About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama showed Thursday night that they have more common ground than differences when it comes to making national service a priority in their presidential administrations.
Tweedle-de-dum, tweedle-de-de.
The candidates took the stage separately in a forum sponsored by TIME [Editor Rick Stengel] at Columbia University in New York.
This is the same University that has refused to allow military recruiters on campus since 1969 but had no problem welcoming Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad to speak there.
Asked why it seems the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, are "fading" in the minds of many Americans, McCain said: "We needed at that time [September 11, 2001] to take advantage of the unity in the United States of America." McCain criticized the Bush administration for not taking advantage of that sense of unity and instead imploring the American public to live their lives as usual and "go shopping."
McCain voiced similar anti-capitalist sentiments during the primaries when he denigrated rival Mitt Romney for his business experience by saying that he, McCain, led "for patriotism" not "for profit."
"I would have called them to serve," said McCain."

Asked about compensation for service McCain said: "I'd be glad to reward [volunteers] as much as possible. But you want to be careful that the reason is not the reward of financial or other reasons, but the reward is the satisfaction of serving a cause greater than yourself. ... Finding new ways to serve. That's what this next few years should be all about."
Would Immanuel Kant have disagreed? McCain reiterated a statement posted on his campaign website, viz., that “each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest.”

Lest one think that McCain differs from Obama in his call for altruistic service, make no mistake. Obama is every bit as dedicated to it as McCain is. Nor is either political aspirant historically unique in this respect. Craig Biddle reminds us in The Objective Standard that Adolf Hitler expressed similar sentiments:

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture. . . . The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call—to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness—idealism. By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men." (Mein Kampf)

-- as did Benito Mussolini, who championed "a moral law, binding together individuals and the generations into a tradition and a mission . . . a higher life . . . a life in which the individual, through the denial of himself, through the sacrifice of his own private interests . . . realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies."

And don't forget John Kennedy's memorable "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Would John McCain and Barack Obama disagree with Hitler, Mussolini or Kennedy? Obama says he wants change, and McCain is now me-tooing the liberal senator. But, in reality, both are arch defenders of the same altruist status quo that modern dictators have used to rally subservience to their nationalist causes.

- Bill

Post 1

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 11:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good post Bill. I have been complaining about this very thing on another thread.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 12:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
yep - as seen elsewhere, they both the same National Socialism - just Obama emphasizes Socialism, and McCain emphasizes National...  Liberal Fascists the lot of them...

Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, September 12, 2008 - 1:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is the very heartbeat of freedom's enemy.

The left has always hungered for power. To have power they invoke calls for service and sacrifice, but it is only one of many mechanisms to aid them in their goal of no-choice-only-government.

It is the right that is the real enemy of freedom. People are fooled by the arguments for responsibility, for smaller government, for reduced taxes, for less regulation. How could that not be pro-freedom? They don't see that the primary urge and justification is a celebration of selflessness. That is the heartbeat of the right. McCain's presentation at the convention and in his campaign is the fiercely touted example of his service and sacrifice. He is the ultimate service oriented candidate and without the principled restraint of an intellectual attachment to free enterprise - no, he is just a pragmatic, mixed economy accident waiting to happen in whatever venue chance takes us.

The left will win in the war against the right, step by step, because the very heart of the right is selflessness and in place of reason on this fundamental level they have faith.

Post 4

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 10:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There's an old Bill Steigerwald Q & A interview of Rich Lowry (editor of National Review) -- along with 3 other popular men -- where Lowry claims that McCain was a prime candidate for several self-described "neoconservatives" (e.g., Bill Kristol).

The reason I make that connection is that I see a shift of -- or a mixed-bag blend of -- some of the Right toward the Left. But without a "good" name for that shift (i.e., neocon has been considered either insufficient or unacceptable), it's difficult to effectively talk about it.

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know the answer to this: in what way does Obama endorse conscription. Sounds like McCain is pro-draft. Obama seems like more of a pro-mandatory-community service kinda guy. I'll take soup kitchens to war trenches any day.

Jordan

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 11:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan wrote:
    I'll take soup kitchens to war trenches any day.

