An Activist's Choices

This post is a set of notes, not a treatise. I am basing it on my experience, my reading of history (especially for The Power and the Glory), and my observation of activists during my fifty years as a student of Objectivism.

WHAT IS ACTIVISM? If you design and build skyscrapers, you are an architect; if you campaign to eliminate your city's controls on construction, you are an activist. If you make steel rails, you are a manufacturer; if you speak against tariffs on imported steel, you are an activist. If you are hired to explain elementary math to children, you are a teacher; if you work with others to abolish governmental schools, you are an activist.

If you are in business, then offering a product on the market directly benefits both you and your customers. You and they are traders. In contrast, activism for objective people means taking some form of action in society to improve the social circumstances in which individuals trade material and spiritual values. The benefits of activism are indirect.

An activist is free to choose his subject matter, scope of operation, form of action, and other factors. The choices are personal; they are shaped by one's intelligence, ability to learn new skills, and, most of all, one's deepest personal values.

In the battle for a more objective society, the battleground is wide. On one side are ranks of the enemy, standing shoulder to shoulder from one end of the battleground to the other end. They control or threaten every aspect of life. On the other side, the side of advocates for a more objective society, there are many empty spaces waiting to be filled by revolutionaries.

THE CHOICES TO MAKE. Following are some of the factors that an activist can consider in planning his activism. Planning is important because successful activism requires a long effort -- to accumulate skills, acquire specialized knowledge of subject matter, select allies, and make contacts in the appropriate media (decision influencers) and centers of power (the decision makers).

Which Issue? The essential factor in activism -- the factor that shapes many of the other factors -- is the issue you choose to work on. Beyond that, the order of the factors to consider is generally optional.

Example issues are: Regulations enforced by your local government's "Planning Bureau"; the international slave trade; the national prohibition against narcotics; the lack of civility in debate and discussion; ignorance or antipathy toward the scientific method; racism; legislative threats to your profession; altruism vs. egoism in personal life and politics; the latest in a long series of attempted tax increases proposed by your state legislature; or the whole deluge of philosophical, social, and political problems in general.

Brian Phillips, author of Individual Rights and Government Wrongs: A Defense of Capitalism As the Only Social System That is Both Moral and Practical, has chosen to write broadly about government and individual rights. He has spoken out for years in his own weblog, in a local activist network, and in national publications.

Specialist or generalist? Rather than choose a special, long-term interest, an activist can be a generalist. That means keeping up with the ever-changing parade of issues that are "hot topics" for the mass media and their audiences. Being a successful generalist requires an ability to quickly study an issue, uncover the deeper principles involved, learn the particulars of a few examples, and develop a rational alternative to the present problem.

The danger of general activism is shallowness; and generalists speaking in public forums cannot speak authoritatively. They are therefore less persuasive than specialists who have long studied the issue and practiced presenting their side to a variety of audiences. On the other hand, specialized activists must be prepared to be out of the spotlight of mass media attention most of the time -- and then be in the center of the spotlight for a brief but intense time. Socialized vs. free market medical care is an example of an issue that comes and goes in public attention; the specialists quietly continue their work regardless of the immediate attention they receive.

An example of a specialist is Bosch Fawstin, a highly accomplished illustrator and graphic-novelist who focuses on fighting Islamic aggression. He also writes and speaks out in radio interviews and at conferences.

Geographic scope? An activist can work on an issue in a geographic area small enough that he can easily and repeatedly meet, face to face, all the individuals involved. For example, a local activist could meet the city council members who are considering privatizing city-owned utilities, as well as the other activists who want privatization or who oppose it. Or an activist can work on a larger scale: county, state, region, nation, or world. An example of the last are the activists who work in organizations such as Amnesty International, which pressures governments to release "prisoners of conscience," individuals imprisoned for their beliefs, not for crimes of aggression or fraud. (I am using AI as an example, not endorsing all of its actions; I did volunteer work for AI about 35 years ago, but I have had little contact with AI since then.)

Pro, con, or mixed? In your activism do you want to mainly express support for an objective alternative -- such as explaining the nature and benefits of science -- or do you want to mainly oppose a threat -- such as a particular organization (like the Council on American-Islamic Relations), particular news agency (The New York Times), or even a particular fallacy (like the Broken Window)? If you mix the positive and negative approaches, the proportions are of course optional.

Alex Epstein is the founder and director of the Center for Industrial Progress. A model activist -- indeed an activist "entrepreneur" -- he calls his positive approach "aspirational advocacy".

In-line or off-line? Do you want to make your activism an application of your central purpose in life (CPL)? That approach is in-line activism, which means your activism is in line with, an extension of, or application of your productive purpose in life. An example would be a nuclear engineer who, in the evenings and on the weekends, fights political restrictions on building nuclear power plants.

Or do you want to move away from your CPL to pick an area of activism that has a deep personal value but no direct connection to your CPL -- as when an accountant decides to fight drug laws because he sees the destruction such laws cause.

One example of an "in-line" activist is Paul Hsieh, MD. He is the founder of the weblog Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. He writes letters to editors, "op-eds," and other essays, criticizing proposed and current statist medical programs or advocating separation of Medicine and State. His portfolio has grown steadily through years of effort.

