O.A., this is an excellent idea. There is a character limit, but breaking it down shouldn't be too much trouble. I'll wait till the wee hours on that one, so the flow (at least initially) is unbroken.

Ditto what I told theidealnate and XenokRoy.

#166 Jojojo70

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
93 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 02:14 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 06 August 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Review what you said.
[/font][/color]
You previously called the intervention on someone's behalf in self-defense the initiation of force. Are you reconsidering your position or was your previously stated position stated incorrectly?

I started thinking about the issue on a global scale. I've come think that physically intervening in matters between others when one is a third party is truly initiating force. Some used to consider "policing the world" as America's responsibility. If we follow that belief, we would invade countries which were engaging in human rights violations. If we did that we'd be initiating force.

A third party using force to stop an injustice is initiating force. I believe that the act can be altruistic (gasp) and morally just.

At the moment, I can't think of a country that has engaged in direct warfare for an altruistic purpose. Maybe Bosnia? But I haven't researched the war. So I don't know what other self-serving interests might have been served.

#167 Jojojo70

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
93 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 02:28 AM

View PostSignofthedollar, on 06 August 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:


At this point in time unfortunately, anyone who actually wants to be in congress or the executive branch of government is suspect.

People who are smarter, competent (they rarely come together), and well informed are doing more lucrative and safer endeavors in the private sector. So even with a savvy electorate the choice is dismal at best, dangerous in most cases.

Once people are in power, they don't want to leave. Government officials who were elected because they stood for something end up kneeling to whomever/whatever will keep them politcally relevant.

#168 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 07 August 2012 - 04:30 AM

View PostJojojo70, on 07 August 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:
A third party using force to stop an injustice is initiating force
I cannot agree with you. One simple reason: No force would be needed to stop the injustice if the injustice were not occurring.

The person/group causing the injustice is responsible for the repercussions - they triggered the need for force.

Quote
The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.
Rand

#169 Signofthedollar

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
78 posts

LocationCalifornia

Posted 07 August 2012 - 02:00 PM

View PostJojojo70, on 07 August 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:
Once people are in power, they don't want to leave. Government officials who were elected because they stood for something end up kneeling to whomever/whatever will keep them politcally relevant.

You have hit on the real reason someone would run for office. Power. Do not kid yourself, they only seem to standup for something to get power. Today they have to have the whomever/whatever first or you do not get in. Funny thing (in reality its not funny) is some of the people who are behind politicians are the smarter, competent and well informed and would not run for office. They know better and are more dangerous.

#170 ObjectiveAnalyst

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts

LocationOakland county, Mich.

Posted 07 August 2012 - 03:39 PM
Signofthedollar,

You are absolutely right. Many politicians are mere puppets for the powerful, “useful idiots” you could call them. There are only two kinds of people who run for office today, those in the majority are narcissists, believe themselves to be our superiors, and see an opportunity to gain power, wealth, or both at our expense, and those few statesmen who do not need the job but are compelled by an extraordinary sense of duty to try and stop the plunder. The statesmen, outnumbered are naturally ineffective at controlling the beast, and worse sometimes end up corrupted by it, or driven out. Those smart enough to manipulate the politician for their own benefit are smart enough to work behind the scenes and pull the strings. Until the paradigm is changed by a majority of statesmen being elected it is the same as your vote, in that it will be only able to choose the lesser of two evils, thus slowing the inevitable decline.

People, who are smart, are smart enough to avoid crime and politics as an occupation. Nowadays they seem to be one and the same… As previously mentioned there are a few exceptions. In order to attract these statesmen we must appeal to their sense of duty, and love of country, while purging the corruptocrats so honorable leaders will rise to the occasion. Many politicians try to demonize the successful, the rich, but the only politician I want in control is one who has no need of politics to make his fortune.

We have “useful idiots” in office and in the voting booths. We are in desperate need of re-education. Since most of our populace receives its political information from a biased media, it must be changed before anything will be substantially changed for the better.

Most of the time people are too busy keeping a roof over their heads to pay attention to politics. When enough smart people lose that roof they find the time, although it is perhaps too late in the game by then since so many ignorant voters are content to stay so in their subsidized existence of dependence…

In the past I feel the new media/ information exchange/ internet were recognized and capitalized upon by the progressives. Now it seems as if the opposition, recognizing their failure, are starting to take advantage of this new media. If this is so then perhaps there is hope for the future. Only when Objectivists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, fiscal conservatives and like minded voters recognize their common enemies, cooperate and join forces will there be a reckoning.


“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater

Regards,
O.A.

#161 Jojojo70

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
93 posts

Posted 05 August 2012 - 10:46 PM
When you use retaliatory force, you are questioned just as vigorously as the initiator. If the aggressor has significant bruises, scars, or even defensive scratch marks, the police treat the victim as if she initiated the violence. In all the issues that I've been involved in the police were able to sort the truth out. It helped that most (not all) of the criminals had records.

As for going to a police station to answer questions, I don't think that's a good idea. That would give them too much power over me. I don't think their questions were reasonable. No sane woman will attack a man who is twice her weight and several inches taller than she. I was insulted by the officers' line of questioning. I'm sure the police encounter strange things, but I don't know one woman who would initiate a fight on the street with a large (presumably armed) stranger.

All the women I know, myself included, go through great pains to make sure we don't get caught alone in a situation where we can be attacked by a stranger.


#162 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 06 August 2012 - 06:32 AM

View PostJojojo70, on 05 August 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:
When you use retaliatory force, you are questioned just as vigorously as the initiator. If the aggressor has significant bruises, scars, or even defensive scratch marks, the police treat the victim as if she initiated the violence. In all the issues that I've been involved in the police were able to sort the truth out. It helped that most (not all) of the criminals had records.
Yes, because they have to determine who the initiator was, and whether whatever was done in retaliation was appropriate. How else are they to determine whether it was you or the other guy who was the aggressor?

