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 3


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

"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."

You've stated this in such a simply and straightforward way I'm afraid it will be overlooked. I struggled with this for years and could not resolve it. Thank you.





Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 3:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
They are chosen because they are the understood, not the commanded - but that does not remove the inherent nature of its being, the supposed intrinsicness of it.....



Post 62

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand said she viewed "None of the above" as a legitimate option. I think that in this election, that's how she would vote.

- Bill



Post 63

Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Because it's really a thread hijack, I've "answered" Robert Bidinotto's post 59 here.

Ed




Post 64

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew - Read the details of the Iranian revolution here and tell me who the bad guys are?  Hard to tell, isn't it?  Communists, Fascists, Nationalizing Oil - all things we are against.  So the US picked its sides to the best interests it had at the time.  The Shah was hated by the Islamists for his pro-western reforms, such as letting women become educated - terrible crime!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

anyway, the answer is not so simple as "leave them alone and they will go away" - they won't, and just selling goods to them is considered a crime, or making fun of Mohammad.




Post 65

Monday, October 29, 2007 - 3:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think she would have definitely voted for Ron Paul ignoring his reasons for being a libertarian since he supports the issues she did in more areas than other candidates.  Ron Paul has the most capitalist policies and he follows the constitution closer than any other candidate.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 4:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with the people who understand that Paul's position on abortion would be a drop-dead deal-breaker for Rand.  You simply can't rationalize your way out of this if you've read her political commentaries from the 60s and 70s.
What he has to say about immigration would only make him worse to her.  It wasn't the issue in her day that it is now, but you can be sure that, as an immigrant (who entered the country illegally by lying to the consulate in Riga about her intentions), she would be quite passionate about this.
By contrast to the abortion question, which touches on fairly arcane matters, free immigration falls neatly and unquestionably out of the major premise of free markets.  A supporter of restrictions in this matter either doesn't understand this or doesn't (cheap talk to the contrary notwithstanding) care about the principle.




Sanction: 29, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 29, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 29, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand would be appalled that this survey was even posted.  She was extremely explicit and vocal about the inappropriateness of others presuming to speak in her name while she was alive.  The idea of "channelling" her ghost 25 years after her death is bad enough.  But to ask people what they think she would have thought is an affront to the principles of Objectivism.  An Objectivist thinks for himself, he doesn't consider what he thinks Ayn Rand might have done.  This poll is at best a joke, at worst an exercise in social metaphysics.  No one here can speak for Ayn Rand, only for himself.

Ted Keer 




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 4:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, that's not what Ayn Rand told me in my dream last night :)



Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 4:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now Ted, how do you know that "Rand would be appalled" if "No one here can speak for Ayn Rand"?  Hah, run rings around you logically, as they say...

I think it's only natural to speculate about what she would've thought of the current slate of candidates.  I do think, however, that people sometimes make the error of "projecting" their own views onto Rand, and thinking that's what she must've thought.  I do it too - I think she'd be for Giuliani, but I'm not all that sure about it.  She had a way of surprising people on occasion!  As for Ron Paul, though, I think we can be quite certain she would not vote for him, if only because of his anti-abortion stance. 

That said, it doesn't mean that nobody should vote for Ron Paul because Rand would'nt've.  We all have to come up with our own reasons to vote for whoever we decide to vote for.




Post 70

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 7:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What Laure said.

Ed




Post 71

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 11:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What Ed said.

- Bill ;-)





Post 72

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 3:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
WWRD?



Post 73

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 5:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What Jonathan said.

Ed
[:-)]




Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 7:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Obviously none of the above care what herself Rand wrote, repeatedly, upon which I based my statements.  Upon what act of faith you are making yours is between yourselves and your consciences.

Ted Keer




Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 75

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 9:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe the thread was just to stimulate conversation and have some fun with the "what if" scenario?



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 76

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay John.  Then if Rand were alive, what would her favorite model cell phone be?  Would she prefer DSL or WiFi?  Would she use Google or...

People should have their own reasons for supporting candidates, and there is no reason whatsoever for attributing one's own personal judgments to a dead woman.

Unless, like Peikoff, you keep her soul in a jar by the door.

Ted




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 12:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, there's plenty of information on Rand's past evaluations of political candidates so that we can make an informed guess.  As to cell phones and search engines, not enough data.  I am in complete agreement with your statement, "People should have their own reasons for supporting candidates, and there is no reason whatsoever for attributing one's own personal judgments to a dead woman."



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well Ted as far as cell phones go, I think she'd go with Verizon wireless because they give great customer service. And as far as DSL or WiFi? Now you can set up WiFi internet access through DSL, so I'd say your presenting a false dichotomy, I'd say she'd prefer both and definitely prefer DSL over dial-up internet because dial-up is just too damn slow.

:)

But kidding aside, she did endorse and criticize various politicians and Presidents when she was alive and gave her reasons why. So while I think it would be absurd for anyone to claim they could speak for Rand or know who she would actually vote for, it's not like we would be guessing whether she preferred Delmonico steaks over Prime Rib because she never talked about her favorite foods, or in the example you gave her favorite form of internet access or cell phone company.



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