Social relationships? Do you want to work alone (for example, writing letters to editors). Or would you like to network with other activists focused on the same issue? Or do you want to associate with like-minded individuals on a series of intense but occasional, ad hoc projects (such as a temporary committee opposing a proposed state tax increase). Or would you prefer to be the founder or employee of an institution such as the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights? Examples are employees of The Ayn Rand Institute.

Jared Rhoads, founder of The Lucidicus Project, works directly with medical students who are looking for a philosophical foundation for freedom in medicine.

Cognitive level? To be most effective, all activism for a more objective society must be an integration of the deepest philosophical principles and the most particular facts. Which do you mainly want to focus on -- for example, propagating principles (such as rational egoism vs. altruism) or working with legislators to change the details of certain existing or proposed laws?

In other words, in the stream of philosophical ripples from the philosopher to the man in the street, do you want to be mainly a philosophical activist, an intellectual activist (who applies philosophical principles to current issues and offers alternative solutions), a principled political activist (stressing the guiding principles of proper government), or a political tactician who takes care of the detailed "mechanics" of political campaigns, such as scheduling a candidate's speaking engagements and so forth?

Apply a particular skill set you already have? Are you now a researcher, writer, accountant, filmmaker, office manager, speaker, salesman, trainer, legal adviser, clerk, or website designer? Would you like to do the work you love, but for an activist organization whose goals you support? The Institute for Justice may be an example of such an organization.

What medium? Through what medium do you expect to propagate ideas -- writing (speeches, weblog posts, magazine articles, books), speaking (in online or face-to-face interviews on radio or TV, or to "live" audiences); or focused personal communication in which you are a salesman?

Investment of time and money? Do you want to eventually work full-time as an activist, or do you want to devote part of your time each week? How much of your own money are you willing to invest in your activism; or would you like to find or create a job as an activist? Mike Neibel, author of the weblog Mike's Eyes, engages in a part-time, low-expense form of activism.

A small-scale example. My own activism is the one I know best. In influence, it is very small scale -- but I love doing it. The issue that fascinates me is broad: the war between reason and mysticism in our time. I am "specializing" in that war, but in certain defined ways.

Since I am retired (I am 67), I can devote full time to it. However, my activism is a by-product of my continuing central purpose in life, which is to tell success stories from history. Two earlier products of that central purpose in life are The Aristotle Adventure and The Power and the Glory. Indirectly both support my activism. They help spread ideas I support.

The next major product I plan to create is also a book (in eight or ten years). Between now and then, intermediate products will be mainly the posts I write for my weblog, The Main Event, but occasionally other, related articles such as book reviews for The Objective Standard, here and here. Those short-term writings are, in effect, entries in my work journal; they should become a base for the book.

As I learned initially from philosopher Ayn Rand, fighting for a better world is in fact living in a better world, a world in which I meet individuals who share my values, and we take action toward those values.

If you do choose to become an activist, welcome to a better world.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

NWO activists--history in the making?

The following list shows the activism of individuals who are members of Northwest Objectivists. It is a social organization whose primary purpose is enjoying the company of like-minded individuals and whose secondary purpose is assisting members in starting other, specialized groups (for example, for activism or study). By providing a meeting ground, NWO has facilitated activities for change.

As a long-term student of history, I have been fascinated by professional historians' accounts of the spread of ideas through various societies (ancient Greece, medieval France, England in the early Enlightenment, and others). In several posts, I have described the lessons I have drawn from looking at the past and the present:
"Philosophical ripples?"
"What is in-line activism?"
"In-line vs. off-line activism?"
"What is a movement?"
"Quality control in movements?"

Having compiled the following list, I appreciate even more the fervor of activity that must have led to the culture of the West European Enlightenment--many individuals at many levels of society, each in his own chosen manner, pursuing a better future.

WRITERS
- Writing weblogs: Kate Gerber, CareerMama; Andrew Miner, On Coding Style, epistemology of writing software; Brad Williams, Scripsit, political; Burgess Laughlin, The Main Event, philosophical and activist, and Making Progress, philosophical and historical; Peter Namvedt, Reason to Freedom, political; Gaia Marrs, Life on Marrs, political; Rachel Miner, The Playful Spirit, reporting on parenting of a high-function autistic child and other issues.
- Debating or advocating in specialized areas, online: Mia Eilebrecht, advocating for rational parenting; Rachel Miner, advocating for rational parenting; Rick Wilmes, researching the history of the ideological sources of US military policies, and debating on a US military academy discussion forum; and Peter Namtvedt, writing guest posts for political theory weblogs.
- Writing letters to editors, politicians, and bureaucrats: Maryallene Otis, Rachel Miner, and Peter Namtvedt.
- Writing supportive letters or calls to victims of statism (physicians, industrialists, property owners, etc.): Rachel Miner.
- Creating art carrying objective messages: Duane, writing a novel; and Peter Namtvedt, planning a political novel.
- Writing supportive comments on Objectivists' internet essays: Rachel Miner.
- Pursuing in-line philosophical activism: Burgess Laughlin, a long-term historical project.

