Peikoff On The Elections - 2006 - Galt's Gulch

Remove this ad.

2

Peikoff On The Elections - 2006

Posted by bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago to Politics

5 comments | Share | Flag

Posted in response and contradistinction to jmlesniewski's post here: "Leonard on the Election"
http://goo.gl/O0bzd

SOURCE URL: http://capitalismmagazine.com/2006/10/peikoff-on-the-2006-elections/

Add Comment

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

3

Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years, 2 months ago

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Piekoff, but in this case he underestimated the Marxist tendencies of the democrats and overestimated the strength of the religious right in the Republican Party. Sure, they both stink but the religious in the Republican Party do not have the power to empty my wallet, or enslave us to their debt! They do not have a stranglehold on the Republican Party. If the Republicans are guilty of adding to my burden through increased debt and taxes, it is because for too long they have not stood on principle and have compromised with the tax and spend big government types in power. In fact other factions like the TEA party have of late been more influential and they do not have a religious test. They do however advocate economic prudence and constitutional principles. The piece also seems to ignore the fact that there are also many religious people in the Democratic Party. If one was to avoid pragmatism and vote purely on principle then Mr. Piekoff should have advocated voting for the Constitution party, or the Libertarian… O.A.

Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
- 1
  
  Posted by overmanwarrior 12 years, 2 months ago
  
  Wonderful point. What makes the Dems so much more of a threat is that they do attempt to get their hands on our wallets. The democrats are built around Marxism, and I would have thought Piekoff would be against that without debate. I'm with you, there are only two choices, a Constitution party or the Libertarians. I'll vote Republican this time around, but that needs to evolve into something better than a two party system of machine politics.
  
  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink

2

Posted by XenokRoy 12 years, 2 months ago

I could not disagree with this article more. I am religious, but at the hart of my religion is a principle of free agency. Poeple have the right to choose. I no more want a Evangelical Christian telling me what I can or can not do than some collectivist regime. The far more likely thing to bring us down in the US is the socialist. Voting for a democrat is like voting to become communist. Voting for a republican may or may not be a vote for evangelical rule.

I find those that are strong liberals far more likely to try to cram their way of life down my gullet than the strong conservative. I personally want small government, I no more want them telling a person if they can get an abortion than if they can drink a 32 once soda.

It is not the preview of the government or any right of mine to tell another person what they can or cannot do, so long as they do not enact some form of force on me.

By far most of the Christians I know agree with this ideal of agency; there are a few that want to force there views on others but far lower percentages than the liberals/collectivists I have been around.

Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
- 2
  
  Posted by jmlesniewski 12 years, 2 months ago
  
  While Peikoff was fighting a poltergeist of theocracy in this article, faith is still the opposite of reason.
  
  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
  - 1
    
    Posted by XenokRoy 12 years, 2 months ago
    
    Faith is the opposite of fear, not reason. In fact faith is the key to achieving reason.
    
    How would you learn mathematics if you did not have faith in your ability to do so. You have no knowledge of it and without knowledge there is no way to exercise reason.
    
    I have has some kids with seriously messed up lives live with me over the years. One such kid (15 year old boy) was taught to steal and sell drugs so that if they got caught mommy would not go to jail. He had a very bright mind, learned to program in pascal in just a few lessons and took to it with an ease I have seldom seen. He is in jail. His failure was no faith that he could anything more than a thief. That lack of faith that was instilled in him by his mother that he could be more was crippling and I could not help him past it.
    
    Like any trait balance is required in the trait of faith. Blind faith (as was required by catholic priests in the dark ages) prevents the development of self in all areas. No faith in self, in others or in the world around you does the same thing.
    
    Even blind faith is not the opposite of reason, but following anything blindly will block your ability to use reason.
    
    The opposite of reason is instinct. One uses reason to decide what to do, one can also use instinct. On does not use faith to decide what one can do, but rather to feel that one can do it.
    
    It takes faith to approach the world with the attitude of "Who is going to stop me?" it takes none to approach the world with the attitude of "Who is going to let me?"
    
    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink

Comment hidden.