On Friday, I participated in a discussion hosted by The Atlas Society, with Richard Salsman and I representing opposite views on Russia’s war against Ukraine.
Thank you Rob for your excellent coverage and defense of Ukraine. I have been there a few times and actively work with contractors in their tech sector. These are good people fighting for a good cause and who deserve our support.
To hear Salsman’s support of Russias “total war” (does that include torture and rape in Bucha???) is appalling. Apparently poisoning and murdering political opponents at home and abroad are mere “political shenanigans”?! Salsman has lost his mind.
There is a certain history in Objectivist circles (dating back to the post-9/11 era) of fascination with use of force against civilians as a way of winning wars. It is not well-grounded in evidence. Did the Blitz break the spirit of Londoners in 1941? Evidence from the European theater is that bombing of cities did relatively little to stop the Germans (whereas bombing, say, oil refineries did a lot). The Russians' unrestrained use of force against civilians did not guarantee them victory in Afghanistan, and the killings and rapes in Bucha did not help them take Kyiv. But there's an old tendency to buy into the strongman's own hype and view him as more efficient and effective and therefore to be emulated. This is, of course, highly correlated with support for Trump.
His writings on economics are superb, I own some of his books but his attribution of imaginary virtues to socialist dictator Vladimir Putin is unforgiveable.
The dismissal of international state sponsored murder is just outrageous. Salsman criticized your bringing it up as concrete-bound. Not concrete-bound vs principled, but concrete-bound vs statistical. Not at all the alternative Ayn Rand had in mind. But let’s put those “anecdotes” into a statistic so we can play along with mr science. How many state-sponsored murders are acceptable? Is he really saying “look, over democratically elected Putin’s 20 years of service to his country he only murdered around five people, so statistically scientifically speaking he’s not an autocratic, bloodthirsty savage”???
I’ve come to learn over the years that many, if not most who purport to be Objectivists are in fact rationalists. They’re usually highly intellectual, and give the appearance of being logical; but it’s a ‘logic’ that’s detached from the reality that less intellectual, and even less intelligent people are aware of in their everyday lives. I’m confident that an accusation of being “concrete-bound and journalistic” is an indicator of them being squarely in the rationalist camp, and you being more aligned with reality.
If one subtracts off the most corrupt parts of Ukraine (that border Russia) its corruption score improves. Fundamentally, it is a country moving toward the rule of law. That is why most of Ukrainians embrace the west. Free countries have an obligation to protect their freedom, in alliances if necessary. The expiration of the Soviet menace is irrelevant. NATO has a moral right to exist and expand.
It’s so frustrating reading this and searching for the links to other mentioned material like ‘quilette’. I read on my iPhone, and it’s difficult. Maybe put the hyperlinks at the end?
Thank you Rob for your excellent coverage and defense of Ukraine. I have been there a few times and actively work with contractors in their tech sector. These are good people fighting for a good cause and who deserve our support.
To hear Salsman’s support of Russias “total war” (does that include torture and rape in Bucha???) is appalling. Apparently poisoning and murdering political opponents at home and abroad are mere “political shenanigans”?! Salsman has lost his mind.
There is a certain history in Objectivist circles (dating back to the post-9/11 era) of fascination with use of force against civilians as a way of winning wars. It is not well-grounded in evidence. Did the Blitz break the spirit of Londoners in 1941? Evidence from the European theater is that bombing of cities did relatively little to stop the Germans (whereas bombing, say, oil refineries did a lot). The Russians' unrestrained use of force against civilians did not guarantee them victory in Afghanistan, and the killings and rapes in Bucha did not help them take Kyiv. But there's an old tendency to buy into the strongman's own hype and view him as more efficient and effective and therefore to be emulated. This is, of course, highly correlated with support for Trump.
I unfriended Richard Salsman over this.
His writings on economics are superb, I own some of his books but his attribution of imaginary virtues to socialist dictator Vladimir Putin is unforgiveable.
The dismissal of international state sponsored murder is just outrageous. Salsman criticized your bringing it up as concrete-bound. Not concrete-bound vs principled, but concrete-bound vs statistical. Not at all the alternative Ayn Rand had in mind. But let’s put those “anecdotes” into a statistic so we can play along with mr science. How many state-sponsored murders are acceptable? Is he really saying “look, over democratically elected Putin’s 20 years of service to his country he only murdered around five people, so statistically scientifically speaking he’s not an autocratic, bloodthirsty savage”???
I’ve come to learn over the years that many, if not most who purport to be Objectivists are in fact rationalists. They’re usually highly intellectual, and give the appearance of being logical; but it’s a ‘logic’ that’s detached from the reality that less intellectual, and even less intelligent people are aware of in their everyday lives. I’m confident that an accusation of being “concrete-bound and journalistic” is an indicator of them being squarely in the rationalist camp, and you being more aligned with reality.
If one subtracts off the most corrupt parts of Ukraine (that border Russia) its corruption score improves. Fundamentally, it is a country moving toward the rule of law. That is why most of Ukrainians embrace the west. Free countries have an obligation to protect their freedom, in alliances if necessary. The expiration of the Soviet menace is irrelevant. NATO has a moral right to exist and expand.
It’s so frustrating reading this and searching for the links to other mentioned material like ‘quilette’. I read on my iPhone, and it’s difficult. Maybe put the hyperlinks at the end?
Is it that the hyperlinks aren't showing up with enough contrast, making them hard to click?
Hate that you have to consent to the “privacy policy” to comment
I went back and looked closely “piece” was the hyperlink. Think I would make the hyperlink the name. But I don’t have a million followers.
Great piece though- worth the hunt!