Anyway, before I forget...will someone verbally smack around David R. (again,
please) for insinuating that Buddhism is resposible for economic problems
in developing Asia? I'm interested in seeing something on the inherent
problems with the logic. Which countries are defined as Buddhist
and which Objectivist? Is the West objectivist? What is the cause of
"prosperity" in the West...considering Rand wrote after 1900, as I recall?
How about cofounding variables in that analysis? A little discussion on
the inherent myopia associated with defining ideological "success" as 1997
GNP figures might be nice.
If Arisotelianism is the basis of Objectivism, why did the Greeks get defeated,
given their inherent ideological advantage? As a matter of fact, why did the
Roman Empire collapse, anyway...given it's exposure to superior theory? Why do
we think a capitalist paradigm will continue to be successful over the long
term?
How, exactly, does Objectivism receive credit for all the percieved success
in "Western" civilization? Sounds a little "parasitic" to me...as if we were
claiming that the "earnest effort, hard work, and real accomplishments" of
thinkers who disagreed or were unaware of neo or proto-Objectivism were not
significant. Or can they get into Heaven, too?
Also we might bring up the fact that the Objectivist have not cornered the
market on logic or rationality...assertions notwithstanding.
Anyway, I have to go fight with TCP now.
Reed