ORGANIZERS, ENABLERS, AND FACILITATORS
- Organizing "Capitalist Conspiracy in Washington State," a Facebook group dedicated to encouraging and enabling individuals to become Precinct Committee Officers in either major party, thus influencing the selection of candidates in primaries: Bill Herman.
- Organizing for intellectual activism: Brad Williams, Oregonians for Individual Rights, now in the "startup" stage.
- Creating outreach organizations: Blake Scholl, Club for Capitalism (Seattle).
- "Enabling" the activism of others, by organizing socials or discussion groups: Jason Crawford, Rachel Miner, Andrew Miner, and Burgess Laughlin.
- Providing a site (Study Groups for Objectivists) for structured, text-based study of elements of Objectivism and related topics: Brad Williams and Burgess Laughlin.
- Organizing, moderating, and leading online weekly discussion groups in the Virtual Objectivist Club, for university students having no access to a local Objectivist Club: Jason Crawford.
- Grading essays for the ARI essay context: Andrew and Rachel Miner.
- Transcribing an ARI intellectual's speech and Q&A, given at a university. (Rachel Miner).

SPEAKERS
- Informally and singly speaking to friends and co-workers: Most of the 50 members of NWO.
- Making phone calls to local, state, or national legislators: Rachel Miner.
- Speaking to live audiences: Maryallene Otis (Toast Masters).

DEMONSTRATORS
- Carrying signs, distributing leaflets, participating in work parties: Blake Scholl, Jason Crawford, Bill Herman, Tom Lahti, Maryallene Otis, Don Otis, Alex Bleier, Thanh D., Brad Williams, Burgess Laughlin, and other NWO members (participating in "Tea Party" events, protesting "universal health care," and addressing other issues).

DONORS
- Signing ARI's The Atlantis Legacy: Jim and Duane; Don and Maryallene Otis; Andrew Layman; and Burgess Laughlin.
- Donating to ARI or Oregonians for Individual Rights: Burgess Laughlin and anonymous donors.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Aristotle Adventure
Founder, Study Groups for Objectivists

Weaving the Fabric of History

A culture (and the society that produces it) is akin to a broad fabric emerging from a loom. It is composed of numerous threads of various textures and colors. Following is a narrow historical example of the sort of spread of fundamental ideas that can change a culture, thread by thread:

1. In 1957, novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand published her greatest work, Atlas Shrugged. It presented the main elements of her philosophy, a philosophy of reason and therefore objectivity.

2. In 1989, philosopher Dr. Harry Binswanger, a student and then associate of Ayn Rand, wrote a brief essay proposing a sketch of the foundation of Philosophy of Law: "What is Objective Law?"

3. Later in 1989, an organization, The Association for Objective Law (TAFOL), published the essay. (It also appeared subsequently in The Intellectual Activist). The founder of TAFOL was lawyer Steve Plafker, PhD and JD, a long-term Objectivist.

4. In 2008, nearly 20 years later, a programmer and a retired marketing communications writer, intrigued by the application of philosophy to current events, created a website working with a few students of Objectivism in examining seminal texts, Study Groups for Objectivists.

5. In July of 2009, the year after its founding, SGO conducted a very brief study group to review the 1989 essay, thus spreading its ideas to a few individuals (most of whom are activists). The leader of the study group was Steve Plafker, the founder of TAFOL.

Thus, a primary philosopher's radical thinking published half a century ago led to a secondary philosopher's essay about thirty years later. Among the essay's other ripples, was its use in a study group, twenty years afterwards, for a close reading by a few active-minded individuals. This narrow historical chain of events has been one thread in a fabric of cultural change.

Such events are happening day by day across our society, often out of sight except to the immediate participants. A few individuals are waging a broader campaign through either general activism or in-line activism. The cumulative effect of this movement will be wide.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

NWO activists--history in the making?

Updated: Sept. 9, 2009

The following list shows the activism of individuals who are members of Northwest Objectivists. It is a social organization whose primary purpose is enjoying the company of like-minded individuals and whose secondary purpose is assisting members in starting other, specialized groups (for example, for activism or study). By providing a meeting ground, NWO has facilitated activities for change.

As a long-term student of history, I have been fascinated by professional historians' accounts of the spread of ideas through various societies (ancient Greece, medieval France, England in the early Enlightenment, and others). In several posts, I have described the lessons I have drawn from looking at the past and the present:
"Philosophical ripples?"
"What is in-line activism?"
"In-line vs. off-line activism?"
"What is a movement?"
"Quality control in movements?"

Having compiled the following list, I appreciate even more the fervor of activity that must have led to the culture of the West European Enlightenment--many individuals at many levels of society, each in his own chosen manner, pursuing a better future.

WRITERS
- Writing weblogs: Kate Gerber, CareerMama; Andrew Miner, On Coding Style, epistemology of writing software; Brad Williams, Scripsit, political; Andrew Dalton, Witch Doctor Repellent, political; Burgess Laughlin, Making Progress, philosophical and historical; Peter Namvedt, Reason to Freedom, political; Gaia Marrs, Life on Marrs, political.
- Debating or advocating in specialized areas, online: Mia Eilebrecht, advocating for rational parenting; Rachel Miner, advocating for rational parenting; Rick Wilmes, researching the history of the ideological sources of US military policies, and debating on a US military academy discussion forum; and Peter Namtvedt, writing guest posts for political theory weblogs.
- Writing letters to editors, politicians, and bureaucrats: Maryallene Otis, Rachel Miner, and Peter Namtvedt.
- Writing supportive letters or calls to victims of statism (physicians, industrialists, property owners, etc.): Rachel Miner.
- Creating art carrying objective messages: Duane, writing a novel; and Peter Namtvedt, planning a political novel.
- Writing supportive comments on Objectivists' internet essays: Rachel Miner.
- Pursuing in-line philosophical activism: Burgess Laughlin, a long-term historical project.

