RoR: Forum

What's new?

Post 1

Saturday, May 6, 2006 - 4:32pm

Obviously the Muslims democratically decided that they don't need freedom. And if you coin it that way, now that they have a "legitimate" government, they don't want any foreign "invaders" in their country.

Do you think the Continental army didn't cheer when they beat the English men? Why should nationalism work different in Iraq.

Post 2

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 9:55am

Supposedly sophisticated Objectivists, Westerners, and British will no doubt take yesterday's news item in stride, if not dismiss it outright. But they shouldn't. However familiar, this story is appalling and a moral abomination. Clearly something radically different needs to be done over there. Maybe this means pulling UK troops out forthwith, maybe it means slaughtering a whole slew of Muslims, maybe it means something else. But it's painfully obvious the status quo is not working. And if any person can read this story and not have his blood boil, there's something wrong with him.

In my fantasy world -- where freedom is king -- the British react to this last-straw outrage by initially apologizing for previously propping local area Muslim, socialist, and Muslim-socialist dictators, as well as for giving those tyrants countless billions in "nationalized" oil. But then they passionately condemn the foolish and depraved Basrans for not seizing their recent three-year-long opportunity to at least obtain Western-style semi-freedom. Then the noble British seize all the southern Iraqi oil and natural gas fields, as well as any territory needed to conveniently hold them. The locals are expelled and the land annexed. Then the virtuous and heroic British use nukes to unapologetically obliterate as many millions of Iraqis and allies as necessary to hold and enjoy their new United Kingdom territory.

Rule Britannia!

Post 3

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 7:33am

Heroes... trying to bring freedom to Muslims

I was under the impression that Objectivist heroism is characterized by developing one's own virtues as a means to achieving one's own values, and most emphatically not by being focused on bringing values such as "freedom" to others, especially strangers.

As Joseph Maurone writes in his RoR article The Incredible Evolution describing Howard Roark, "his motivation is not tied to the saving of others, but of his own life, his own betterment, without following or leading."

I fail to see the kinship between the Randian hero Roark and the dead British who failed to be successful in the private sector and instead chose to live off the taxpayers in a career based on force.

To quote Maurone's article again:

"Despite any elements of authoritarian behavior in Rand's work, her inversion of traditional hero ethics offers us a new kind of hero, when she writes, "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Post 4

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 1:16pm

"I fail to see the kinship between the Randian hero Roark and the dead British who failed to be successful in the private sector and instead chose to live off the taxpayers in a career based on force."

PS, Andre, you�re a nut.

Post 5

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 2:49pm

So, one cannot be a soldier? All soldiers are failures and initiators of force? I fail to see your reasoning. Soldiers are needed in the world and it is an honorable and demanding profession. Anyway, a military is a proper function of government.

If one's vision of life as it ought to be involves having no part of initiating force or fraud, or being compelled by fear of imprisonment (or other punishment) from walking away (shrugging, if you will) at a moment's notice from one's employer, then one obviously should not be a soldier. To use one of my favorite words, there is a moral hierarchy of actions and careers that determines one's status of a hero or villain or somewhere in between.

It's less dignified to sell oneself into temporary slavery and live off resources taken from productive citizens at gunpoint than to be a free agent (like Howard Roark and most of us) who trades with others voluntarily. I take issue with the description of the four British as "heroes". I'd much rather have had these individuals employed in a real job in the private sector where accountability and justice reign supreme rather than tainting themselves with the stench of government and its unsavory methods of self-perpetuation. I'd respect them more if they had been private mercenaries doing their employer's bidding. At least they'd have their hands out of other people's pockets as they put food on their family table.

In the context of US/UK foreign policy of the last decade, whether it's Clinton and Blair bombing Yugoslavia for "humanitarian" reasons, or Bush and Blair invading Iraq to "bring freedom" to Iraqis, it's clear to me that these politicians care more about distant strangers than about domestic individuals and families whose taxes pay for their wars. To willingly serve these unworthy masters is treason to oneself, to my mind. Regarding those who do serve them, to quote Sonny Corleone, "they're saps because they risk their lives for strangers."