Jordan:

I get your meaning here, but I think a statement like this highlights one aspect of what I find wrong with choosing the lesser of two evils while deciding how to vote. It makes us complacent in our own expectations. I'm sure that you are not in favor of any sort of compulsory service for US citizens, but when you are offered only a choice between the likes of McCain and Obama, it can lead to a subconscious state where one feels a sense of relief, and possibly even gratitude, that you have only been enslaved to serve bums in relative safety compared to being drafted and possibly sent into a battle zone. We should instead feel - and vocalize - a tremendous sense of indignance at both suggestions. And the fact that either candidate is even talking about this sort of inversion of the proper relationship of the government to its citizenry should immediately disqualify them both from consideration.

This country can never be destroyed by terrorists, even if they did manage to set off a suitcase nuke on our soil. The real danger is the slow rot from within from the drip drip drip of these insidious ideas that become accepted as the baseline for life.

Regards,
--
Jeff

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 9/13, 1:14pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here are three posts by a blogger who went to the Service Nation Summit.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 11:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I was misusing the term "neocon" and it was Ted that pointed that out to me. I went out to Wikipedia and looked up the word's history and usage. I had, mistakenly, been using it as the same as "religious right" - it has nothing to do with religion.

Neocon refers to people who support big government at home, like the welfare state, but side with those who favor military intervention. It became a description of those who leaving the liberal left for the left's perceived failure to take as strong a military approach, and their arrival as 'new conservatives,' but they took with them their advocacy of big government in domestic social programs. To me, this is a very logical grouping: Big government at home, big government in military use - consistent advocacy of government as the answer.

It seems fair to me to apply the label to those who advocate both of those positions. McCain fits the intervention side of the issue and is about half to two-thirds the way on social programs - but he is campaigning as if he were only 1/4 of a big government person on social spending - so, is he a neocon? Maybe not.

It wouldn't be fair to accuse some of the "Hawks" here are ROR of being Neocons, since they only fit one of the positions. Just as it isn't fair of them to label ROR "Non-Hawks" as "isolationists" since that position includes protectionist legislature which they don't endorse.

That is my take on it.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 11:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

I agree that a soup kitchen is preferred to a war trench, but when it comes to the very idea of conscription - of any kind - I draw the line.

Conscription is a form of outright slavery and is too vile to credit in any way. The day our government endorses any form of mandatory service is the day it ceases to be my government.

To shift the focus from the ends to which the slavery would be devoted is to take focus away from the act of enslaving.

Post 10

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 12:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Thank you for starting this thread.

What a philosophically bankrupt, political scene is revealed when the two major party's nominees for Presidency each try to out-do the other in being the most sacrificial in the holy name of service to others.

Post 11

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

I like what you have to say about hawks and isolationists, but I don't agree with you about "neoconservatism" having "nothing to do with religion."

Religion is an opium for the masses and a springboard for extolling self-sacrifice. Those I view as NeoCons would be prepared to use it for as long as it has a strong-hold on the people.

Here is evidence for that (CAPS added):

=============================
"In contrast to the ancients, the moderns were the foolish lovers of truth and liberty; they believed in the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believed that human beings were born free and could be legitimately ruled only by their own consent.

The ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition is not one of freedom, but of subordination. And in Strauss's estimation, they were right in thinking that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior - the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. As to the pursuit of happiness - what could the vulgar do with happiness except drink, gamble, and fornicate?

Praising the wisdom of the ancients and condemning the folly of the moderns was the whole point of Strauss's most famous book, Natural Right and History. The cover of the book sports the American Declaration of Independence. But the book is a celebration of nature - not the natural rights of man (as the appearance of the book would lead one to believe), but the natural order of domination and subordination.

In his book On Tyranny, Strauss referred to the right of the superior to rule as "the tyrannical teaching" of the ancients which must be kept secret. But what is the reason for secrecy? Strauss tells us that the tyrannical teaching must be kept secret for two reasons - to spare the people's feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals. After all, the people are not likely to be favourably disposed to the fact that they are intended for subordination.

But why should anyone object to the idea that in theory the good and wise should rule? The real answer lies in the nature of the rule of the wise as understood by Strauss.