ORGANIZERS, ENABLERS, AND FACILITATORS
- "Enabling" the activism of others, by organizing socials or discussion groups: Jason Crawford, Rachel Miner, Andrew Miner, and Burgess Laughlin.
- Providing a site (Study Groups for Objectivists) for structured, text-based study of elements of Objectivism and related topics: Brad Williams and Burgess Laughlin.
- Organizing for intellectual activism: Brad Williams, Oregonians for Individual Rights.
- Grading essays for the ARI essay context: Andrew and Rachel Miner.
- Creating organizations: Blake Scholl, Club for Capitalism (Seattle).

SPEAKERS
- Informally and singly speaking to friends and co-workers: Most of the 50 members of NWO.
- Making phone calls to local, state, or national legislators: Rachel Miner.
- Speaking to live audiences: Maryallene Otis (Toast Masters).

DEMONSTRATORS
- Carrying signs, distributing leaflets, participating in work parties: Blake Scholl, Jason Crawford, Bill Herman, Tom Lahti, Maryallene Otis, Don Otis, Alex Bleier, Thanh D., Brad Williams, Burgess Laughlin, and other NWO members (participating in "Tea Party" events, protesting "universal health care," and addressing other issues).

DONORS
- Signing ARI's The Atlantis Legacy: Jim and Duane; Don and Maryallene Otis; Andrew Layman; and Burgess Laughlin.
- Donating to ARI and Oregonians for Individual Rights: Burgess Laughlin and anonymous donors.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

Ludwig von Mises on the economic crisis?

Dr. Robert Garmong, guest writer

What if the greatest economist in history, Ludwig von Mises, could directly comment on the current financial crisis and tell you how to deal with it? Well, unfortunately that's not possible -- Mises died in 1973. However, his "Monetary Reconstruction" essay, the work we will be studying in a September study group, comes close.

In it, Mises analyzes the reasons why government manipulates the money supply, and he demonstrates the manner in which those manipulations must lead to economic boom/bust cycles. He shows how inflation stems from the statist desire for government control over the economy and in turn leads to further intervention. He offers both a frightening picture of "the trend toward all-round planning" and a plan for the return to sound money (a full gold standard).

The three-week Mises Study Group should interest anyone who wants to understand economics, business-cycle theory or the current financial crisis. No special knowledge of economics will be required, beyond the layman's knowledge of basic economic concepts. We should all come away with greater insight into the seemingly incomprehensible melt-down of the American financial system and indeed the world economy. Both on the level of political solutions and personal financial planning, we should be better equipped to cope with the situation.

Dr. Robert Garmong
Recorded Lectures: The Ayn Rand Bookstore
Weblog: Professor-in-Dalian

Guest writer Dr. Robert Garmong will lead the 3-week "Monetary Reconstruction" course which begins Sept. 14 on SGO. Dr. Garmong holds a B.A. degree in economics and political science from the University of Chicago, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Texas. He has studied both Austrian-School economics and mainstream contemporary economics. He is now a Professor in the School of International Business and Communication at Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, in Dalian, China.

Book Review: The Independent Scholar's Handbook

For many individuals, properly defining a central purpose in life is a difficult process of abstraction. Even with that accomplished, there is another hurdle: designing a path that makes that abstract purpose concrete. For those individuals who want to be scholars, either in the humanities or in one of the sciences, but do not want to be professors in a university, Ronald Gross has written The Independent Scholar's Handbook.[1]

"Serious intellectual work can be pursued outside of academe," says the author stating his theme.[2] This book is not a mere call to spend a lifetime in study, no matter how passionate. Gross writes not to dilettantes but to individuals who are eager to learn better methods of research, create new knowledge, and expect to produce something with their studies--a book, a series of lectures, or some other ultimately marketable product.[3]

The front cover, but not the title page, contains this subtitle: "How to turn your interest in any subject into expertise." Each of the ten chapters of the book covers one phase of independent scholarship. In Part One ("Starting Out"), one chapter covers "From 'Messy Beginnings' to Your First Fruits of Research." In Part Two ("The Practice of Independent Scholarship."), chapters cover selection of resources (such as finding specialized libraries and gaining access to data bases), the benefits of working with other scholars, maintaining a high level of scholarly craftsmanship, and seeking financial support. Last, in Part Three ("Independent Scholars in Action"), Gross displays the range of activities in which scholars can make use of their expertise: tutoring, nonacademic teaching, writing in various forms, and "intellectual activism."