I still do not see how any of this relates to the earlier point about how intervening on someone else's behalf in their defense is not an initiation of force.

#163 Jojojo70

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
93 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:31 AM
I don't think that intervening on someone's behalf is initiating force. It's preventing the aggressor from causing lasting harm to the "victim." I'm hesitant to use force in situations in which I am a third-party observer. I don't know if things are what they appear to be. Also, my "help" may agravate the victim --- yelling, "just give him your purse," makes it unclear whether I'm an accomplice, or someone who sees a battle that can't be won and wants to prevent a person that I perceive as the aggressor beat the crap out of both of us.

To answer your question a different way, I am not granted any power to protect the public. That is the job of the police. They have been trained and are paid to do this job. It goes against my rational self-interest to try to help someone I don't know. I don't know who instigated the fight or the relationship between the combatants. Therefore, if I choose to intervene, I am using a split-second judgement to decide who is in the wrong and who is in the right. This is not a rational decision. This is a decision based on prejudices that I have. In my mind, I have decided what the aggressor should look like. If I involve myself, I am initiating force.

I don't know the whole story. I am reacting out of emotion. I'm thinking this could happen to me, my mother, my sister, my friend. This is not the way a rational mind functions. It's extremely unwise to try to stop a fight unless you are mandated to and know how much force to use. This is generally the function of the police. A third party jumping into a fight is an initiator of violence because nothing was being done to him, yet he decided to attack a person because he had a reaction --- like an animal --- and decided that a certain person was the enemy and deserved to be subdued.

#164 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:53 AM

View PostJojojo70, on 06 August 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:
I don't think that intervening on someone's behalf is initiating force.
Review what you said.

Quote
Violence and Minding my Own Business ---
I am okay with initiating violence. If I saw an elderly woman being attacked by a thug. I'd tell someone to call the police, then I would physically intervene.

You previously called the intervention on someone's behalf in self-defense the initiation of force. Are you reconsidering your position or was your previously stated position stated incorrectly?

#165 Signofthedollar

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
78 posts

LocationCalifornia

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:29 PM

View PostJojojo70, on 27 July 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

A saavy electorate ---
Not going to happen as long as people think that it's rational to elect a president based on who it would be fun to have a beer with. I want elected officials who smarter than I am and stay well informed. If I had dinner with a group of government officials, I'd want the conversation to be so far over my head that I'd need a transcript of the conversation and a few days and my lawyer to help me figure out what was discussed.

At this point in time unfortunately, anyone who actually wants to be in congress or the executive branch of government is suspect.

People who are smarter, competent (they rarely come together), and well informed are doing more lucrative and safer endeavors in the private sector. So even with a savvy electorate the choice is dismal at best, dangerous in most cases.

#156 Jojojo70

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
93 posts

Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:20 PM
I don't mean to come across as an advocate or demonizers of people who commit suicide. I don't think that the act is sinful or selfish. The people I know who have attempted suicide and lived, tried to end their lives that where in retrospect stupid.

Terminal illness is different. I'd asked my lawyer about drawing up a living will in case I become mentally incapacitated. My lawyer told me that it was so involved that we could afford to wait a few years. I can wait, but I don't see the point of someone at death's door hanging around in agony to die.

Suicide is not a moral highlight, but a sad decision one makes when she/he feels that she/he is no longer "fit" to live among other human beings.

#157 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:40 PM

View PostJojojo70, on 05 August 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:
I don't mean to come across as an advocate or demonizers of people who commit suicide. I don't think that the act is sinful or selfish. The people I know who have attempted suicide and lived, tried to end their lives that where in retrospect stupid.

Terminal illness is different. I'd asked my lawyer about drawing up a living will in case I become mentally incapacitated. My lawyer told me that it was so involved that we could afford to wait a few years. I can wait, but I don't see the point of someone at death's door hanging around in agony to die.

Suicide is not a moral highlight, but a sad decision one makes when she/he feels that she/he is no longer "fit" to live among other human beings.
Don't wait. Get your living will done now. Find a new lawyer; if he advised you to wait he's an idiot and you shouldn't pay good money to be advised by an idiot.
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#158 Jojojo70

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
93 posts

Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:00 PM
My lawyer has the gift of wisdom, knowledge, common sense. My lawyer didn't say that t shouldn't have one written, but explained everything that I would have to do (like having witnesses) to make sure my wishes were carried out. I've got more pressing legal issues now (I don't ask for trouble, trouble finds me). My lawyers right, I should focus on the matters at hand. (I'll need three different lawyers because of states and specialties too help me out).

It just occurred to me the other day that my health is failing at a "young" age, and the only thing that's still a bit sharp is my mind. My lawyer was pointing out that it was unlikely for me to have SERIOUS cognitive impairment soon, so it makes more sense to focus on urgent situations.

I didn't know that writing a living will was as involved as writing a regular will can be. It's actually a shame that something so personal can't be done in a pro se manner. We have video cameras, handwriting analysis, etc. I think that the amount of legal maneuvering needed to have one's final desires carried out is outrageous. A relative, hospital administrator, or some other "interested" party can come out of the woodwork and force you to live out a undignified life.

#159 Jojojo70

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
93 posts

Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:30 PM
On self-defense / the defense of others
A cop questioned me about my use of force in dealing with a drunken man who tried to kiss and perhaps hug my mother. The drunk was allowed to go free with a warning. I was asked to answer questions --- mind you I was a minor. (I refused and was threatened by the police. In any self-defense/aiding others, I've been treated like a criminal who they'd like to take to the station.

It doesn't make sense to me. I am petite and the aggressors are large. I think that the police should pat me on the back.

#160 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 05 August 2012 - 09:27 PM

View PostJojojo70, on 05 August 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:
On self-defense / the defense of others
A cop questioned me about my use of force in dealing with a drunken man who tried to kiss and perhaps hug my mother. The drunk was allowed to go free with a warning. I was asked to answer questions --- mind you I was a minor. (I refused and was threatened by the police. In any self-defense/aiding others, I've been treated like a criminal who they'd like to take to the station.

