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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gigi, your post 18 was "the bomb."

;-)

Ed




Post 41

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 5:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, Russia is absolutely alienating us, but we shouldn't respond by escalating it, especially when we're just hurting ourselves (as history has shown). I love the United States and what it stands, but we use that to justify any and all actions we take otherwise what the United States stands for, namely freedom and liberty, are in jeopardy. And I think this is happening now given the neoconservatives accepting the welfare state, the loss of habeus corpus, warrentless wire tapping, unneccessary foreign intervention, wars with out declarations, etc. I don't think America is evil, I think it is great and that is why I'm so concerned.

Jeff, I don't think every war the US enters is unjustified. Certainly World War 2 was justified. World War 1 was not. I reluctanly accept Korea, and even Vietnam had some justification but this one was less straight forward than Korea because the south had a weak government and an insurgency and was coming out of western colionialism which France had no right to impose on them. However, I find no excuse for the Iraq war and I think a war with Iran would be just a continuation of that failed policy.

I'd love to keep debating, but I have to run. Maybe tomorrow we can pick this up again. Have a good evening guys




Post 42

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wishing I could sanction post #37 again.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew:

John, Russia is absolutely alienating us, but we shouldn't respond by escalating it...


How is the United States escalating it? I see it as the opposite. The dictatorship of Putin has no right to dictate to the United States how the US ought to defend itself. They are behaving immorally by propping up a brutal mullahcracy in Iran and aiding them in the acquisition of nuclear weapons and allowing them to train and send insurgents into Iraq killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. No Andrew, Russia is escalating this, not the United States.

love the United States and what it stands, but we use that to justify any and all actions we take otherwise what the United States stands for, namely freedom and liberty, are in jeopardy. And I think this is happening now given the neoconservatives accepting the welfare state, the loss of habeus corpus, warrentless wire tapping, unneccessary foreign intervention, wars with out declarations, etc. I don't think America is evil, I think it is great and that is why I'm so concerned.


Believe me Andrew I am also gravely concerned about losing our civil liberties. I don't agree with those policies and I don't think we need to lose any of our liberties to fight this war but I don't think the two are mutually inclusive. We can fight against those who seek to destroy us while enjoying the liberties that we deserve. One can favor defense against a tyrant's threats while favoring liberty and freedom.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 7:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If Ayn Rand could still vote, she'd recant her stand on Reagan, and vote for him in 1980 and 1984.

Ted




Post 45

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 7:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What do people here think Ayn Rand would say about General Sanchez's press conference on October 12th, 2007 ?



Post 46

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOL, Ted.



Post 47

Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 12:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     I think she might have voted for Fred Thompson, (regardless his name)...though, as with most of us voters because of one 'issue' or another, reluctantly. --- He's the only one who stands out as non-passive regarding American-vs-Foreign issues, be they lethal threats or cultural '5th columns'.

     As to the others, at most she might just roll her eyes, but say nothing. (Ntl, I have this image of her, if asked about this list, doing a De Niro TAXI DRIVER schtick: "You.........talkin' ta ME?")

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/25, 1:00pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/26, 8:14am)




Post 48

Friday, October 26, 2007 - 6:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Although I like McCain, I think Ayn Rand would never have voted for a man whose leitmotif in all of his campaigns is service for a cause greater than the self.

Here's a quote from Senator McCain's commencement address at VMI in 2001.

"... nothing is more liberating than to fight for a cause larger than yourself; something that encompasses you, but is not defined by your existence alone.

Choose your cause with care, but any good cause is good service to America. In uniform or not, serve something greater than yourselves, and you'll know a happiness far more sublime than pleasure."

John McCain




Post 49

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand would channel Peikoff's mind and vote democratic across the board with lots of rational. ;)
(Edited by Newberry on 10/27, 12:24pm)




Post 50

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand would NOT have voted for McCain or Thompson because they are both guilty of dealing the biggest blow to freedom of speech in the modern era; voting in favor of Campaign Finance Reform.
(Edited by Erik Christensen on 10/27, 12:53pm)




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 1:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erik, I don't think Ayn Rand would have voted for McCain or Thompson either, but I think that Karyn made an excellent point regarding McCain-Feingold in Post 9.

I share your respect for Jeff Flake; he'd be a much better first Mormon President than that used car salesman Romney.



Post 52

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 1:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is a trifecta approach I use in determining who I will vote for; 1) what a candidate has voted FOR or AGAINST whilst in office 2) what they have said they will do 3) and what they have actually done. The candidate nearest to Objectivist philosophy from those three criteria gets my vote.



Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 6:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand would have supported Ron Paul, because he is the only candidate whose political outlook is premised on the principle of individual rights. No other candidate advocates authentically limiting government by slashing spending (paraphrasing Dr. Paul) to roughly 25% of today's obscene levels. No other candidate talks about phasing out social security and Medicare. No other candidate defends free enterprise, without apology or whitewashing; or understands, as does Dr. Paul, the benevolent harmony of interests made possible under a regime of individual responsibility and free markets.