It meant tyranny is the literal sense, which is to say, rule in the absence of law, or rule by those who were above the law. Of course, Strauss believed that the wise would not abuse their power. On the contrary, they would give the people just what was commensurate with their needs and capacities. But what exactly is that? Certainly, giving them freedom, happiness, and prosperity is not the point. In Strauss's estimation, that would turn them into animals. The goal of the wise is to ennoble the vulgar. But what could possibly ennoble the vulgar? Only weeping, WORSHIPPING, and SACRIFICING could ennoble the masses. RELIGION and war - perpetual war - would lift the masses from the animality of bourgeois consumption and the pre-occupation with "creature comforts." Instead of personal happiness, they would live their lives in PERPETUAL SACRIFICE TO GOD AND THE NATION.

Irving Kristol, a devoted follower of Strauss and father of neoconservatism, was delighted with the popularity of the film Rambo. He thought it was an indication that the people still love war; and that means that it will not be too difficult to lure them away from the animalistic pleasures that liberal society offers."
=============================
Adapted from:
http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/112.html

Ed

Post 12

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 2:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Maybe you are right. I'm no expert in this area. I see that there are useful distinctions to be made between the set of policies advocated by a group and their underlying reasons for advocating the policies.

Too bad we don't have "religious neocons" and "secular neocons" as terms, but we don't. I have no idea how many neocons are not evangelical but I suspect that it isn't a large percentage.


Post 13

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The call for secrecy and for lies to support a rule by force is also visible in Jane Jacobs description of the Guardian System of moral precepts, as opposed to openness and honesty to go with the Trader's System of moral precepts.

Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 3:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know the answer to this: in what way does Obama endorse conscription. Sounds like McCain is pro-draft. Obama seems like more of a pro-mandatory-community service kinda guy. I'll take soup kitchens to war trenches any day.
On January 10, 2007, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrat Charles Rangel. The bill, H.R. 393, also known as the “Universal National Service Act of 2007," will "require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes."

In an MTV/MySpace forum on February 19th, 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both expressed support for the legislation. When asked about education expenses, Clinton said: “... that’s why I’m in favor of two years of national service, where you could earn up to $10,000 a year doing national service and go right into helping you pay for college.” In a follow up comment, Barack Obama then stated: “... one of the things that I’ve proposed, for example, is that I will give a $4000 tuition credit - every student, every year - so that they are not being loaded up with enormous debts, but there will be a community service - a national service component. The military could be one way for you to get this $4000 tuition credit. Another way would be to work in an under-served school that needs help. Another way would be to work in an under-served hospital or a homeless shelter, or a veterans home. The point is, I think it is important for young people to serve.”

It's bad enough that Clinton and Obama (and other Democrats) think that our primary moral obligation is to serve others. What's even more worrisome, however, is that they think that such altruistic service should be implemented via national conscription, which is a clear violation of the 13th Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude.

On July 2, 2008, in a speech at Colorado Springs, Obama made another reference to such legislation when he called for the creation of a "national civilian military service" by saying: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren has estimated that this civilian national security force would cost somewhere between $100 billion and $500 billion, or between 10% and 50% of all federal tax receipts. Even adults who’ve already served in the U.S. military are not exempt from Obama's national conscription. "People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve," he said.

Obama then went on to explain his vision of a national service program similar to the one he outlined in the MTV/MySpace forum, saying he would make federal assistance to schools contingent to school districts establishing service programs, with a goal of 50 hours of service per year for middle school and high school students, and 100 hours of service per year for college students. So the service wouldn't be voluntary on the part of the students. They would be required to perform it as a condition of the schools' receiving federal assistance.

In a commencement speech at Wesleyan University, Obama advised graduates not to pursue a successful, money-making career in private industry but to serve others. "You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should. But I hope you don’t."

Speaking to a group of women in Zanesville, Ohio, Obama's wife Michelle said, "We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do. Don’t go into corporate America. . . . Become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers we need, and we’re encouraging people to do just that."