It doesn't make sense to me. I am petite and the aggressors are large. I think that the police should pat me on the back.
The proper job of the police is to pursue accused criminals and arrest them for judgment, while ensuring that proper processes are followed that minimize the possibility of infringing upon the rights of the innocent.

If you don't answer their questions, and the questions are reasonable, you're impeding them in their job. How do you expect them to treat you?

More so - how is any of the above anything but allegory? How does it relate to the issue of initiated vs. retaliatory force?

#151 DR_BRETT

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
63 posts

LocationUNITED STATES Of AMERICA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:12 PM
". . . yet most libertarians cite Rand, or at least Atlas Shrugged, as a primary influence in them developing their libertarian ideas/philosophy. This is a dichotomy that seems worthy of exploration." --

NOT a "dichotomy" -- as Ayn Rand said many times, the "libertarians" STOLE her ideas,
but were and are NOT philosophical, that is, the stolen ideas are not integrated with their own fundamentals --
in other words, STOLEN CONCEPTS philosophically, too .

#152 Jojojo70

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
93 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:31 PM
I'm not a big fan of ---isms. It's not possible for a group of people to believe the exact things. (Unless it's faith-based or related to UFOs). I doubt that the people who always quote Rand and think that she is an Oracle agree with everything she has said/written/lived. I doubt that she would respect people who didn't have their own rational ideas.

Responses to what I've read:

Violence and Minding my Own Business ---
I am okay with initiating violence. If I saw an elderly woman being attacked by a thug. I'd tell someone to call the police, then I would physically intervene. The original aggressor's action wouldn't have been aimed at me & I wouldn't have any direct self-interest in putting myself in harm's way. But I don't see any problem in my initiating violence to protect another person.

I don't agree with vigilantism, but the bystander effect horrifies me. I broken up or stopped a good handful of mismatched attacks that were none of my business. (If I think that the danger is too great, I call the cops and yell either, "stop (2+ large men) or "I see you" in the case of domestic-type abuse.

Sucide ---
Committing suicide is NOT a high moral position. It is the final act of an incredibly desperate person caught up in a sense of extreme helplessness.

Recreating the constitution ---
No, it works. We even have the provision for amendments to correct flaws. Remember the whole three-fifths of a man thing?

A saavy electorate ---
Not going to happen as long as people think that it's rational to elect a president based on who it would be fun to have a beer with. I want elected officials who smarter than I am and stay well informed. If I had dinner with a group of government officials, I'd want the conversation to be so far over my head that I'd need a transcript of the conversation and a few days and my lawyer to help me figure out what was discussed.

#153 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 28 July 2012 - 05:52 AM

View PostJojojo70, on 27 July 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:
A saavy electorate ---
Not going to happen as long as people think that it's rational to elect a president based on who it would be fun to have a beer with. I want elected officials who smarter than I am and stay well informed. If I had dinner with a group of government officials, I'd want the conversation to be so far over my head that I'd need a transcript of the conversation and a few days and my lawyer to help me figure out what was discussed.
I agree that there are people who I wish wouldn't vote because they are, in general, lucky that breathing is an involuntary reflex else they would die. That being said I'd rather have representatives who have common sense and a correct philosophy. There aren't people who are THAT much smarter than I am in general, and many of the ones that I know who ARE smarter than I don't have the common sense to get in out of the rain.
As far as needing a transcript and a lawyer? Shakespeare was right...
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#154 Jojojo70

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
93 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 09:07 AM
Hey! I love my lawyer. (But not in that way.)

#155 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 05 August 2012 - 06:34 AM

View PostJojojo70, on 27 July 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:
Violence and Minding my Own Business ---
I am okay with initiating violence. If I saw an elderly woman being attacked by a thug. I'd tell someone to call the police, then I would physically intervene. The original aggressor's action wouldn't have been aimed at me & I wouldn't have any direct self-interest in putting myself in harm's way. But I don't see any problem in my initiating violence to protect another person.
That wouldn't be you initiating. In that hypothetical, the thug initiated, you retaliated against the thug. Had the thug never initiated, you would never have initiated.

Quote
I don't agree with vigilantism, but the bystander effect horrifies me. I broken up or stopped a good handful of mismatched attacks that were none of my business. (If I think that the danger is too great, I call the cops and yell either, "stop (2+ large men) or "I see you" in the case of domestic-type abuse.
That is not vigilantism. That is self-defense. Vigilantism would be hunting down the thug after the attack was over and exacting vengeance.

Quote
Committing suicide is NOT a high moral position. It is the final act of an incredibly desperate person caught up in a sense of extreme helplessness.
Sometimes.

Quote
Recreating the constitution ---
No, it works. We even have the provision for amendments to correct flaws. Remember the whole three-fifths of a man thing?
I agree. It has flaws - they can be fixed. As long as we're allowed to speak freely about how we think it *should* be fixed, we should not give up hope. We should always try to reach men's minds first.

Quote
A saavy electorate ---
Not going to happen as long as people think that it's rational to elect a president based on who it would be fun to have a beer with.
Real change is slow, agreed. We will never succeed if we attempt to change things from the top down.

#146 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:46 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 20 July 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:
That you say "Either Party" reveals the false dichotomy that the American people have been duped into believing.

You've heard, "It's a two party system" too many times - you've come to believe it.

But it isn't a two party system - its a party system. There HAPPEN to be two major parties right now - they weren't always the two major parties and they don't have to be forever either.
Parties are mostly name changes. Yes, they had some differences (the Whigs blew up over slavery, but most of them ended up turning into Republicans - with mostly the same beliefs), but the only real difference seems to be support of a strong executive vs. support of a strong legislature, most of the other differences are pretty shallow or are not really party differences vs. cultural differences.

