Letters

From the June 2005 issue

(Page 2 of 4)

Still, Ayn Rand is not one of the "most widely influential figures in American thought and culture," as Reason claims. Rather, she's famous like the Edsel or Charlie Manson are famous. And perhaps the best indication of Rand's lack of staying power is that her prize pupil, Alan Greenspan, in his role as chairman of the Federal Reserve, acts in contradiction to her philosophy of Objectivism.

Rand always was irrelevant; her philosophy is alien to human nature. This is why no society on Earth has ever mimicked it. And in fact, even on an individual basis, people who adopt Objectivism tend to crash and burn, as Rand herself embarrassingly did in her affair with Nathaniel Branden.

Peter Skurkiss
Stow, OH

I was disappointed that Cathy Young did not mention the resemblance between Objectivism and Social Darwinism. Because there is no natural brake on the tendency of self-interest to degenerate into an obsessive narcissism, both doctrines, if followed to their logical extremes, would lead humanity into a Hobbesian war of all against all.

We see a hint of what Objectivism has in store for the human race in the clown who, according to the Los Angeles Times, criticized the government for using tax-derived funds to provide relief for the victims of the tsunami that swept over South Asia last December.

That isn't even "Let them eat cake!" An Objectivist society would be a cold, vicious place, very much like our own during the age of the Robber Barons.

Dennis Anthony
Los Angeles, CA

Transportation Security Aggravation

Even (or especially?) among experts, such as Robert W. Poole Jr. and Jim Harper ("Transportation Security Aggravation," March), there seems to be confusion about the 9/11 airline security problems.

The worst was the non-confrontation policy favored by the airlines, seconded by the Federal Aviation Administration, and followed by disarmed passengers and air crews--the root cause of which was the elitist, leave-it-to-the-police attitude that has been fostered in the population for a couple of generations now. The hijackers knew that even if an armed federal agent were aboard, policy would stay his or her hand as long as it was believed to be an ordinary hijacking. (The terrorists went to considerable trouble to reassure the passengers.)

Considering the roadblocks thrown up against arming pilots, it seems the corporate and government bureaucrats have learned--or perhaps care--little. So why does Jim Harper think that an effective "heterogeneous, fully private airline security system" is likely? Or a government-run one either? The bureaucrats know they'll never be held fully accountable.

I do agree that there is a "better result when security is provided by interested parties with a real stake in the outcome." To me, that sounds like passengers and air crews.

William J. Durr
Cornwallville, NY

My Very Own Monorail

Peter Bagge's comic description of Seattle's transit conundrum ("My Very Own Monorail," March) was at once sad, funny, and painfully accurate.

Comments

knki|10.5.10 @ 4:33AM|#

Thanks for informations.
pasta malzemeleri
fatmagülün suçu ne

knki|10.5.10 @ 4:33AM|#

thanks.
sikiş izle
imleme

nfl jerseys|11.8.10 @ 12:02AM|#

netet

قبلة الوداع|8.16.11 @ 1:54AM|#

thank u

حضك لسنة 2012|12.9.11 @ 3:26AM|#

thanks