"Independent scholars are pioneering in a new area I call 'intellectual activism'," says Gross. "By that," he notes, he means scholars "undertaking activities that are not in themselves scholarship or science. These activities do not [themselves] create new knowledge, but they make existing knowledge more accessible, understandable, useful, or enjoyable to others; . . . they do something which benefits . . . the general culture." Though his abstract description is somewhat unclear, his examples of "intellectual activism" show that he usually means activism for intellectualism, that is, activism encouraging others to live "the life of the mind."[4]

Nevertheless, readers familiar with philosopher Ayn Rand's idea of intellectual activism--intellectuals taking action to spread philosophical principles by applying them to current problems in society--will find plenty of instruction and inspiration in this handbook.[5] At the end of every chapter, Gross offers a case study of an independent scholar in action, often rising from obscure beginnings to public success in one form or another. An example is Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, a book that launched a women's movement that brought early progress (by debunking Freudian views of women) and later regress (by advocating governmental controls on employment).[6] Gross very briefly describes numerous other examples throughout the chapters--for instance, Rachel Carson, a scientifically trained author whose book for general readers, Silent Spring was most responsible for starting the modern environmentalist mass movement.[7] Through his many examples of independent scholars, Gross unintentionally gives the serious student of modern history--particularly the intellectual activist trying to gain insights that will make his work more effective--historical examples of the many independent intellectuals who, in decades past, shaped our society today--its movements, its values, and its politics.

Thus there are three potential audiences for The Independent Scholar's Handbook: would-be independent scholars, acting professionally; intellectual activists, acting as advocates of a movement; and individuals integrating the two points, that is, those individuals who have chosen to be in-line activists, which means advocates of intellectual change within their own chosen profession.

Cautions: The author provides a flood of examples and particulars. Objective readers will need their skills in reading at varying levels of intensity because some sections will be much more valuable to some readers than to others. Readers will also need to be wary of the author's "philosophy," which is a mishmash of an implicit benevolent universe principle, genuine intellectual excitement, and vague, conventionally leftist solutions to social problems.[8] Also be aware that this first edition was written before the internet became widely available as a resource. This fact does not detract from the book's main value, which is not the specific resources Gross lists but the timeless methods and virtues required for success.

For the appropriate readers, The Independent Scholar's Handbook can be an informative and inspiring guide.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] Ronald Gross, The Independent Scholar's Handbook, Reading (Massachusetts), Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1982. This is the first edition; the second, 1993, edition reportedly contains only minor improvements. Both are out of print. Inexpensive used copies are available from Amazon Books. [2] For the "outside of academe" quotation: p. xvi. [3] Ch. 1, "Risk-takers of the Spirit." [4] For the three quotations: p. 148. [5] For Ayn Rand's discussion of intellectual activism: Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?" in Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ch. 17. See also discussions of intellectual activism on the website of The Ayn Rand Institute and The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, under the Participate/Activism tabs or search http://www.aynrand.org for "intellectual activism." [6] The case study of Betty Friedan appears on pp. 94-99. If my memory of 30 or 40 years ago serves me well, Ayn Rand wrote a book review of The Feminine Mystique, praising some of its insights, but I cannot identify the exact issue and periodical. [7] For mention of Rachel Carson: p. 94. [8] For the skill of choosing an appropriate level of reading depth: Edwin Locke, Study Methods and Motivation: A Practical Guide to Effective Study, at The Ayn Rand Bookstore. I wrote the review featured there.

Asymmetrical Debate?

[This question arose on Study Groups for Objectivists in discussions of Yaron Brook's and Onkar Ghate's insightful "Cultural Movements: Creating Change" lectures (available on the website of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, under the headings Participate/Activism).]

Here is a problem for students of the history of ideas, intellectual history, or cultural history: Reason is difficult and rare, but mysticism--in all its many forms--is easy and common. How can reason ever win?

Reason is difficult because it requires effort to be aware, to define a problem, to select a method, to persist in seeking information, to check the results for contradictions with already-held knowledge, and so forth. Mysticism is easy. If it is subjectivist, ideas are whatever the mystic wants them to be, regardless of facts. If it is intrinsicist, ideas simply arrive, either from the subconscious as intuition or from God as revelation.

In debate between advocates of reason and mystics, those who support reason do research, think about their results, formulate answers to essential questions, consider the nature of their audience, and so forth. Mystics need only blurt out whatever they feel.

Consider a contemporary example. In general, the conservative and leftist enemies of a culture of reason are mystics of one sort or another. They do not offer reasoned arguments. If I say I am pro-choice on abortion, a conservative may show me a picture of a dead fetus. A picture is not an argument, that is, not a reasoned process leading from facts to conclusions. It is an appeal to emotion. If I am to win the debate (held before a worthy audience) then I may need to go through a step-by-step argument identifying the problem underlying my opponent's last statement and offering a solution. My conservative opponent, if typical, next responds by screaming that I am a baby-killer. This is mysticism vs. reasoning--in debate.

(Intellectually, no debate is possible between mystics and advocates of reason, but socially such debates occur frequently before audiences that are, one hopes, at least mixed: Some members of the audience are at least implicitly advocates of reason but may not yet agree with a particular pro-reason position on a particular issue.)

Consider another contemporary example. You try to explain a principle of economics--that state interference (aggression) in the home-finance marketplace has long-term destructive consequences--and why. Your opponent responds with a bizarre false-dichotomy based on unspoken hints of egalitarianism and altruism: "But we are just using this bailout as a way of protecting Main Street against Wall Street!" You then must (1) determine what he is talking about in reality, if anything; (2) prepare your conclusions in terms and in a form that a rational but ill-informed audience listening to the debate would understand; and (3) offer an objective alternative based on principles you want to disseminate.