#147 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 21 July 2012 - 06:35 AM

View PostJonEdanger, on 20 July 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:
I was not a fan of the Iraq war. I actively campaigned against the bailouts. Do you really think if Al Gore or John Kerry had been President we'd have been no worse off?
No, you've missed the point.

#148 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:03 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 21 July 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:
No, you've missed the point.
I still say that the R's have been less bad, but the gap is closing at an alarming pace.

#149 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:26 AM

View PostRobbie53024, on 21 July 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:
I still say that the R's have been less bad, but the gap is closing at an alarming pace.
I used to think the same way - back when I was an R. The personal party bias is a hard one to shake.

Again : There is no compromise possible between good and evil in which good wins.

#150 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:37 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 21 July 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:
I used to think the same way - back when I was an R. The personal party bias is a hard one to shake.

Again : There is no compromise possible between good and evil in which good wins.
I think that it's demonstrable that R's have not been as bad, but as you indicate, it's becoming mostly a moot point.

Winning depends on how you define the game, don'tcha think? For example, I could envision being a squatter on public land out in the wilds of those big rectangular states. Live off the land, not interact with "society", in which case none of this matters a hill of beans so long as some dufus doesn't push a nuclear launch button. I don't choose to live that way.

#141 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:20 PM

View PostCajunGodzilla, on 20 July 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:
Perhaps then some people will really awaken and there will be a 2nd American Revolution, built once again on principal, but this time with a more air-tight (less subject to selective interpretation) constitution.
More likely we'll have a new constitution written in Mandarin.
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#142 CajunGodzilla

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
122 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:29 PM
Jon E, that's why I said "perhaps". I'm not predicting it --- I'm quite pessimistic in fact. Its just a dream I have. I actually doubt that any currently living American will live to inhabit a free society, and perhaps none ever will. The American "experiment" in (near) freedom is such a unique aberation in human history, that it may be a long, loooong time, if ever, before a truly free society emerges; and there is no particular reason why, if and when it happens, that it will happen here.

#143 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:30 PM

View PostJonEdanger, on 20 July 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:
More likely we'll have a new constitution written in Mandarin.
What makes you think the Chinese have any interest in conquest of the north american continent? I don't see it. If anything, it would be russian - they still have delusions of conquest.

#144 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:32 PM

View PostCajunGodzilla, on 20 July 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:
Perhaps then some people will really awaken and there will be a 2nd American Revolution, built once again on principal, but this time with a more air-tight (less subject to selective interpretation) constitution.
You'd have to win over the military, and that's not going to happen. The leadership there is too infused with the current system. Sorry.

#145 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:42 PM

View PostCajunGodzilla, on 20 July 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:
Jon E, that's why I said "perhaps". I'm not predicting it --- I'm quite pessimistic in fact. Its just a dream I have. I actually doubt that any currently living American will live to inhabit a free society, and perhaps none ever will. The American "experiment" in (near) freedom is such a unique aberation in human history, that it may be a long, loooong time, if ever, before a truly free society emerges; and there is no particular reason why, if and when it happens, that it will happen here.
I'm afraid you're probably right.

#136 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:50 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 20 July 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:
Oh, so you're voting Democrat? ... I assume of course that you meant that the bank bailouts and the Iraq war were the turbos and JATOs...
Sorry, Danger - Greebo's got you on this one. However, if you look over the course of the last hundred years, I would say that those times when Republicans were in control (either presidency or control of one house) there was slower growth than when Democrats were in control. What's amazing is that Carter with control of both houses wasn't able to do more damage (just more proof of how incompetent he truly was).

#137 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:57 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 20 July 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:
Sorry, Danger - Greebo's got you on this one. However, if you look over the course of the last hundred years, I would say that those times when Republicans were in control (either presidency or control of one house) there was slower growth than when Democrats were in control. What's amazing is that Carter with control of both houses wasn't able to do more damage (just more proof of how incompetent he truly was).
Sorry, Robbie - I don't think so. This is going to be one of those 'agree to disagree' areas.
Carter was merely incompetent. I don't think he was really trying to drive the bus over the cliff. I think the current occupant of the WH intends to.
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#138 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:59 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 20 July 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:
Oh, so you're voting Democrat? ... I assume of course that you meant that the bank bailouts and the Iraq war were the turbos and JATOs...
I was not a fan of the Iraq war. I actively campaigned against the bailouts. Do you really think if Al Gore or John Kerry had been President we'd have been no worse off?
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#139 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:12 PM

View PostJonEdanger, on 20 July 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:
Sorry, Robbie - I don't think so. This is going to be one of those 'agree to disagree' areas.
Carter was merely incompetent. I don't think he was really trying to drive the bus over the cliff. I think the current occupant of the WH intends to.
ALL of the previous presidents who lead us down a path of collectivism were doing so out of "good intentions." The present one, I agree with you, is doing so intentionally so as to cause an irreversible change. It is again incompetence (and arrogance) that did not lead to this during the first 2 years. I hope and pray that a counter-balance in the congress is retained, but even so, I'm afraid that a second term will only give him license to do more by executive fiat.

To those on strike, this may be your ideal scenario, but it assumes there will be someone to pick up the pieces and rebuild. What happens if they are all imprisoned (metaphorically or actually) or their captial has been confiscated/made unusable?

#140 CajunGodzilla

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
122 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:16 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 20 July 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:
To those on strike, this may be your ideal scenario, but it assumes there will be someone to pick up the pieces and rebuild. What happens if they are all imprisoned (metaphorically or actually) or their captial has been confiscated/made unusable?

Perhaps then some people will really awaken and there will be a 2nd American Revolution, built once again on principal, but this time with a more air-tight (less subject to selective interpretation) constitution.

#131 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 20 July 2012 - 02:54 PM

View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 20 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:
You are right it is not much, but Perot inspired me to vote third party for the first time. That was something, and I was not alone.

