, to think of freedom along the lines of traditional definitions that demand that one "could have acted differently" given the exact same set of circumstances, or that in some sense one must be free one's own desires, beliefs and instincts to really be free. Rather, freedom consists in epistemic horizons, and the ability to capture different "memes" and make those reasons one's own. This will provide us, as moral agents, responsibility; causeless and indeterministic agency along the lines of Rand's model will not.

So, come, and watch me shake the foundations of Objectivist theories of free will, only to rebuild them stronger than they ever were before. There will be food, friends, and probably adult beverages. What more could you ever ask for of a Saturday evening?

---

WHO: All the old faces, and about a hundred new ones from Ford Hall Forum!
WHAT: BON's April Salon -- Objectivism: Help... and Hindrance?
WHEN: Our new and improved, earlier time of 5PM! (See below.)
WHERE: Same location -- 520 Beacon St #4D.
WHY: To fulfill your highest and noblest potential.
HOW: With reason as your only absolute.

Objectivism: Help... and Hindrance?

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand

We all share an appreciation for Rand's ideas and words. Howard Roark or John Galt or Rand's non-fiction liberated us, inspired us, and showed us a true and noble vision of mankind. Objectivism set us on a happier and more fulfilling path.

But it has also been a stumbling block for many of us. Objectivism is such an integrated and consistent philosophy that, ironically, a misunderstanding on our part or flaw in the philosophy can take a huge toll. Fortunately, most of us have managed to solve these problems without junking the whole philosophy (or else we wouldn't be on this list).

This Saturday, we'll discuss the benefits and hazards of objectivism in two rounds, with short presentations from all of you. I'd like everyone to present on their personal experiences with objectivism, although, of course, I won't force anyone. Newcomers especially are encouraged to participate, but are still welcome to just show up and listen.

I also strongly recommend Nathaniel Branden's speech on the same topic: "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand." It's long, but it's an excellent read. I especially enjoyed it because I have done or encountered all of these. http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ayn/ayn03.html#background

---

WHY: I'll tell you for a buck.
WHEN: Saturday 3/29 7PM (the regular time)

Dave E. is returning to Boston to set us straight on Intellectual Property. He will argue that both the recording industry and the anarchists go too far in their stances on IP. Market forces have driven the evolution of IP laws thus far, and should continue to do so.

I have always found intellectual property to be a tricky topic. Rules derived from the scarcity of physical property cannot apply to IP, and Rand's discussion of the topic leaves some troublesome questions pen. I look forward to Dave's presentation -- and not just because of the 6-pack we're going to make him chug during the break.

SPEAKER: Attorney David E.

ABSTRACT:
Intellectual property, and copyright in particular, is not nearly so much a creature of government as it is an evolution of market forces. The primary difference between IP and real property is that works of art can be duplicated at will without threatening the ability of anyone to retain the work in their possession. If I copy a CD, the original owner of the CD does not lose anything, and yet I am able to gain.

Copyright was not an issue for Homer, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare. This is not because their work was any less valuable than the art produced today, but because it was impossible to copy Homer's oral poetry, or Beethoven's live performance, or Shakespeare's stage productions with the respective technologies of their day. Copyright became an issue when the mechanisms for copying became available through technology. The earliest copyright laws pertained only to literature, because the printing press was the available duplicating technology; but later the copyright laws were modified to include audio, video and other methods of copying.

The "official" Objectivist line on copyright is that a creation belongs to its creator; the courtroom speech in THE FOUNTAINHEAD exemplifies the extent to which Ayn Rand would be willing to carry the point. But does this point mean that the creator of an idea is allowed to use force in order to prevent another from holding the same idea?

On the other hand, many advocates of property rights oppose copyright on the ground that it is a monopoly privilege granted by government and has no more legitimacy than a monopoly privilege from government on public utilities. By this view, copyright gives a creator an undue right to the methods by which other people dispose of their own tangible property. Furthermore, since property by its nature is a concept that arises due to the principle of scarcity of resources, an act of duplication that does not consume the resources of the original cannot be a seizure of property.

Quite often, when there are two viewpoints of such extreme polarization, the truth lay somewhere in between. Both the official Objectivist position and the anti-IP position oversimplify the issues and in doing so fail to recognize how the evolution of IP was driven by market forces. The fact that it was government, as opposed to a private corporation or syndicate, which enacted laws protecting copyrights of creators is more coincidence than causal.