Post 6

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 3:36pm

You have chosen to use Rand's words in order to attack professional soldiers.

Reconcile your vicious insults with Rand's own glowing praise of professional military men at the close of her address to the 1974 graduating class of West Point, "Philosophy: Who Needs It." One small excerpt:

West Point has given America a long line of heroes, known and unknown. You, this year's graduates, have a glorious tradition to carry on -- which I admire profoundly, not because it is a tradition, but because it is glorious.

...So, in my own name and in the name of many people who think as I do, I want to say, to all the men of West Point, past, present and future: Thank you.

If you wish to continue your unconscionable calumnies against the men and women who have protected your right to speak and write such drivel, please use your own words. Don't try to selectively cherry-pick and twist Ayn Rand's words in support of conclusions that she would have regarded as morally disgraceful.

Post 7

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 12:37am

Hmph!

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 1:49pm

Heroes... trying to bring freedom to Muslims

I was under the impression that Objectivist heroism is characterized by developing one's own virtues as a means to achieving one's own values, and most emphatically not by being focused on bringing values such as "freedom" to others, especially strangers.
Those soldiers live in the same world as that subset of murderous muslims. I value freedom, peace, capitalism, and prosperity, all of which are under a brutal oppressive assault from radical fundamentalist islam (as well as a few other factions) and I have no doubt these soldiers do, and did, value those thigns as well. Part of valuing something is acting in a manner which furthers or protects those values. Your high valuing of your life and own values would not have meant squat in Stalin's Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Post 9

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 1:55pm

Doesn't, for that matter, seem to mean squat in Putin's Russia either....

Post 10

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 9:20pm

a brutal oppressive assault from radical fundamentalist islam

I believe the brutal oppressive assault is from Islam. Radical fundamentalist Islam is really only following what the Quran says. I'm with you on what you are saying, I just think we are being too polite to muslim sensibilities, damn their sensibilitie! I don't think we should dance around the issue. Islam is evil. Check out this website that gives insight into why Islam is a religion of death and violence, and not at all as our President claims it to be, a religion of peace.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Post 11

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 10:30pm

Just an historical observation, not a justification of the initiation of force.

Do any of you old-folks here remember playing cowboys & indians, and the western movies where the good guys were good, the savage natives savage, deserving of a good 'ol fashioned Christian ass-whooping?

Now aday, the west is too full of guilt and self doubt, doubt even in moral judgements, to kill the natives in good conscience. Too guilty to be fascist, or nationalist, or communist.

The islamo-fascists suffer no such doubt, regret or remorse. Ah, to believe, even in a lie.

I quote from (Heinlein?) is lurking somewhere in the back of my mind - we'll cry for them when they are all dead?

Scott

Post 12

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 5:13pm

In response to Bob Biddinotto's comment, Ayn Rand wrote brilliant insightful analysis about philosophy and the framework it provides for politics. However, clearly Rand was capable of error, or of misdirected emphasis, as is any other human being. I haven't read her address to the army graduates of West Point in many years. However, I'd would guess that she intended to emphasize that soldering is potentially honorable and heroic, as is any other productive pursuit such as manufacturing, sales, writing, farming, etc.

I suspect that Rand would have been quick to stress that whether or not some particular work is honorable depends on the ethical and moral choices embedded in that pursuit. So clearly, while being a soldier may be an honorable profession, it does not necessarily follow that choosing to become a soldier today in the United States is honorable. For whether contemporary American soldiering is honorable depends on the ethical/political standing of the goals sought by the American military.

This, of course, brings us right back to the issue of what constitutes a just war, and of whether or not the invasions of the Middle East by the USA accord with justice. Accusing critics of this current military adventure of anti-Americanism and "vicious insults" does not address this issue. The fact that Mr. Bidinotto has written unconvincingly about this topic elsewhere does not alter the fact that his accusations ring hollow.