At first sight, the odds seem stacked against advocates of reason ever winning in their struggles with mystics. Yet, advocates of reason have won issue after issue, in some places and in some times. How can that be true when the odds against them seem so high?

I do not have a fully integrated answer to this problem yet, but I can suggest elements. First is the fact that in some societies there have been enough decision-makers and decision-influencers who were rational enough (in most areas of their lives) that advocates of reason and its products had a chance to win enough support, or even merely acquiescence, to at least make progress. Galileo lived in Italy. His ideas were censored there, but he managed to smuggle his writings out to lands where they met an eager audience. Perhaps the political fragmentation of Europe--from the Greeks up to the European Union--usually provided a refuge somewhere for advocates of reason.

Second is the fact--at least in Western culture--that rational people creating rational products have always had an effect far beyond their public numbers. Think again of Galileo. On the short-term he lost in his struggle with the Church in Italy in the mid-1600s. But his ideas ultimately did win wide acceptance among intellectuals. His ideas were presumably persuasive to dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of often nameless individuals in the following decades. In this manner, Galileo's ideas won. The people advocates of reason need to reach are not only the tiny number of Galileos and their peers, but also the thousands (out of millions) of rational individuals who will integrate and propagate, if not originate, rational ideas. An advocate of reason does not need to reach everyone or even a majority.

Only a few people set the direction of a culture. If advocates of reason can persuade, or even just neutralize, half of those people, then the advocates of reason can start making cultural changes within one generation. I have seen this process of changing the views of the powerful minority happen in business. On a committee of twelve people, two to four people either directly make the decisions or influence decision-making. Most of the others on the committee swivel their heads back and forth as each debater in turn presents his case pro or con.

In summary, I do see that reasoned presentations can indeed win support from rational members of one's audience, even in a "debate" against a mystic--but only in a culture already accepting a philosophy of reason to some extent; and only over the long term, which is the time required to analyze problems, develop solutions, figure out the best way to present the solutions, and actually make one's case to the intended audience (narrow or broad).

As a long-term student of history, I would love to have the time to investigate at least one case of such a victory: Galileo's ideas on astronomy, Darwin's ideas on evolution, Locke's ideas on politics, the idea of freedom of speech, or others.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

A Study Group for Intellectual Activists

Would you like to improve the world in which you live? The four-week "Cultural Movements: Creating Change" study group (CMCCSG) might be the right place for you to start. Within a few weeks, the CMCCSG will begin in SGO at: http://www.studygroupsforobjectivists.com/

Every SGO study group is focused on a particular text, but as an experiment the "text" here consists of videos of the three lectures Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate presented at the 2008 Objectivist Conference (OCON).

The CMCC lectures examine three 20th Century movements that were at least partly successful: free-market economics, environmentalism, and religious fundamentalism. (For the nature of a "movement," see the July 5 and July 14, 2008 posts.) The two speakers then draw from what they learned about those movements to suggest techniques for the Objectivist movement.

CMCCSG is a very short-term study group for anyone who wants to improve our world in the decades ahead. For long-term students of history, an added benefit of studying these lectures is seeing the value of applying lessons from history.

To join this study group, (1) register as a member of SGO, and (2) click on the home page link ("All") for the "Cultural Movements: Creating Change" study group. That link will take you to the "Details" page, which describes the study group and allows you to participate. 

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

In-line vs. off-line activism

[For this post, I assume my readers have studied Ayn Rand's most important philosophical work, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, especially Chs. 1-5.]

As a preliminary step toward clarifying the differences between in-line and off-line activism, consider five imaginary examples of intellectual activists--individuals taking action in society to disseminate philosophical principles as they apply to current social or political issues.

(1) A physicist, Dr. A, works for a nuclear power-plant management company. He works 8 am to 5 pm, five days per week. In his spare time, in the evenings and on weekends, he writes a long article for a popular magazine. In the article, Dr. A argues for liberation of the nuclear-power industry. In support of his theme, he offers ethical principles (e.g., the moral right to property), political principles (the only function of a proper government is protecting rights from aggression and fraud), and technical knowledge (nuclear power does not cause neighbors to glow in the dark). Dr. A also occasionally meets informally with investors, power-plant managers, and others to convey to them his philosophical and technical views. He hopes to give them the information they need to clamor for liberating the nuclear-power industry. Dr. A is a scientist, not a professional intellectual, that is, his central purpose in life is not in the area of the humanities.[1] Besides being a scientist, he is also an in-line intellectual activist.

He is an activist because he is taking action in society to improve his world. He is an intellectual activist because he is applying philosophical principles to the culture in which he lives. (He is, in some measure perhaps, also a political activist if he takes steps to change his government in particular ways.) He is acting in-line because he is disseminating information that he has gained, directly or indirectly, through his efforts to achieve his central purpose in life, which is, in his particular case, "to facilitate the production of energy through nuclear power," or some similar statement of purpose.