However, one point on which both sides will agree is that government usually, if not always, takes the completely inappropriate action. Copyright was borne of advancing technology, and copyright must continue to adapt to the constant advances of technology. However, the legal community, not to mention the largest copyright holders (the recording and film industry) has largely encouraged government to prohibit such technological advancements in an effort to protect their private holdings.

The United States government has responded to these demands by enacting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, one of the most abhorrent pieces of legislation in IP history. The DMCA sets technological growth backward by threatening individuals not only with heavy fines but also imprisonment simply for breaking so-called "unbreakable" codes.

The result of the DMCA will be to stunt the growth of technology. Instead, the proper response by government would be to reform copyright law substantially and in such a way that would bring a healthy balance between the greatest dissemination of the copyrighted information as well as the greatest financial reward to the creator.

SUGGESTED READING:
Ayn Rand, "Patents and Copyrights", in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal 130-135.

David Euchner, "Resisting Temptation: Why Government Does Not Belong in Cyberspace."
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/deuchner/cyberlaw.pdf

Kinsella, N. Stephan, "Against Intellectual Property"
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Know ye,

... that on Saturday, February 22, a debate of cataclysmic proportions will take place. The mystery man known only as "Spot" will take on South Africa's reigning champion "Gavin" in an Objectivist intellectual tour-de-force we are calling "War! What is it good for?"

Spot will take up the side of the warmongers, contending that at long last, it is finally time to bomb Saddam. Gavin will offer an opposing view, rejecting that the U.S. has any need to mess with Iraq.

I should stress that the format here is intended to mostly be *Open Discussion*. Gavin and Spot are both intellectual powerhouses capable of taking each other on all night. However, they come only to offer carefully researched facts in presentations lasting roughly fifteen minutes a piece. After their presentations, each will have the opportunity to field thought-provoking questions from a dazzled audience.

You will laugh, you will cry, it will be the best of times, it will be the worst of times, it will be fun for one and all. And most importantly, this salon will be the first to be moderated by yours truly. So, come, if only for that reason alone.

---

The notion of free, unfettered trade has few open advocates or uncompromising champions. It can become easy for those who champion capitalism - such as Objectivists and their friends - to get pegged as utopians, starry-eyed idealists or dreamers, touting a system that can never be. Therefore, it's important to remind ourselves of those people who stand above the crowd and exemplify the virtues of free exchange.

The first salon of 2003 will be an informal discussion on "heroes of capitalism" - real-life people whose words and actions demonstrate the merits of competition, free trade and the incentive for profit. Discussion will center on where these heroics are found (are all champions of capitalism businessmen? academics? Internet cranks?), what constitutes heroism (does George Soros' productive ability justify his anti-freedom opinions?), and whether our personal favorites are actually 'heroes' or just victims of circumstance. A little epistemologico-ethical discussion of what exactly "hero" means is also to be expected.

It would help if everybody who planned to show up had at least one hero handy, or was ready and willing to talk intelligently about others' nominations. I'll have a few backup heroes handy in case the discussion runs dry. Also, I'll have an important announcement at the end of the Salon, regarding future Salon business, so you might want to show up for that.

---

Continuing our popular trend of Art topics, we'll be discussing the aesthetics / epistemology / metaphysics of Films as an art form.

Talking points include:

Genre And Sense of Life (Or, "Not All Tragedies Are Alike")

The Little Things: Cinematography, Lighting, Editing

Director's Vision and the Resulting Worldview (Or, "Tigerland: Good. Thin Red Line: Bad")

The Complete And Utter Irrelevance of Soundtrack (Or, "How To Piss Mike Shapiro Off At Distances Exceeding Three Thousand Miles") I'll be bringing some sample film clips to illustrate important points; other guests are invited to do the same. Make sure your films illustrate an important point about the AESTHETICS of film-making, and aren't just examples of "I think this scene is really cool." Although really cool scenes have aesthetic value as well, so that wouldn't be too bad.

ALSO NOTE: Fee for attendance, as usual, is $5. However, according to Scott, this fee will be waived if you bring a suitable quantity (read: $5 worth) of snacks or drinks.

I'm looking forward to seeing you all there.

---

Many of us would like to see the Libertarians succeed in achieving political office, but what if that fails? Should we expatriate? Declare ourselves to be tax outlaws? Secede, one state at a time? Look for libertarian havens in an increasingly authoritarian world?