Regards,
O.A.
Me too. Bill Clinton thanks his lucky stars for the little General every night.
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#132 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:22 PM

View Postgblaze47, on 20 July 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:
Yes that knowledge is, of course, learned. The drive to learn it as well as need it are instinctual. You are basically stating the 'learning' part is survival and I claim it isn't, it comes about by the instinctual need to survive.
Really - so your need to survive is how you learned what was good to eat? Your ability to conceptualize the concept of good food vs. poison is NOT a function of your rational ability?

Your NEED to eat will kill you without the knowledge of what is good and what is bad. The ability to possess that knowledge is not instinctive - it is learned. The ability to learn is part of your ability to reason.

Ergo the point stands - your sole tool of survival is reason.

#133 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:22 PM

View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 20 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:
You are right it is not much, but Perot inspired me to vote third party for the first time. That was something, and I was not alone.

Regards,
O.A.
And me as well. Was there much difference between Bush and Clinton during those years - frankly not much (thank God). Clinton failed on healthcare, and the 1994 Republican wave caused him (always the pragmatic politician) to vector towards the center. Would there have been a "Republican wave" in '94 had Bush won instead of Clinton, I think not. In such case, the "balanced budgets" and throttling down of government expansion (such as it was) would not have taken place - in fact, we might have had more social programs under Bush and a willing congress. HW Bush gave us Souter and Thomas to the supreme court (a wash) and Clinton gave us Ginsberg (wacko lefty) and Breyer (more pragmatic but still left of center), so perhaps the court would have been just a bit better.

#134 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:24 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 20 July 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:
Poor strawman. What have either done to affect ANYTHING to any significance? I say nada.
Actually the closer analogy, if it were applicable, would be red herring.

However, I wasn't trying to change the nature of the overall discussion because Libertarians ARE a third party - so it's not even a red herring.

It's simply a tangential point.

#135 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:25 PM

View PostJonEdanger, on 20 July 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:
Ok, I'll amend my analogy to be more clear. One of them has installed dual turbos and Fat Albert's JATO rockets. I'm going to vote for the other one.
Oh, so you're voting Democrat? ... I assume of course that you meant that the bank bailouts and the Iraq war were the turbos and JATOs...

#126 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 20 July 2012 - 08:33 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 20 July 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:
Neither Democrats nor Republicans are stepping on the brake, dude.

They're both two sides of the same coin, they're both all about big government - the only difference is HOW they get there.
Ok, I'll amend my analogy to be more clear. One of them has installed dual turbos and Fat Albert's JATO rockets. I'm going to vote for the other one.
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#127 gblaze47

Member
Producer
PipPip
29 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 08:51 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 20 July 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:
What food is safe to eat? What food is poison?

That knowledge is *learned*, not instinctual. If it were instinctual, we wouldn't need Mr. Yuck stickers.

You, on a daily basis, eat food that was planted, grown, harvested, distributed, prepared and served using *learned*, not instinctual knowledge.


Yes that knowledge is, of course, learned. The drive to learn it as well as need it are instinctual. You are basically stating the 'learning' part is survival and I claim it isn't, it comes about by the instinctual need to survive.
~There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority … feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.~ Ray Bradbury

#128 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:38 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 20 July 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:
That you say "Either Party" reveals the false dichotomy that the American people have been duped into believing.

You've heard, "It's a two party system" too many times - you've come to believe it.

But it isn't a two party system - its a party system. There HAPPEN to be two major parties right now - they weren't always the two major parties and they don't have to be forever either.
Poor strawman. What have either done to affect ANYTHING to any significance? I say nada.

#129 CajunGodzilla

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
122 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 11:27 AM
Robbie, its not much, but I'd posit that:
1) Perot got some on the right thinking and talking more about debt and deficit (though admittedly without any action by Repubs in power in the 1990s and 2000s) --- but it was kind of a precurser to the Tea Party Movement which now has a few Repubs on the edge of power (e.g. Rand Paul, Jim Demint, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio) at least talking loudly about, and trying to address, debt and deficit.
2) Nader got some on the left (and a few on the right) starting to think and care more about the cost in lives & $s of our unconstitutional wars. I could argue that he caused the Dems to successfully campaign on anti-war slogans to gain votes (even though they have governed in an even more wild west war-happy way than the hawkish Repubs).

But I'll also give you one clear example of 3rd party votes which were unarguably impactful: votes for the fledgling Repub party in the mid-1800s.

#130 ObjectiveAnalyst

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts

LocationOakland county, Mich.

Posted 20 July 2012 - 02:39 PM

View PostCajunGodzilla, on 20 July 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:
Robbie, its not much, but I'd posit that:
1) Perot got some on the right thinking and talking more about debt and deficit (though admittedly without any action by Repubs in power in the 1990s and 2000s) --- but it was kind of a precurser to the Tea Party Movement which now has a few Repubs on the edge of power (e.g. Rand Paul, Jim Demint, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio) at least talking loudly about, and trying to address, debt and deficit.
2) Nader got some on the left (and a few on the right) starting to think and care more about the cost in lives & $s of our unconstitutional wars. I could argue that he caused the Dems to successfully campaign on anti-war slogans to gain votes (even though they have governed in an even more wild west war-happy way than the hawkish Repubs).

But I'll also give you one clear example of 3rd party votes which were unarguably impactful: votes for the fledgling Repub party in the mid-1800s.

You are right it is not much, but Perot inspired me to vote third party for the first time. That was something, and I was not alone.

Regards,
O.A.

#121 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:38 PM

View PostCajunGodzilla, on 19 July 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:
A few follow-up points:
1) I agree w/ EG - a 3rd party vote is NOT a wasted vote. When enough (even a few percent) vote 3rd party, one or both of the main parties must and will take notice, and consider moving policies in that direction, if only to try to capture that block of votes. That is the traditional role of 3rd parties in the US (with few esxceptions). Thus a bold 3rd party choice can have more impact (in the long run) than simply choosing the lesser evil of the typical R vs D choice.
Please tell us what impact either Ross Perot or Ralph Nader has had regarding the policies of either party?

