RoR: Forum

Robert,

I often disagree with you but this was a masterpiece. Major kudos!

Post 1

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 7:51am

Robert,

There are no superlatives up to the task of describing this article. You are without question a hero.

Post 2

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 9:37am

Robert,

Kudos for daring to post such an article deep in partibus infidelium, sandwiched between creationists' attacks on science and diatribes against same-gender marriage.

A warning about the ECMA-Script of the site. It froze my default browser (Firefox on Linux, displaying to a 3-screen X Window Server on my Sun Ultra 30 under Solaris 9) so completely that I had to kill it through the window manager. The site is moderately usable on Micros--t XP, which I also run - on a spare piece of junk - but it is very aggressive in its enforcement of Gates' monopoly. Maybe it is meant not to be seen by elitist snobs who use real computers.

Post 3

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:10am

Thanks.

The site to which you linked in the headline of this post, Bob, swiped the essay from my blog, without my prior knowledge or permission. I gave them permission to maintain the post on their site, but at my insistence they have since posted a link back to the original article on The BIDINOTTO BLOG, which is also loaded with html links to source material that I cited in abundance.

If you can still change the link in your headline, Bob, I request that you do so, sending readers to my blog version instead of the reprint.
(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 11/12, 10:11am)

Post 4

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:37am

Done.

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 11:44am

Robert B.,

" After all, politicians -- like water -- cannot rise higher than their source. "

Great finish. Couldn't be a more perfect close.

Thanks Bob Palin for posting this. I have been remiss in my visits to the Bidinotto Blog.

Post 6

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:16pm

Mike, there's NO EXCUSE for being remiss! After all, there is a "subscribe to the blog" feature on my site, which alerts you whenever I post something new.

From now on, I will quiz you periodically on my blog's contents, just to be certain that you're paying attention.

Post 7

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:56pm

[Poor Mike - just never could get away from school...]

Post 8

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:10pm

Bob, thanks much for changing the URL embedded in the headline of this article back to that of my blog entry.

Post 9

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:17pm

Robert B.:

Ok, I've signed up.

Robert M.:

Yeah, talk about your school of hard knocks..

Post 10

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:29pm

Good choice, Mike.

;^)

Others:

You can subscribe to my blog by entering your email address in the subscription box, located in the right margin of my home page.

You can also check out all of my essay postings for the past couple of years, which are archived by subject category in the blog's table of contents.

Enjoy.

Post 11

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 11:49am

Edit: Nevermind, I found lengthy explainations in your comments.

cheers,
Ricky

previously:

Robert,

Could you please elaborate on this statement?

But this leaves the glaring problem of where people like me -- the lonely advocates of rational, principled individualism -- are supposed to turn, politically.

For now, nowhere. (No, the incoherent Libertarian Party is not an option.)

Why is it not an option?

(Edited by Ricky Egeland
on 11/14, 11:50am)

(Edited by Ricky Egeland
on 11/14, 12:07pm)

Post 12

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 12:43pm

On my blog, many readers overlook the "comments" sections after each post. A pity: some very smart people venture in to leave remarks, and I am simply delighted with the high quality of their posts. Always a challenge to respond.

Post 13

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:59am

It goes without saying that I agree with my friend and colleague Robert (also editor of "The New Individualist": -- subscribe today!) on how the Republicans continue to descend into the depths of statism because so many of them, like Democrats, have accepted the philosophy of collectivism. A moral revolution is indeed necessary to reverse this trend.

Post 14

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 11:30am

I recall seeing an interview in the late 70s or early 80s (in the documentary Ayn Rand : A Sense of Life) with Rand in which she said (and I am paraphrasing) :

"Make no mistake about it, I am not a conservative. I think today's conservatives are worse then today's liberals. If anyone destroys this country it will be the conservatives. They are all religious. They are all altruists. Because of this they can never properly defend capitalism."

(That is very close but when I get home I'll pull out the DVD and get the quote exactly right).

It seems to me that the Republicans are no longer concerned with free markets and smaller government. This doesn't get them any votes. Their focus is centered around a religious morality agenda and in the appeasement of the welfare statists in order to garner more "swing" votes. While many Objectivists seem to want to sympathize and reach out to conservatives I see very little in common with them. Much like Ayn Rand waged an all out war against the left and its intellectuals I think that a similar sustained war ought to be waged against the religious conservatives. We certainly shouldn't try to make common cause with them. There is very little common cause remaining. All attempts should be made to eliminate them (and their religion) from the main stream of politics so that a more rational alternative to the left can take their place.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 11/15, 11:39am)

Post 15

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 11:36am

Amen, Jason :)

They are fascists.

Post 16

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 11:39am

Actually, there are Republicans who put free markets first. The problem is that in past decades there has been two Republican Parties, the one of folks like Dick Armey and Ron Paul who were more libertarian and the kinder, gentler, compassionate statists. There is a lot of dissatisfaction among a lot of conservative Republicans over the Bush spending spree and expansion of government. We should fan such flames.
(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 11/15, 12:29pm)

Post 17

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 12:21pm

Generalizations about conservatives -- or any other ideological category -- are usually too sweeping, and therefore unjust to individuals.

I came to Objectivism from a religious and conservative background. It was a long migration from anti-communist Catholicism, through mainstream conservatism, to free-market conservatism, to Objectivism -- all during my teens.

Rather than write off all individuals because they claim this or that label, it's better to act like good individualists and judge them individually. That goes, incidentally, for Republicans and Democrats. One can generalize and say that the parties are corrupt and unprincipled...as institutions. It does not follow that all party members are corrupt and unprincipled.

There are no short cuts to passing moral judgment individually, and contextually.

Post 18

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 12:54pm

Ed --

This is a short term patch up strategy. I wouldn't mind a return to the "Contract with America" days in which there was a reactionary uprising against big government but as we saw this sort of uprising is short lived because the intellectual firepower is still squarely in the corner of the left. This will be the case until the deep ideological contradictions of the opposition party are demolished. You cannot hope to mount a serious challenge to the progressive left with the intellectually empty traditionalist and religious background of the American conservatives.

The left maintains full control of public assumptions regarding economics and the need for all manner of government regulation and social programs. The Republicans get consistently elected because they pay lip service to all of these assumptions. They simply add to this a tough guy image and strong Christian conservative rhetoric.   Those that resist this are still forced to bend a knee to a powerful group of Christian ministers and their legion of supporters in order to get elected.   Being closer to the action I'm sure you see this even more clearly then I do.   So instead of trying to help create another short lived Gingrich style revolution a sustained attack needs to be waged against the religious wing of the Republican party and against religious morality in general as a viable political agenda.

Robert --

I agree with you but I am making suggestions about strategy.   Objectivist groups are well known for launching polemical assaults against various positions associated with the left. They seem to back down when it comes to attacking religious conservativism in general and even view religious conservatives as tenative allies when there are some similar views regarding economic policy or certain shared dislikes.   If your goal is to promote the cause of liberty in politics religious conservativism must be eliminated from its powerful position and replaced with an intellectually stronger alternative. In fact at this point the religious conservatives should be #1 on the ideological hit list precisely because of these strategic reasons.

- Jason

Post 19

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 1:53pm