|
|
Post by Neo on Nov 2, 2005 22:42:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Nov 3, 2005 15:01:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dvishnu on Nov 4, 2005 11:53:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lazerwood on Nov 4, 2005 18:01:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Nov 4, 2005 19:50:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Nov 4, 2005 19:59:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by patrickhenry2k5 on Nov 4, 2005 23:37:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Nov 5, 2005 0:37:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Nov 14, 2005 15:13:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Nov 15, 2005 15:57:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Nov 18, 2005 13:01:13 GMT -5
Robert LeFevre was, and remains, an inspiration to many. Butler Shaffer, I recently found out, was a teacher in LeFevre's school. Here is an article that may inspire you. From Mises.org (who deserve any support we can give them!): - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by denizen on Nov 18, 2005 14:37:29 GMT -5
Galambos early on still believed in political action. Students of both LeFevre and Galambos would point out and argue LeFevre’s position on this to the irritation of Galambos. But eventually there was an amicable reconciliation of Galambos towards LeFevre and he too rejected political/government solutions.
Galambos never did write a book; but some of his followers did publish his basic course from some of his latter lectures. Publication of his advanced course still awaits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Nov 18, 2005 16:43:09 GMT -5
Before hearing Marc mention Galambos, I read a book called "It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand" -- which is almost a Hunter S Thompson type of "gonzo journalism" (meaning it's not always accurate, and often very slanted, but obviously so unless some modern pundit-authors  ) -- about the exciting period of modern libertarianism in the 1950s-1970s (I think). It is very subjective, often LOL funny, and the only thing I recall about Galambos is that the author was aware of certain disciple of Galambos that were essentially saying "we can't tell you anything, it's all copyrighted or the secret intellectual property of Galambos" or something like that. So I wonder, if there was even a grain of truth to that, i.e. that the ideas and/or courses of Galambos were so feverishly "protected" (?) then what would be said about his students publishing his stuff? ;D The book is half price (now $6.50) at LFB, and is quite an amusing tale that adds colour to a sometimes-dry library of libertarian theory/history.  It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand - by Jerome Tuccille (the 2nd review by Roy A. Childs shows how much terrain the book covers, and it's a fun ride the whole way ) |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Nov 18, 2005 17:18:32 GMT -5
Darren, I've read the transcription of a Galambos course. It was non-put-down-able. I can confirm the idea of "feverishly protected" by saying this: Galambos basically posits that ideas are the property of the original thinker of them (I could have said "creator", but somehow that doesn't seem to quite capture it for me.) He also thought that contractual relationships were the only proper way to transact business with others. His course laid out his entire thinking regarding this concept. Part of the contract that a person taking the course had to agree to was to never share the course materials and ideas with anyone else, as Galambos considered this HIS property and only HE was capable of giving another permission to disseminate it. Of course one was allowed to USE the knowledge in the advancement of one's own life, but not to share that knowledge. I hope that I'm making that distinction clear. I don't know the truth of the matter, but I think that much of Harry Browne's ideas in "How to Find Freedom in an Unfree World" (a REALLY good book!) are a result of the ideas and stimulation he got in Galambos' course. - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Nov 18, 2005 19:14:47 GMT -5
Part of the contract that a person taking the course had to agree to was to never share the course materials and ideas with anyone else, as Galambos considered this HIS property and only HE was capable of giving another permission to disseminate it. Of course one was allowed to USE the knowledge in the advancement of one's own life, but not to share that knowledge. I hope that I'm making that distinction clear. Book Description: (From that Amazon page -- hey is this paperback like a Cliff's Notes version? paperback? ) Frustrated by the incompetence and injustice he saw everywhere he turned, and ever mindful of the conflagration the world had just endured, he began to construct a solution. In 1961, he founded The Free Enterprise Institute, his private, profit-seeking school through which he began to lecture. In over 100 courses, he described and designed a new world, one in which justice, freedom and prosperity will triumph. This book, Sic Itur ad Astra is the introduction to his theories, the blueprint to a stabilized durable civilization. It is the first step. ^ Well, you can't blame a fellow for trying to fix something most people don't even acknowledge is broken... PS: One of them " maxims" might have had said something to say about that, perhaps "Res perit domino suo. The destruction of the thing is the loss of its owner."  I don't know the truth of the matter, but I think that much of Harry Browne's ideas in "How to Find Freedom in an Unfree World" (a REALLY good book!) are a result of the ideas and stimulation he got in Galambos' course. Too many people have been conditioned to think copyright/IPrights are all about an individual "creator" stopping others from benefitting from his "creation", yet that seems to imply some rightful power to control another -- when actually the purpose of IPrights etc. is not to prevent the IDEAS from being distributed, but simply to prevent others besides the "creator" from taking CREDIT for those ideas. IMHO, of course. Once somebody dies, the ideas die with them? That seems to go against logic and reason. How can a dead man be harmed by others standing on his shoulders and further advancing the potential of humanity, especially in the area of liberty? |
|
) -- about the exciting period of modern libertarianism in the 1950s-1970s (I think). It is very subjective, often LOL funny, and the only thing I recall about Galambos is that the author was aware of certain disciple of Galambos that were essentially saying "we can't tell you anything, it's all copyrighted or the secret intellectual property of Galambos" or something like that.