#122 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 07:07 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 19 July 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Please tell us what impact either Ross Perot or Ralph Nader has had regarding the policies of either party?

OK.......................................................

#123 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:59 AM

View PostJonEdanger, on 19 July 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:
Here's the quote I referenced:
In theory I agree. In practical terms, however, I disagree. I liken the situation to being on a bus headed toward a cliff. The steering on the bus is inoperable. We're going over the cliff. The driver has only two options: Brake or accelerate. Those of us on the bus vote for which.
For me, I'm just glad that I don't have children on the bus. I'm going to vote "Brake". Maybe that'll slow the bus down enough that I'll die before we get to the precipice.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans are stepping on the brake, dude.

They're both two sides of the same coin, they're both all about big government - the only difference is HOW they get there.

I'm talking now about party leadership and elected officials, mind you, NOT about the constituents.

#124 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 20 July 2012 - 08:04 AM

View Postgblaze47, on 19 July 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Ok so learning to hunt/find food is not instinctual? All animals do this, it is necessary for it's 'survival'. We all know we need to eat and breath to survive on a primitive level, we, like all animals, need to have someone to teach us the best way how.
What food is safe to eat? What food is poison?

That knowledge is *learned*, not instinctual. If it were instinctual, we wouldn't need Mr. Yuck stickers.

You, on a daily basis, eat food that was planted, grown, harvested, distributed, prepared and served using *learned*, not instinctual knowledge.


Quote
I disagree,
That's your right.

Quote
1) your leading the answer to suit your beliefs ie. " If you think there is a disconnect between philosophy and life, that's because you don't really know what your own personal philosophy is." This is your belief and not mine, plane and simple. After spending years on pursuing philosophy of anything and everything, I discovered it was in the pursuit of my own arrogance and 'self knowledge' that in the end didn't help anyone most of all me, I gave it up for a thing called 'living' or better yet 'being'.

2) I believe anything can be 'philosophized' to a degree of pointlessness. I can contemplating my navel all day but in the end just what would be the point?

Sometimes I see people loose sight of whats really important because they've 'logic-ed' themselves in a corner, they become enslaved to their ideology.
Thank you for so clearly identifying the disconnect between your perceived/desired philosophy and your actual one.

I will leave you with this - I suggest you give it a good, hard listen.
http://www.aynrand.o...ame=reg_ar_pwni

#125 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 20 July 2012 - 08:06 AM

View PostRobbie53024, on 19 July 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:
Please tell us what impact either Ross Perot or Ralph Nader has had regarding the policies of either party?
That you say "Either Party" reveals the false dichotomy that the American people have been duped into believing.

You've heard, "It's a two party system" too many times - you've come to believe it.

But it isn't a two party system - its a party system. There HAPPEN to be two major parties right now - they weren't always the two major parties and they don't have to be forever either.

#116 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 19 July 2012 - 04:17 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 19 July 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:
You are never going to get the R party or the D party to stop being stateists. As I said above - the compromising of principle is suicide. You cannot win by compromise with the "lesser evil" - only evil can win.
Here's the quote I referenced:
In theory I agree. In practical terms, however, I disagree. I liken the situation to being on a bus headed toward a cliff. The steering on the bus is inoperable. We're going over the cliff. The driver has only two options: Brake or accelerate. Those of us on the bus vote for which.
For me, I'm just glad that I don't have children on the bus. I'm going to vote "Brake". Maybe that'll slow the bus down enough that I'll die before we get to the precipice.
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#117 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 04:37 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 19 July 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:
But there is annihilation, and allowing the "worse" choice is that choice.

But tactics to delay while changing the underlying structure can bring about change. The strike itself is a tactic, and never was intended to be a permanent, long-term solution. Tactics of delay are often necessary in order to build the support required to succeed.

I can see where someone that believes in hope and change would say that - don't get excited, I'm not talking about you. You are optimistic that this "thing" can be stopped and then reversed. Since I joined this forum I have said and I shall forever say that the only way to stop this monster is to starve it until it falls. A strike is the only solution.

You can't count on the Rs to do it. Look at Boehner - he is the weakest sack of sh!* I've ever seen, and the rest are just as bad. Look at McCain - talk about a RhINO, this guy's picture should be in every dictionary next to the word traitor.

The Ls aren't going to do it. The press has every sub-human POS, including so-called some republicans that are registered to vote thinking and saying Ron Paul is a kook. Personally, I don't know enough about the man to make an informed assessment of his beliefs, but at the end of the day the matter is absolutely moot. He isn't going any farther.

Remember when the press and liberals and so-called conservatives were calling Dr. C. Everett Coop "C Everett Kook"? The gays and their supporters went nuts and were unhappy with the way in which he targeted gay sex and the risk of infection through anal sexual intercourse as primary vectors of the disease. On the other side, religious activists, upset over Coops discussion of sexual practices and advocacy of condom use, called for Koop's resignation. Now, the same lunatics give Coop The Public Welfare Medal. If that isn't a page out of AS, nothing is. (The Public Welfare Medal is awarded by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences "in recognition of distinguished contributions in the application of science to the public welfare.")

I've said before that the vast majority of U.S. citizens are too ignorant to make an intellegent decision when casting a vote. The evidence is all around us and I stand by that statement.

