Startsidan
Vad är Nattväktaren?
Vanliga frågor
Om Ayn Rand
Piratöversättningar
Lovsång
Artiklar "on line"
Articles on line in English
Tidigare nummer
Objektivistisk skriftserie Pamfletter av POS
Beställningar
Länkar

Articles on line in English

I hope to find time to write more articles in English in the future, and hopefully about more inspiring subjects than the outrageous treatment of George Reisman. For the moment, I have the following articles on this very subject to offer:

Why I do not support the "official" Objectivist "movement"
Reisman vs. Binswanger on "The Real Right to Medical Care" (from 1994)
Correspondence with Second Renaissance Books (from 1995)
Letter to Robert Stubblefield (written in 1995)
Open Letter to Leonard Peikoff (written in 1996)
My Final Words to Michael Berliner (written in 1996)
"Reisman insights without George Reisman" (written in 1996)
Leonard Peikoff on "Warring Friends"
Hatred of George Reisman for being George Reisman
More Reisman insights without George Reisman
"Real Objectivism" Rears Its Ugly Head

On the related outrageous treatment of me:
Leonard Peikoff Takes Legal Action
Answer to Leonard Peikoff and His Attorneys

On other subjects:
Untangling "Objectivist Schismology" (A reply to Robert James Bidinotto's reply to Leonard Peikoff's "Fact and Value")
Review of Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics
Quotes from Jean-Baptiste Say
Objectivism versus "Austrian" Economics on Value
More Salsman Nonsense (Richard Salsman's lack of understanding of the "Austrian" theory of business cycles)
Mises on Conscription and Taxes
Smith, Rand and Flew - Examination of a Folly (originally written in 1981)
Einstein and Newton (Q&A with David Harriman)

Policy statement: A "policy statement" may be needed here. I cannot stop anyone from referring to those articles of mine or make links to them (and of course I encourage people to do so, since I do want my views known). There is of course the risk that someone will try to utilize what I write in some general "war on Objectivism" and mix it up with any other sort of manure one may read in this vein. I have to trust that people read what I actually write and are focused enough not to lump it together with anything else.

That I take Reisman's side in the "Reisman split" implies nothing whatsoever with regard to any other conflict, real or imagined. It does not mean that I take Kelley's side in the "Kelley split", or Branden's side in the "split of 1968", or that I approve of Chris Matthew Sciabarra's efforts to turn Objectivism into a species of Hegelian dialectics - to take some obvious examples. I may have things to say about those matters in the future - or, again, I may not even bother.