No other candidate grasps that the Federal Reserve System exists as a coercive commercial banking cartel, for the single purpose of monetary depreciation through fractional reserve monetary inflating. Only Dr. Paul understands that monetary inflation, which is impossible on a free market, is an insidious and hidden process of unjust wealth transfer from Joe Sixpack to Wall Street Hedge Fund mavens. Only Ron Paul understands that the Fed's monetary inflation creates destructive artificial booms and debilitating busts, and promotes capital consumption and financial socialism.

No other candidate defends free trade based on the individual's right to buy whatever he wants at the lowest price she can find, and based on classic insights from economics about the Law of Comparative Advantage. Republicrats hate free trade because in their confusion they imagine, like their merchantilist forerunners, that cheap imports threaten the livelihoods of their political clients and supposedly create lower wages. They believe that "free trade agreements" should promote exports while restraining--as much as possible--imports. They want such agreements to coercively institutionalzie labor and environmental regulations across international borders. Only Dr. Paul grasps that the mutuality of interests promoted by free trade is a powerful inducement to peace among nations.

Finally, only Ron Paul understands that today's neo-conservatives are Big State pseudo-conservatives who share common philosophical moorings with their Big State bretheren on the left. Neo-conservatives--inclduing every Republican candidate running for President other than Dr. Paul--are friendly to Big State power. They have zero sympathy for abolishing illicit Big State activities, such as medical liscensing regulations, the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, labor, health, environmental and business regulations, the War on Drugs, and much much more.

Neo-conservatives--as well as their intellectual sidekicks on the left--are drunk with the idea that power and efficacy flow from the barrel of a gun, or the threat of a terrible nuclear strike. Although they disagree, from time to time, with their pals on the Left about which non-defensive wars Americans must be herded into supporting, they all consistently support military adventuring for the broad purpose of international social reconstruction. Ron Paul is the only candidate to oppose such military hegemony on the basis of principle: both Constitutional and ethical.  




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 9:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What Mark said.



Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 9:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand would not have supported Ron Paul because he is a libertarian, not an Objectivist.



Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 56

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 10:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Ed. I sanctioned your post!

Rufus, You're right, of course, that Ron Paul's not an Objectivist; he's a Christian libertarian and a student of the Austrian School of Economics of--among other thinkers--von Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. But Rand wrote somewhere that religious libertarians can be great defenders of political individualism. And so they can. Ron Paul is one such libertarian.

More to the point, there is almost nothing in his politics that contradicts the political philosophy that is implied by and logically consistent with Objectivism. For his politics rests on an ethos of individual rights. So he consistently favors (and as a result of his study of economics, understands!) capitalism, and a mind-our-own-business and don't-tread-on-me foreign policy.

This outlook is, in fact, libertarian. And Objectivism's politics are libertarian as well, by virtue of the Objectivist ethics of individual soverignty. Ayn Rand reacted with hostility to evidence of philosophical nihilism displayed by late sixties libertarians; in anger and haste, she condemned a political perspective that sought, however imperfectly, to defend free enterprise and individualism.

Perhaps Ayn Rand would condemn what some have interpreted as borderline moral equivocation about Muslim terrorists, who, Dr. Paul said in a debate "came over here because we are over there." But this is pointless guesswork about a guess. I doubt that Rand would have cheered on American military adventuring in the Middle East, in 1991 or today. My impression is that she had serious doubts about American involvement in Korea, Vietnam, and even World War II.




Post 57

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand would not have supported Ron Paul because he is a libertarian, not an Objectivist.

Your position must be that she wouldn't have voted? None of the other candidates are Objectivists either.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 58

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 9:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ron Paul is anti-abortion.  That position would be a deal-killer for Rand; there's no way she would vote for him.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My old college chum Mark wrote:
But Rand wrote somewhere that religious libertarians can be great defenders of political individualism.

Mark, you had to say a vague "somewhere" because there's no such quotation. Rand never said it, because she didn't believe it.

The closest she ever came to giving a pass to non-Objectivist defenders of individual rights was a long-ago statement to the effect that their deeper, philosophical contradictions were their own problem, not ours.

However, as time passed, I believe Rand changed her mind about this (I certainly have). The reason is that one's understanding and interpretation of "rights" colors his application of that principle to particular issues.

If one believes, for example, that "rights" are natural and inherent (the "intrinsic" view of rights, held by the Founders), one will tend, over time, to be drawn toward the anarchist and "non-interventionist" conclusions prevalent in many libertarian circles. Likewise, a religious view of "inherent natural rights" will lead to the anti-abortion views of conservatives. Etc. Ron Paul's understanding of "rights" is clearly of this traditional, "intrinsicist" variety, as witness his positions on a host of such issues.

But this "intrinsic" or traditional view of rights was not Rand's. I can't emphasize this enough. Those who interpret her that way completely misread her view of rights as moral principles, defined by men in order to establish moral boundaries in social relationships. Those moral principles must be respected consistently if one wants a civilized, peaceful society; but this Randian view of rights is a far cry from the "intrinsic" view that rights aren't chosen principles, but rather some kind of metaphysical essences that are innate parts of human nature.

Those two differing views -- intrinsic essence vs. moral principle -- will lead to completely incompatible political conclusions on a host of issues.


(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 10/28, 10:26am)




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.