|Thanks for post this, Tres.|
I don't want to address Craig Biddle's points, or even how he made them -- so I will stick to addressing Mike's points:
At some level, Ideas just do not matter. What I mean is, no Manifesto launched the Renaissance. If you need documents, they would be the poems of Petrarch and Dante's trilogy - works of art, not politics.Ideas don't move mountains, people (with ideas) do. Contrast this against animals, who never move mountains. But I still think I get what you are saying: The explicit communication or transference, if you will, of explicit ideas has rarely, if ever, altered the course of history. If that is what you are saying, then fine, but that applies to the past and not necessarily to today. Also, if you would not sign-on to my double-explicit re-interpretation of your words, then I would ask you: What -- on the level you are intending -- matters? If you say that it is emotions that matter, and that the emotions of people are what it is that launched the Renaissance, then I will ask you where those emotions came from. Now emotions can come from anywhere (such as the emotion of being startled by a loud sound), but the emotions preceding the Renaissance did not. Instead, they came from ... ideas.
Again, I'm pretty sure you would sign-on to my double-explicit re-interpretation, because you then said:
Ideas do matter, but those are often unstated and accepted long before they are enunciated and argued. ... and I cannot disagree with that, as long as, again, we are talking about the past. It's kind of unfair to bring up history, because none of our ancestors had the tools -- the tools for the initiation and propagation of ideas -- that we have today.
The next American revolution will implicitly accept the Objectivist ethos of self-interest, reason, and reality...Again, I cannot disagree with that.
The disappointing aspect of this argument over rights is that none of them has actually written a body of law based on their theory.That sounds like a formidable, but valuable, task!