#118 CajunGodzilla

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
122 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 04:54 PM
A few follow-up points:
1) I agree w/ EG - a 3rd party vote is NOT a wasted vote. When enough (even a few percent) vote 3rd party, one or both of the main parties must and will take notice, and consider moving policies in that direction, if only to try to capture that block of votes. That is the traditional role of 3rd parties in the US (with few esxceptions). Thus a bold 3rd party choice can have more impact (in the long run) than simply choosing the lesser evil of the typical R vs D choice.
2) I do understand that the Obama vs Romney choice has potentially huge differences in outcomes. But you all should know that every vote I've had (from 1971 to 2012 has been cast in either NY or IL - solid "blue" states. The Dem will get the IL electoral votes no matter who I support. Therefore my vote for LP Gary Johnson can definitely have greater impact than a vote for Romney. (I do admit however, that if I was in VA or OH, I would have a real dilemma this year regarding voting LP vs Repub for Pres.)
3) I also vote LP for the down-ticket candidates, when available. I'd much rather make that statement than support, as an example, the RINO congresswoman who automatically wins re-election in my heavily-Republican suburban district, then claims repeatedly to be a champion of fiscal conservatism while voting for TARP, bail-outs, cash-for-clunckers, debt ceiling increases, and everyother spending spree that she tries to justify as a "good cause" (which is damn near anything).
4) The only Evil I would vote for is the Evil Greebo. :)

#119 gblaze47

Member
Producer
PipPip
29 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:03 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 19 July 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:
Really?

Name one thing you do for your own survival that was not a learned skill.

Sure, every-time I flinch away from a hot burner on a stove or if I'm swimming and I get a lung full of water and I'm gasping for air or If I can't get a breath of air because a leftist is choking me :lol:
The responses are instinctual.

Quote
I don't mean fear of falling - not falling off a cliff only saves your life if there's a cliff around. What do you do to eat, clothe yourself, have a roof that you didn't have to LEARN how to do?

Ok so learning to hunt/find food is not instinctual? All animals do this, it is necessary for it's 'survival'. We all know we need to eat and breath to survive on a primitive level, we, like all animals, need to have someone to teach us the best way how.

Quote
Secondly - everything is a philosophical debate at its core. If you think there is a disconnect between philosophy and life, that's because you don't really know what your own personal philosophy is.

I disagree,

1) your leading the answer to suit your beliefs ie. " If you think there is a disconnect between philosophy and life, that's because you don't really know what your own personal philosophy is." This is your belief and not mine, plane and simple. After spending years on pursuing philosophy of anything and everything, I discovered it was in the pursuit of my own arrogance and 'self knowledge' that in the end didn't help anyone most of all me, I gave it up for a thing called 'living' or better yet 'being'.

2) I believe anything can be 'philosophized' to a degree of pointlessness. I can contemplating my navel all day but in the end just what would be the point?

Sometimes I see people loose sight of whats really important because they've 'logic-ed' themselves in a corner, they become enslaved to their ideology.
~There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority … feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.~ Ray Bradbury

#120 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:17 PM

View Postgblaze47, on 19 July 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Sometimes I see people loose sight of whats really important because they've 'logic-ed' themselves in a corner, they become enslaved to their ideology.

Yo Blaze - I'd rather be a slave to my ideology than a slave to the state.

#111 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 04:02 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 19 July 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

You are never going to get the R party or the D party to stop being stateists. As I said above - the compromising of principle is suicide. You cannot win by compromise with the "lesser evil" - only evil can win.

And that is why I said...."A true Objectivist would not vote for the lesser of two evils."""

Now let me adjust that to say "Three Evils, or even Four Evils."

You are preaching to the choir, Evil. :)

#112 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 19 July 2012 - 04:04 PM

View PostFrog king, on 19 July 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:
And that is why I said...."A true Objectivist would not vote for the lesser of two evils."""

Now let me adjust that to say "Three Evils, or even Four Evils."

You are preaching to the choir, Evil. :)
No no - we're... reinforcing each other's points! ;)

#113 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 04:09 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 19 July 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

No no - we're... reinforcing each other's points! ;)

As I reponded to one of your recent posts "Damn Right!". :)

#114 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 04:09 PM

View PostFrog king, on 19 July 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:
There is no such thing as temporary suicide.
But there is annihilation, and allowing the "worse" choice is that choice.

Quote

A true Objectivist would not vote for the lesser of two evils. There is no point in doing that except to delay the inevitable.

But tactics to delay while changing the underlying structure can bring about change. The strike itself is a tactic, and never was intended to be a permanent, long-term solution. Tactics of delay are often necessary in order to build the support required to succeed.

#115 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 19 July 2012 - 04:11 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 19 July 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:
You are never going to get the R party or the D party to stop being stateists. As I said above - the compromising of principle is suicide. You cannot win by compromise with the "lesser evil" - only evil can win.
See my "bus headed toward the cliff" post. (I suppose I should post that somewhere permanently).
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#106 gblaze47

Member
Producer
PipPip
29 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:27 PM
I'm not one to pursue deep philosophical debates that end up pointless, but evil greebo said, "Our ability to survive is not automatic, it is not instinctive, it is a skill we must develop."

Sorry evil but this is not a philosophical debate, its just not true, the survival 'instinct' is automatic, we as semi self-aware beings may expand upon it and provide 'reason' and have the ability to override such a instinct at times, but from the very primitive basics it, survival, is a indelible instinct for humans as it is for any living creature.
~There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority … feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.~ Ray Bradbury

#107 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:33 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 19 July 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:
True as a group - I'm simply saying someone *can* vote Libertarian and be an Objectivist.

There is no such thing as temporary suicide.

A true Objectivist would not vote for the lesser of two evils. There is no point in doing that except to delay the inevitable. Objectivists must get involved in politics on the grass roots level; From precinct to county to state to congressional to national. I did that for years, as a democrat.

It's hard to get inside that machine, but I proved it could be done. One has to work his precinct and make sure to bring his friends so he has a shot of winning the precinct chair. Then one must listen to incredibly evil crap and be able to keep his mouth shut. Believe me, the inside information is much worse than anyone who hasn't been there would know.

#108 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:45 PM

View Postgblaze47, on 19 July 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:
I'm not one to pursue deep philosophical debates that end up pointless, but evil greebo said, "Our ability to survive is not automatic, it is not instinctive, it is a skill we must develop."

Sorry evil but this is not a philosophical debate, its just not true, the survival 'instinct' is automatic, we as semi self-aware beings may expand upon it and provide 'reason' and have the ability to override such a instinct at times, but from the very primitive basics it, survival, is a indelible instinct for humans as it is for any living creature.
Really?