(2) A second physicist, Dr. B, has essentially the same central purpose in life but is now retired from working for an income. She writes a series of articles, pamphlets, weblog posts, and books--some written to the general public and some to her scientific peers--calling for the deregulation of the nuclear-power industry. Capitalizing on the many contacts she made while working, she also occasionally meets with investors, power plant managers, and others to convey her philosophical and technical views, in hopes of giving these powerful individuals the ethical, political, and technical "ammunition" they need to fight for liberating the nuclear-power industry. She too is an in-line intellectual activist. Dr. B differs from Dr. A in that she can work full-time at her activism.

(3) A third physicist, Dr. C, has essentially the same central purpose in life as Drs. A and B, and he works for a nuclear power-plant management company 8 to 5, five days per week. In his spare time on one weekend, Dr. C writes a letter to the editor of the local, small-town newspaper. The subject of the letter is a protest against the local police department wasting time arresting prostitutes and heroin addicts in the town. Dr. C writes the letter in favor or abolishing victimeless-crime laws. He uses moral arguments (e.g., the right to liberty), political arguments (e.g., the proper function of government), and financial arguments (half the police budget goes for victimless crimes, while rapists and robbers run free). In this project, Dr. C is an off-line intellectual/political activist.

(4) Dr. D is a professional historian. Her particular central purpose in life is to "promote understanding of our past." She is a professional intellectual.[2] So far, her career has consisted mostly of publishing her own historical research and teaching in academia. She chooses to spend some of her weekends and evenings preparing philosophical arguments (e.g., about the nature of objectivity) and other arguments to persuade local public school board members to adopt more objective history texts for middle-school students. Dr. D is, in this respect, an in-line intellectual and political activist. If, instead, she chooses to devote some of her evenings and weekends to working with a local, ad hoc group trying to stop a proposed sales tax, then she is, in that respect, an off-line intellectual activist.

(5) Mr. E is a carpenter. His central purpose in life is to use wood--which he loves in all its many forms--for making things that improve life, such as houses, boats, conference tables, and model planes for the children of his friends. He is not a member of a carpenter's union, so he works only on nonunion jobs. On the side, he likes reading about and discussing basic philosophy. He has also invested some time into reading the laws of his city and state as they apply to unions. When he works as a carpenter, he works long hours. Between jobs he writes letters to the editors of newspapers and of magazines for carpenters. In these letters, Mr. E cites fundamental principles, stated in his own words, as support for a free market in labor. In particular, he opposes restrictions on immigration and laws that regulate relations between corporate management and laborers, particularly in the construction business. Mr. E is an in-line intellectual activist.

The preceding five examples illustrate this point: The defining characteristic of an in-line activist is the special relationship between his work (physics, history, or carpentry) and his intellectual activism: The two areas have the same general subject matter, at least in part. An in-line activist is an intellectual/political activist in his field, which is the field of his beloved central purpose in life.

An off-line activist, by contrast, is active in a field outside the field of his central purpose in life. Whether the off-line activist spends only a few minutes or 60 hours per week at his activism is not an issue here. What makes him off-line is the fact that the subject matter of his activism is outside ("off") the field of his beloved central purpose in life.

NONDEFINING CHARACTERISTICS. In defining ideas, the thinker should set aside nonessential characteristics. Examples of nonessential characteristics for in-line activism are: the amount of time the activist invests in his activism; whether the activist is a professional intellectual; whether or to what degree the activist needs to increase his communication skills; and how much (if any) research the activist needs to do for particular activist projects.

(1) In-line activism can be a full-time activity, as in the case of a retired person who maintains the same central purpose in life but perhaps in a different form, one not requiring that he work a regular job. Or in-line activism can be part-time. Likewise, off-line activism can be either full-time or part-time. How much time an activist spends on his activist projects is not an essential (causal, explanatory) characteristic. As in the formation of concepts generally, measurements are omitted in the formation of the idea of in-line activism.

(2) One need not be a professional intellectual in order to engage in intellectual activism, either in-line or off-line, just as one need not be a professional politician in order to engage in political activism, and one need not be a professional scientist in order to advocate that schools teach the scientific method. In the Objectivist movement, as Ayn Rand explains, the "New Intellectuals" are "those who will take the initiative and the responsibility [for applying Objectivism to life]: they will check their own philosophical premises, identify their convictions, integrate their ideas into coherence and consistency, then offer to the country a view of existence to which the wise and honest can repair."[3] The New Intellectuals of the Objectivist movement need not be professional intellectuals.[4]

(3) A need to improve one's skills in objective communication is common to both in-line activists and off-line activists--and even individuals who are not activists at all but who want to succeed in the advanced levels of their careers.[5] So the need to improve one's communication skills is not a characteristic that distinguishes in-line from off-line activists.

(4) Both types of activist may need to do additional research for some of their activist projects, but not for other projects (e.g., those projects that involve only a quick statement of position, backed up by a very simple argument). A need for research and a potential need to substantiate all assertions with citations are not distinguishing characteristics of either in-line or off-line activism.

SUMMARY. In understanding the idea of in-line (versus off-line) activism, it is very important not to define the idea by any characteristic other than the relationship between the activist's field of beloved work and the subject matter of his intellectual/political activism. The amount of time invested in an activity, one's professional status, one's skill in communication, and the amount of research required are all inessential and therefore nondefining characteristics of either form of activism.

