RoR: Forum

Cute, given the difference between "Going Galt" (refusing to accept an unearned guilt) and "Going Obama" (refusing to accept responsibility for your actions).

The common conservative whine is that President Obama is a "Marxist" and that he is also a "Muslim." Of course, if he were either, he would know the difference between right and wrong, true and false.

You might not agree with Islam or Marxism, but they do, indeed, establish standards of right and wrong.

The problem with President Obama is that he was educated in the postmodernism mode. You can hardly blame him. If Columbia University and Harvard Law School are the epitome of education, then if you are enrolled there, you must be getting the best education possible. Hard to argue that, though some people just got through it with their own minds intact. You can blame him for accepting the obvious, but it is indeed one indication of intelligence to understand what is required of you and then to meet those expectations.'

Of course, other standards exist. It is like the day that Count Robert became a King and he knew what his Kingdom needed a single standard of identity. And he called all of his vassels into his great hall. And he looked out over the men at arms with their crests and shields and banners and said, "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." It helps to know the right standards. President Obama was never taught that.

Post 1

Friday, September 6, 2013 - 5:42pm

Michael,

When an ideology claims the ends justify the means - as do socialists and Jihadists, and that it is moral to lie to people who don't believe in your ideology as part of your jihad/transformation, then these are not standards of right and wrong, they are rationalizations in place of ethics.

When you evidence a severe lack of integrity, that isn't taught by Harvard, but they may, in many of their classes, have condoned it in the name of the Progressive efforts. And it isn't part of a standard of right and wrong, it is failing whatever standard was first professed.

Obama wasn't a passive vessel into which Harvard poured the stuff that became the motivation and cause of his subsequent actions. And he isn't a passive robot acting out bad principles taught at Harvard. He is actively seeking to transform the country into his ideal, controlled by a centralized elite, freed from constitutional constraints, giant government system with power over all... but he won't tell the public that is where he is going for fear they'd impeach him.

Post 2

Saturday, September 7, 2013 - 5:42am

You can hardly blame him. If Columbia University and Harvard Law School are the epitome of indoctrination, then if you are enrolled there, you must be getting the most intense indoctrination possible. Hard to argue that, though some people just got through it with their own minds intact. You can blame him for accepting the obvious, but it is indeed one indication of eager obedience to understand what is required of you and then to sit up and bark back your instructions like a trained dog.

Post 3

Saturday, September 7, 2013 - 9:41am

What I'm concerned about is that this essay mischaracterizes/slanders Objectivism. That, especially in times like today, is a terrible thing to do -- it is a very dangerous mistake to be making (especially in our current time).

When government as a matter of policy is violating the individual right to privacy of its citizens, we should not just get distracted by inflammatory potshots taken against political personalities -- or get into a "my guy is better than your guy" or, more literally, a "my guy would routinely violate our rights better than your guy is doing it" kind of debate. The debate should be about whether it's right or good to routinely violate individual rights, not whether someone could do that job better or worse than others can.

In her 2013 book, "Men on Strike," psychologist Helen Smith observes "There is a term for bailing out of the mainstream of society . . . called 'going John Galt' or 'going Galt' for short":

[quote from the book which, by unexplained example, lends to the view that Taranto is insinuating that the problems in America today are happening because too many people have adopted an objective ethics and a deep respect for individual rights (e.g., a philosophy like Objectivism), rather than because of the precise opposite of that]

In the olden days, they used to call the president "the leader of the free world." Today the president disavowed responsibility for his own policies and told a reporter to take it up with "the world."

Obama shrugged.

People may walk away from the essay thinking that Objectivism is the name given to the enterprise of shirking responsibility. It might be "fashionable" to utilize Objectivism in order to take some kind of a "dig" at people, but it's not smart or right to do that; not when Objectivism may be one of the only things that could ever save this country.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/07, 12:45pm)

Post 4

Saturday, September 7, 2013 - 10:00am

And when I talk about the idea of a right to privacy, I am talking about the privacy that stems from individual initiative and choice of associates and whatnot. What this looks like when you reduce it from the abstract down to the concrete is a privacy that stems from personal property, accounts, and interactions (e.g., sovereignty in your home, bank account details, patient-doctor confidentialities, client-lawyer confidentialities, etc.).

If, because of things like centrally-planned encryption cracking (among other things), if none of that is private anymore -- then individual "privacy" rights have been violated. It is immoral and uncivilized and I am here to tell you that there is not much good that can come from immoral and uncivilized behavior -- especially so when it becomes organized and routine.

And for those vulgar empiricists who aren't swayed by rock-solid reasoning resting on a foundation of unshakable principles, there is a mountain of evidence and pain and anguish to witness in the world right now, and especially so in the recent past.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/07, 11:57am)

Post 5

Monday, September 9, 2013 - 1:47pm