And finally, whether or not American soldiers "protect our right to speak and write", or have done so any time during the twentieth century, is an unproven assertion. Like the current invasion of Iraq, the wars of the previous century were unrelated to the defense of the rights of Americans. But, of course, this leads us into history, territory upon which many objectivists seem to fear to tread.

Post 13

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 6:34am

I am not an Objectivist, nor an American, but could not sit on my hands after reading Mr. Humphrey's preposterous post.

Mr. Humphrey wrote the following:

And finally, whether or not American soldiers "protect our right to speak and write", or have done so any time during the twentieth century, is an unproven assertion. Like the current invasion of Iraq, the wars of the previous century were unrelated to the defense of the rights of Americans.

Ask that to Soviet dissidents, and tell that to the Americans immigrated from Eastern Europe in the recent decades.

But, of course, this leads us into history, territory upon which many objectivists seem to fear to tread.

Are you talking about XXth Century History? Read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago.

At least, Objectivists are thinking about self-defense in the current world war.

You, Mr. Humphrey, don't. If you are a pacifist, just recognize it.

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 5/11, 7:24am)

Post 14

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:54am

Sorry for butting in, but this illustrates my vague and ill-stated cowboys & indians allusion;

Joel wrote:

Ask that to Soviet dissidents, and tell that to the Americans immigrated from Eastern Europe in the recent decades.

I'm sniffing neo-con altruist rhetoric; is it America's mission to free Eastern Europe from Soviet oppression? What did Rand think and write about Vietnam? (Excuse me for the 2nd-hand reference to authority, but we are here to discuss her ideas.

Are you talking about XXth Century History?

I'd say he's refering to 15-20th century American history. Trouble started from the beggining when the Spanish came here, then the English & French. Trouble with the native Americans was inevitable, considering the antagonism and tribal nature of all the cultures involved.

Jefferson could hardly resist the Lousiana purchass. And does anyone "remember the Alamo"? The attrocities of Santa Anna?

We had to drive those nasty Spanish out of the Southwest, out of Cuba, out of the Philipines, where we (IIRC) Americans killed more Philipinose in concentration camps than any single native-American massacre (disease notwithstanding).

What did Rand say about corruption, congress selling their soul's piecemial, rather than bulk? Reminds me of former IL congressman Rostenkowski. So cheap, he would take all the stamps the congressmen were issued, and cash them in.

Frogs are boiled by degrees, and America has been lead in to empire, 'going abroad to kill monsters', and 'European entanglements' historically, by degrees, not by poicy choice.

In this age of the politics of sentiment and excuses over causation to concele ulterior motives, rational policy choice isn't real politiq. Make up excuses to get your way, your paymaster's satisfied.

Americans should take a hard look in the mirror, read the words of Washington and Paine, then reconsider who we are and what we are doing at home and abroad.

At least, Objectivists are thinking about self-defense in the current world war.

You, Mr. Humphrey, don't. If you are a pacifist, just recognize it.

Rejecting killing people in the name of "freeing" them so you can loan the neutered remnant money and charge interest is pacifism? LOL! We're creating more Jihadis than we're killing.

Not only does America bankroll Saudi, Egypt and other disgusting, corrupt monoarchies, we're killing their stupid dissidents for them! Wasn't Israel suppose to do that for us?

Scott

Post 15

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 9:56am

Catala's comments are historically ignorant and outrageous, at no time was the Soviet
dictatorship a threat to the US. A country's
internal policies can have no relation to its
foreign policies as the history of the US &
UK prove.
Why was my previous rebuttal to Bidinitto
not published ? I gave references there that
people could look up. In fact it was the US
intervention in both world wars that made
possible the Soviet takeover in Russia itself
and then all of eastern Europe after WW2.
If I'm going to be censored for my political
views, then just take my name off your list
NOW.