The essential defining characteristic of in-line activism is the positive relationship of the activist's area of activism to the field of his central purpose in life. In-line activism means intellectual (or political) activism that is "in-line" with--drawn from, congruent with--the work he has done to fulfill his central purpose in life.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] For central purpose in life: posts for May 20 and June 5, 2008. [2] For "professional intellectual," see: Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 25 (hardback) or 27 (paperback); or see "Intellectuals," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, first excerpt. [3] For a description of the New Intellectuals of the Objectivist movement: Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 59 (hardback). [4] For the nature of a movement, see the July 5, 2008 post. [5] For a series of lectures and practical exercises (performed by audience members) on objective communication, suitable for anyone who communicates as the core of his work, but especially for the New Intellectuals: Leonard Peikoff, "Objective Communication," an audio recording of a long series of lectures, available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore.

What is in-line activism?

The Summer 2008 issue of The Objective Standard carries an article by Raymond C. Niles, "Property Rights and the Crisis of the Electric Grid." According to his profile under the "Contributors" tab on the TOS website:

Mr. Niles manages an investment fund focused on the electric utility and related industries. Prior to initiating his fund, Mr. Niles was a senior electric utility analyst at Citigroup and Schroders. He has appeared on numerous industry and media forums, including the Edison Electric Institute, the NYMEX, the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, CNBC, and ABC News. Mr. Niles holds an MBA from the Stern School of Business at New York University.

Mr. Niles's clearly written and tightly edited article looks at the history of the economics of power generation and transmission. The article calls for a principled change toward a free market ("a liberated electric grid based on property rights and private ownership of the rights-of-way") and away from the crony-statism now controlling this industry. Mr. Niles's article is thus, in part, a project of intellectual and political activism. He is working as an activist from a broad base of philosophical, historical, and technical knowledge that he has accumulated throughout his career.

Mr. Niles has also taken his activism one step further than writing a substantial article in a prestigious journal. He has taken his activism directly to individuals in the electricity-generation industry, individuals who have some economic power and potentially some influential power of ideas with others inside and outside the industry. He writes (reproduced with permission):

I gave a speech based on my article to an industry trade group that represents owners of power plants and electricity traders who do business in California. I wasn't sure how they would react, especially after I told them that the 'deregulation' that they thought they were pursuing wasn't deregulation at all, and actually has made the industry worse. Also, when I told them that people should own rights-of-way underneath and above the city streets and that we should have competitive electric grids, I thought they would think that I had three heads!

Well, to my very pleasant surprise, they reacted with genuine interest in what I had to say. What I took from their reaction is that most people hold socialist/interventionist views only by default. Many people implicitly support a capitalist society but they have not been properly sold on it. When I presented my reasons, they 'got' much of it, to my great surprise.

To make things happen, the first thing required is the idea. For the electric utility industry, I presented that idea in my article, a way forward out of the morass of pseudo-deregulation and ratebase regulation. As far as I know, I am the first one to state it. However, until it gets said, it cannot happen.

Mr. Niles is an in-line activist. He is engaged in an activism that is a direct and natural application of his career and his central purpose in life.

As a student of history, especially of philosophical movements, I wonder about the comparative potency of various forms of philosophical and intellectual activism. As a working hypothesis, I would expect that in-line activism would be, all other factors being equal, more effective in disseminating ideas than off-line activism, that is, actions taken in one field by someone who is an expert in another field. Why would in-line activism be more effective? I can suggest four answers, as elements of a working hypothesis.

1. The in-line activist has the specialized knowledge required to back up his principles with technical and historical details. Principles and concretes together are objective; and, rhetorically, objectivity is far more persuasive than either principles or concretes alone.

2. The in-line activist knows his audience, not only their degree of knowledge, but also which individuals have power--the ability to make changes in one's world despite opposition. The in-line activist can tailor his argument to the appropriate individuals at the appropriate times and places. He can talk in their terms, understand their problems, and share their aspirations

3. The in-line activist is more likely to gain personal access to the most powerful members of his audience as individuals--at professional conferences, at lunch meetings, or at other events.

4. In-line activists can organize, lead, and participate in public discussions and debates more successfully than individuals outside the field could do. An in-line activist is more likely to have already heard the opposition's standard objections, usual fallacies, and conventional rhetorical tricks. The in-line activist is well-armed through experience.

A student of history or contemporary culture can test these elements of the working hypothesis for in-line activism. Such testing might mean (1) studying the records of successful movements of the past (for example, a movement to abolish tariffs) and (2) observing activists engaged in struggles today (for example, in the tiny but growing movement to stop statist monopoly medicine, that is, the politicalization of medical care).

A central topic of this post is the question of which type of activism (in-line or off-line) might be more effective in disseminating fundamental ideas for change in special fields and, cumulatively, in the general culture. However, whether a particular individual should choose one form of activism over another (or any form of activism at all) may properly depend on factors such as other personal interests and purposes besides his central purpose in life.

Based on my observation and speaking generally, I would say rational people act more intensely, persistently, and effectively when they are operating on their "home territory," which is the domain defined by their highest personal as well as philosophical values--including their central purpose in life.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith