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 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Santorum is plain frightening. I think Gingrich is at least open to the idea of an argument. I think he could be persuaded, but Santorum is utterly, terrifyingly closed minded.  Bachmann and Perry are moot.  

Rush Limbaugh is convinced that none of GOP candidates could possibly do as much, or more, damage than Obama.  He's so wrong.  


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 7:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa is right - Santorum is down-right scary!
“In every person’s heart, in every person’s soul, there is a hole that can only be filled by the Lord Jesus Christ.”
"our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. … As long as abortion is legal—at least according to the Supreme Court—legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law."
“Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.”
"Protecting America is too important to let the Constitution get in the way."
Read that last one again and remember that if elected he will put his right hand on the Bible and swear to protect and defend the Constitution!

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 9:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One thing's for sure, Rand was 110% right:

“Conservatives” vs. “Liberals”

Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the“mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the“mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,”to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 11:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
According to Rick Santorum: “Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.”

Let's be clear. Liberty is about the freedom to do what you judge to be right, not what others judge to be right. If it meant the latter, then your life would be under the control of others and your actions dictated by them, in which case, you wouldn't be free.

So what did the founders understand? What rights did they affirm in the Declaration of Independence? Were they the rights to a life of obedience, the liberty to do your duty and the pursuit of self-renunciation? Or the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

It is true that the right to liberty includes doing what you ought to do, because it says that you ought to respect the liberty of others. So the right to liberty is itself a moral principle -- one which defines and sanctions man's freedom of action in a social context. But that principle defines the freedom to act on your own judgment, not on the judgment of others.

Furthermore, you cannot possess the liberty to do what you ought to do, if other people are in charge of your behavior, for in that case, they can prevent you from making the morally right choices if they don't share your moral values.

Finally, an action that you take only because you are forced to cannot be considered moral. As Rand observes, "The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed; the moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."


Post 4

Sunday, March 18, 2012 - 8:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
These conservatives think that it would be both possible and good to legislate morality. That's already 2 strikes against them.

:-)


Post 5

Monday, March 19, 2012 - 5:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alan Keyes many years ago labeled the objections to "legislating morality" as "stupid." He said we already outlaw murder, rape, and theft as "immoral" actions. For Keyes and his ilk, there is no difference between "involuntary" immoral transactions between two people and "voluntary" immoral transactions between two people.

Post 6

Monday, March 19, 2012 - 11:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Santorum scares the crap out of me, well he would if he actually got elected.

Post 7

Monday, March 19, 2012 - 11:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So if, according to Santorum, freedom simply means the right to do what you ought to do, according to his values and those of his cronies, then since they presumably believe you ought not to smoke cigarettes (since everyone now believes they're hazardous to your health), they would see nothing wrong with outlawing smoking and other hazardous activities like football and race-car driving.

And since, according to them, you ought not to reject God and promulgate atheist ideas, they would see nothing wrong with outlawing the dissemination of those ideas. After all, freedom of speech can only mean freedom to express ideas that you ought to hold.

And since they regard pre-marital sex as immoral along with contraception and abortion, they would of course outlaw these. What else? Perhaps provocative clothing in public, dress codes for beach wear (no bikinis), and of course a ban on pornography -- even the soft-core stuff. So Playboy magazine, which displays pictures of nude women, would have to go.

Come to think of it, just how much of a woman's body should be displayed in public? Too much skin is also provocative even on hot Summer days. Perhaps long dresses should be worn year around.

Gosh, maybe those Mullahs had the right ideas after all! Don't they also believe that you shouldn't be free to act "immorally"?

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/19, 11:45pm)


Post 8

Monday, March 19, 2012 - 11:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You nailed it Bill, he has a lot in common with them..

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - 9:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's like we're getting hammered from both the Left and from the Right.

I heard today on the new radio show I listen to that not only has the administration had a slew of news stories pulled (stories about the multi-million dollar spring-break vacation in Mexico for Obama's daughter and her friends), something which -- government forcing news agencies to pull stories -- which is kind of like censorship, not only that, but Obama upped the ante regarding Patriot Act nonsense.

Apparently, he can single-handedly declare someone "dangerous" and get them detained without court approval or going through the normal, federal legal processes.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/20, 9:09am)


Post 10

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - 12:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scary when it feels like living in Canada one has more liberty and less fear of "the man" than in the USA.