But the Obamas are doing more than "encouraging" or "asking." Michelle made it clear: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. . . . Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual — uninvolved, uninformed." Note the language, "require," "demand," "never allow" -- Barack, the new service emperor! Is this the language of people who believe in freedom of choice or have even the vaguest notion of individual rights?

All you young people out there -- aren't you excited about the wonderful "changes" that Obama plans to impose upon you, once he's elected? Don't you just want to run out and vote this congenial, smiling man into office, so he can usher in a new era of compulsory national service in which you'll be required to participate? Of course, you do. Just remember to straighten your spine and keep a stiff upper lip! You'll need it.

- Bill


(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/13, 3:35pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/13, 3:57pm)


Post 15

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 4:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill:

When you put all these quotes of Obama's together like this, it sends chills down my back and I have visions of Atlas Shrugged rather than sugar plums swimming round in my head.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 16

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 4:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

It’s not transparent for me to just say “Those I view as NeoCons ...” without at least a few names as examples. Here are a few:

 

 

1. Elliott Abrams (author of “The Godless American Jew: Why American Jews Fear Religion and Why Only Religion Can Save Them”)

 

 

2. Irving Kristol (who expects folks to keep falling for the Argument from Design – or Intelligent Design “theory”), and who had this to say: 

“People need religion. It's a vehicle for a moral tradition. A crucial role. Nothing can take its place.” 

 

3. William Kristol, who said this: 

[This sent me to Marx’s famous statement about religion …] “Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”

 

Or, more succinctly, and in the original German in which Marx somehow always sounds better: “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes.”

 

Now, this is a point of view with a long intellectual pedigree prior to Marx, and many vocal adherents continuing into the 21st century. I don’t believe the claim is true …

 

4. Michael Arthur Ledeen, who wrote this: 

“Good religion teaches men that politics is the most important enterprise in the eyes of God. Like Moses, Machiavelli wants the law of his state to be seen, and therefore obeyed, as divinely ordered. The combination of fear of God and fear of punishment—duly carried out with good arms—provides the necessary discipline for good government.”(pp. 117-118)

 

“American evangelical Christianity is the sort of ‘good religion’ Machiavelli calls for. The evangelicals do not quietly accept their destiny, believing instead they are called upon to fight corruption and reestablish virtue.” (p. 159) 

I realize that my sources for these aren't all "honorable" places for fact-finding. However, I honestly believe that these facts speak for themselves. I will entertain counter-evidence as it is marshalled and alter my view point if reason commands it, but I don't like folks who even allude to sacrifice for a "greater good" -- and that's what these guys seem to be saying (whether they really believe in religion or not).

Ed

Post 17

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 5:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,

Yup. This is one scary dude, once you see what lies behind the affable and eloquent facade. Obama is dangerous in a way that I didn't think an American president ever could be -- precisely because he is so persuasive and could well get his ideas enacted into law. But then I didn't live through the Great Depression presided over by FDR. If I had, I probably would have considered him equally as scary. :-|

- Bill

Post 18

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 6:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regarding national conscription...

I've never believed in the 'draft'. On the face of it, I agree with Steve that is amounts to a form of slavery. Were it to be forced upon us again though, I would say that a universal one year term would be more appropriate than a "selective" process involving more than one year.

Mandatory one year's national service for all men and women is practices in several countries in Western Europe and Scandinavia. A friend's son (living in the US) was contacted and told that to retain his native citizenship, he would have to perform a year's service. Although he could easily have declined, he complied, and today is able to maintain a dual citizenship.

The point is that I can see putting in a year of military service as being a price tag for living under the protection of the government. The matter still, however, should remain a decision of the individual man or woman.

Just my stray thoughts...

jt

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay I really don't understand you. You say in one breath that you agree it amounts to slavery... then you say which particular form of slavery you'd like... Then you say that a year of slavery is okay in exchange for government protection. Unbelievable.

It is like that old joke about the multimillionaire offering a pretty young woman half-a-million to sleep with him. She flutters her eyelashes and nods yes. He asks her, what about for twenty dollars? She is outraged and says, "What do you think I am, a whore?" He says, "We've already established that. Now we are just negotiating." You've already agreed to be a slave, you're just hoping to negotiate for a short term that isn't to unpleasant. Good luck.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.