We'll be discussing "alternative solutions" to the problem of avoiding State authority at the October salon. We'll also have a special guest speaker: Elizabeth McKinstry of the Free State Project. She'll have the bulk of our time, talking about attempts to herd Libertarians into a single location and assume gradual political control (or, rather, anti-control) in that way. She'll have a brief presentation and then the floor will be open for Q&A. Time permitting, we'll also discuss other methods, like expatriation or tax havens.

The Salon starts, as usual, at 7:00. If you're late, you're not only missing out on great discussion, you're also being rude to a guest. Fortunately, I know all of you to be humble and considerate people, so I don't feel I need to warn anyone again.

---

There are a lot of areas of science that Objectivists could use a better understanding of, in order to understand where they fit in O'ist metaphysics / epistemology. We're going to cover two of them for the September salon.

The keynote presentation will be Scott's talk on "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies." It's his contention (and mine as well) that QM is not a Kantian corruption that holds nothing but lies and evil. A lot of good stuff comes out of it, as Scott explains below:

QUANTUM WEIRDNESS

Quantum Mechanics gets a lot of abuse from trash-talking objectivists, who call it self-contradictory and acausal, and philosophical ne'er-do-wells, who use it to justify all sorts of hokey solipsism and skepticism.

QM may be unintuitive and weird, but there's nothing mystical about it. I'll explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Schrodinger's cat, how they fit into a reality-based philosophy, and why introducing QM into a philosophical discussion is usually a dumb move. My presentation will stick to the essential features of QM, and I can follow up with classical alternatives to QM, algorithms in quantum computation, or show off my QM simulator.

After that, I'll be talking briefly about "ki" / "chi" (Japanese / Chinese), the so-called mystical energy referred to by many Eastern religions and martial arts. I hold that there is a rational and consistent way to explain this energy within an Objectivist framework. I may even give demonstrations, if you're lucky.

Have your mind expanded! Have your concepts redefined! Come to "Weird Science"!

---

We take as given a certain level of familiarity with Rand's philosophy and writing among regular participants of our circle - but how well-read are we on other philosophers? Are their ideas worth integrating and evaluating, or do we just need a more apt method of destroying them? Who do you know? Who do you want to know about?

I'd like everyone who comes to the August salon to be ready to speak on at least one philosopher outside the Objectivist canon (Rand, Aristotle, Rasmussen, Sciabarra, Branden, Peikoff ... you know who I mean). You are by no means required, but fewer contributing members means a low-quality discussion. Be prepared to sum up interesting points of his philosophy. Don't rely on being able to use props (see below).

As our generous and noble hosts at Newbury Street, are moving to greener pastures in a few days, we will be hosting the August salon on the Boston Common, weather permitting. We'll meet right outside the Park Street T-stop at 7:00 (intersection of Park and Beacon streets), then find a comfy spot inside the park itself to sit and chat. This is, of course, weather permitting: backup plans will be unveiled should the need arise.

So, take the time to thank Hawver and Will for hosting us for the past year and a quarter, bring a suitable picnic blanket, and join us on the Commons for an evening of philosopher-talk.

P.S. Some suggested philosophers, for those of you who need a nudge:

John Rawls

Charles S. Peirce

J.S. Mill

Willard V. Quine

Jeremy Bentham

William James (not to be confused with Henry)

Jean-Paul Sartre

Kai Nielsen

Amitai Etzioni

Daniel Dennett

---

A subset of the general debate on art and aesthetics (especially from an Objectivist slant) is whether or not a certain form of performance, literature or media is, in fact, Art with a capital A. This Salon will be your chance to debate on that topic. You'll have the opportunity to either slander your particular enemies of taste, or defend unpopular styles.

To get the ball rolling, I'll start off by talking about Poetry. My thesis will be that Poetry Is Not Art.

The format of the Salon is moderated discussion. I'd like as many people as possible to be able to talk on a particular art form that they feel is NOT art (e.g., performance art, hip-hop music, abstract expressionism), a particular artist whom they feel is NOT an artist (e.g., Jackson Pollack, Britney Spears, Eugene Ionesco), or a controversial medium / creator whom they're willing to defend. If need be, I'll be willing to devilishly advocate on behalf of (or against) artists who otherwise go unheralded or unopposed.

Hope to see you all there.

---