Post 16

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:39am

[...] at no time was the Soviet dictatorship a threat to the US.

Sir: today all brands of Socialism are a global threat to freedom, and so, to America.

Socialism is totalitarian imperialism. Read Karl Marx; listen to the eco-nutters.

A country's internal policies can have no relation to its foreign policies as the history of the US & UK prove.

Nonsense. Autarchy is a bankrupt policy.

In fact it was the US intervention in both world wars that made possible the Soviet takeover in Russia itself and then all of eastern Europe after WW2.

Mr. Hardesty: yours is not a balanced attitude. You are applying a distorted standard: asking for the US to be unimpeachable, and to be so forever. Do you do the same with the rest of the world's governments? No, you don't.

We may agree that FDR or Hoover were disastrous for America and its Constitutional freedoms. But, to be stopped, German & Japanese Imperialism, did require military opposition.

Now, try to imagine a XXth Century without America: The Dark Ages 2.

In the XXIthe Century, with moral relativists and barbarians attacking the free world, would you swap your passport for mine?

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 5/12, 3:03am)

Post 17

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 4:56am

Mr. Stephens wrote:

Joel wrote:
Ask that to Soviet dissidents, and tell that to the Americans immigrated from Eastern Europe in the recent decades.
I'm sniffing neo-con altruist rhetoric; is it America's mission to free Eastern Europe from Soviet oppression?

I am talking about self-defense. The American war against Communism was a war of self-defense. The USSR indeed was an Empire of Evil.

Are you talking about XXth Century History?
I'd say he's refering to 15-20th century American history.

Wrong. Re-read Mr. Humphrey's post. He refers to XXth Century.

Trouble started from the beggining when the Spanish came here, then the English & French. Trouble with the native Americans was inevitable, considering the antagonism and tribal nature of all the cultures involved.

Let's talk about that alleged "trouble."

Are you defending tribalism, e.g., the Aztec Empire, the Incas, and the other practitioners of human sacrifice?

Columbus, the Admiral Joan Cristofor Colom, who knew very well that freedom is tough --he fought the Catalan Civil War (1462-1472) defending the Constitutions of Catalonia--, and whose final goal was possibly to build a Confederation of free states in America --not very far from what the United States of America became in 1776--, was one of the greatest heros of humanity.

[...]

What did Rand say about corruption, congress selling their soul's piecemeal, rather than bulk?

What she said was probably correct.

But here, keep in mind that 'doves' are not immune to corruption. In fact, due to their typical moral relativism, they can be much worse.

Frogs are boiled by degrees, and America has been lead in to empire, 'going abroad to kill monsters', and 'European entanglements' historically, by degrees, not by policy choice.

Context, sir.

Washington is a mess? Of course. But American frogs, so to speak, are better off than European, Asian, or African frogs, you should bear in mind. That's because the gap between the ideals held by the President of America and the American people is narrower than in any other government in the world.

At least, Objectivists are thinking about self-defense in the current world war.

You, Mr. Humphrey, don't. If you are a pacifist, just recognize it.

We're creating more Jihadis than we're killing.

No: the existence of political freedom creates jihadis. They wanna kill us for what we are, not for what we do.

If I kill them before they kill me, that's a tremendous good for me. That's Cartesian logic.

Not only does America bankroll Saudi, Egypt and other disgusting, corrupt monarchies,

Of course, bankrolling Arab kleptocracies is suicidal. Nothing any Democrat or Leftist has ever opposed. On the contrary.

we're killing their stupid dissidents for them!

Jihadis are not generally stupid, and are not the dissidents of any Arab state, but the fanatic human scumbags produced by them.

Wasn't Israel supposed to do that for us?

Israel, the only liberal democracy in the region, is not all-powerful. We should appreciate Israel as an ally, instead of airing unsolicited rants.

Scott

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 5/12, 7:20am)

Post 18

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 7:02am

Good job, Joel.

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 9:17am