Post 11

Thursday, March 22, 2012 - 9:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William:

As much as I agree with your premise, IMO, you are about a hundred years late on this one.

1] Read Scott Nearing, "The Social Religion", 1906.
2] The 'Progressive' movement was and still is at its heart frustrated religionists who were impatient with the progress of Jesus' mission here on earth, and who sought a more muscular state religion. In America, they needed a way to thoroughly pierce the 1st Amendment and slam the door behind them; and they succeeded. We have one of these in the White House as we speak.
3] "S"ociety is God, the State is its proper church, and for decades -- since before you and I were born -- the function of the choke-point Ivy League has been to indoctrinate as many as possible of the future staff of the machinery of state and other universities in the new religion of the American Theocracy.
4] A global totalitarian movement integrated seamlessly, and what once long ago expressed itself as an external struggle with freedom has long since become primarily an internal struggle. In a nation without a police state, with open borders and open universities, this was trivial to carry out; of course the former Soviet Union attacked freedom via these chokepoints, as well as found a soft landing among our own collectivist/tribalist/progressives. What was possibly going to prevent that from happening?

America is well on its way to an entrenched Theocracy, and has been for decades.

Keeping a sharp eye out for those pesky Bible thumping Republicans like Rick Santorum is a total head fake, designed mainly to distract the nation. (Not by you, that is not what I'm saying.)

"Lookout! Here comes a Theocracy! That is what a -real- theocracy looks like!"

Meanwhile, our institutions of freedom have long been over-run, since before you and I were born.

regards,
Fred

Post 12

Friday, March 23, 2012 - 7:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"These conservatives think that it would be both possible and good to legislate morality. That's already 2 strikes against them.

:-)"


Do you really think that blanket statements such as yours advance the discussion in any way?

Post 13

Friday, March 23, 2012 - 1:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Clayton,

I'm not sure, it may come off as being too abrasive to advance the discussion. There is a trade-off going on -- going on all of the time -- when humans deal with one another, involving a balancing act between 2 things:

1) getting right to the very heart of the matter
2) using enough empathy and forethought to be able to craft an argument that doesn't make your opponent feel ashamed or unduly attacked (thus making them overly defensive)

My statement was good in meeting the requirements of Step 1 above, but I'm currently in the process of thinking that there is a good chance that I fell short of the requirements of Step 2.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/23, 5:12pm)


Post 14

Friday, March 23, 2012 - 5:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, and I almost forgot:

Welcome to RoR, Clayton.

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Friday, March 23, 2012 - 11:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Do you really think that blanket statements such as yours advance the discussion in any way?"

What discussion are you trying to advance?

Btw, I just got a letter from Rick Santorum with the salutation, "Dear True-Believing Conservative." I'm serious! I didn't make this up. I thought of replying to him and asking if he's read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer."

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/23, 11:40pm)


Post 16

Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 1:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Haha you should send him a copy of Atlas Shrugged C.O.D!

Post 17

Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 7:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In the 2004 elections, on the NE Extension of the PA Turnpike, between Allentown and Wilkes Barre, was a dark blue sign with the words "God's Country" in large white letters, and in smaller print Bush2004 in red, white and blue.

It was strange political advertising, but remarkably honest:

1] We have to keep the message brief.
2] We have to formulate a message that is processed primarily by your medulla oblongata, and no higher functioning part of the human brain. After all, you folks are driving 60 mph right now.
3] We have to let you draw your own conclusions about what argument you think we think we are making, without us actually making any argument at all.
4] We think you are all fucking idiots.

Karl Rove. James Carville. Why American politics is in the gutter. They show their contempt for Americans with every breath.


Post 18

Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Please keep in mind that some portion of the conservatives are NOT social conservatives, or Neo-Cons, or establishment GOP conservatives, or compassionate Conservatives... They are small government conservatives that believe in a government that doesn't stray from the constitution. Some of them are even Libertarian Conservatives :-)

At this point, the conservative side of the Republican party is very divided and represents the best entry point for Libertarian thought.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/24, 10:42am)


Post 19

Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 11:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Haha you should send him [Rick Santorum] a copy of Atlas Shrugged C.O.D!"

He probably considers Rand the devil incarnate, and would refuse delivery even if it were sent to him gratis. Since he already believes in censorship, it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to censor AS, just to prevent his kids from reading it.

I now see that he won the Louisiana primary along with Mississippi and Alabama. All of these are Bible Belt states, of course. It's a different world down there. To us, it would seem like another country!


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.