Name one thing you do for your own survival that was not a learned skill.

I don't mean fear of falling - not falling off a cliff only saves your life if there's a cliff around. What do you do to eat, clothe yourself, have a roof that you didn't have to LEARN how to do?

Secondly - everything is a philosophical debate at its core. If you think there is a disconnect between philosophy and life, that's because you don't really know what your own personal philosophy is.

#109 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:53 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 19 July 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:
The problem with your method is that the progression to collectivism does depend on who ends up in control. I agree that we need to return to the governmental structure that our forefathers orginally crafted for us (with some minor tweaks to eliminate the sexist, racist, slavery aspects). However, voting for candidates that have no chance of winning, and thereby allowing the worse choice among two is self-defeating. Work to build up libertarian thought, and eventually candidates with libertarian ideals (maybe even yourself) will emerge.
When both candidates are stateists, who's the worst one?

When I vote Libertarian, my vote is counted. My vote says, "NO" to both evils. The more people who say no to both evils, the more people will take notice. Not voting for one of the two major parties is not throwing away a vote. I'm not willing to compromise and settle for one of the lesser evils - in any compromise between good and evil, only evil can win.

Quote
I have little countenance for those who stand on principle in a fight for morality. Ask yourself which world is more moral, the one of Obama or the one of Romney.
Neither

Quote
To vote principle and allow the immoral is suicide.
To compromise principle is suicide.

#110 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:54 PM

View PostFrog king, on 19 July 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:
There is no such thing as temporary suicide.

A true Objectivist would not vote for the lesser of two evils. There is no point in doing that except to delay the inevitable. Objectivists must get involved in politics on the grass roots level; From precinct to county to state to congressional to national. I did that for years, as a democrat.

It's hard to get inside that machine, but I proved it could be done. One has to work his precinct and make sure to bring his friends so he has a shot of winning the precinct chair. Then one must listen to incredibly evil crap and be able to keep his mouth shut. Believe me, the inside information is much worse than anyone who hasn't been there would know.
You are never going to get the R party or the D party to stop being stateists. As I said above - the compromising of principle is suicide. You cannot win by compromise with the "lesser evil" - only evil can win.

#101 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 09:06 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 19 July 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

That really depends on the Libertarian, doesn't it?

I mean I vote Libertarian despite the problems with the dropped context of their starting premise.

"""That really depends on the Libertarian, doesn't it?"""

No, it really doesn't. A is still A. See FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971, below.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

"""I mean I vote Libertarian despite the problems with the dropped context of their starting premise."""

That's your choice, but it doesn't make a libertarian an Objectivist.




#102 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 19 July 2012 - 09:32 AM
True as a group - I'm simply saying someone *can* vote Libertarian and be an Objectivist.

#103 CajunGodzilla

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
122 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:16 PM
From my earliest eligibility to vote in Presidential elections (1972), I always wrote-in "John Galt" until the Liberatrian Party began running candidates and I was able to vote for them. The Libertarian Party is a political movement. Objectivism is a life philosophy. Until I have better options on election day, the LP candidates get my support. That is less objectionable to Objectivism than supporting the Socialist (increasingly Marxist) Dems or the Socialist-lite Repubs, virtually all of whom strive above all else for power and control.

#104 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:43 PM

View PostCajunGodzilla, on 19 July 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:
From my earliest eligibility to vote in Presidential elections (1972), I always wrote-in "John Galt" until the Liberatrian Party began running candidates and I was able to vote for them. The Libertarian Party is a political movement. Objectivism is a life philosophy. Until I have better options on election day, the LP candidates get my support. That is less objectionable to Objectivism than supporting the Socialist (increasingly Marxist) Dems or the Socialist-lite Repubs, virtually all of whom strive above all else for power and control.
The problem with your method is that the progression to collectivism does depend on who ends up in control. I agree that we need to return to the governmental structure that our forefathers orginally crafted for us (with some minor tweaks to eliminate the sexist, racist, slavery aspects). However, voting for candidates that have no chance of winning, and thereby allowing the worse choice among two is self-defeating. Work to build up libertarian thought, and eventually candidates with libertarian ideals (maybe even yourself) will emerge.

We currently stand on a dangerous precipice. Less than half the people pay the bill for the whole country, and even then, we're still borrowing 40% because we spend too much. It is pandering and it is self-serving for the politicians, of both stripes, to continue this way, but there is a difference, minimal as it may be, which may slow down the degradation. I know for certainty where the Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Frankin types will lead us to, and as quickly as possible - perhaps even in the next 4 years - and it is not where I want to live.

I have little countenance for those who stand on principle in a fight for morality. Ask yourself which world is more moral, the one of Obama or the one of Romney. To vote principle and allow the immoral is suicide.

Just my humble opinion.

#105 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:46 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 19 July 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:
The problem with your method is that the progression to collectivism does depend on who ends up in control. I agree that we need to return to the governmental structure that our forefathers orginally crafted for us (with some minor tweaks to eliminate the sexist, racist, slavery aspects). However, voting for candidates that have no chance of winning, and thereby allowing the worse choice among two is self-defeating. Work to build up libertarian thought, and eventually candidates with libertarian ideals (maybe even yourself) will emerge.

We currently stand on a dangerous precipice. Less than half the people pay the bill for the whole country, and even then, we're still borrowing 40% because we spend too much. It is pandering and it is self-serving for the politicians, of both stripes, to continue this way, but there is a difference, minimal as it may be, which may slow down the degradation. I know for certainty where the Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Frankin types will lead us to, and as quickly as possible - perhaps even in the next 4 years - and it is not where I want to live.

I have little countenance for those who stand on principle in a fight for morality. Ask yourself which world is more moral, the one of Obama or the one of Romney. To vote principle and allow the immoral is suicide.

Just my humble opinion.
Well said.
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#96 ObjectiveAnalyst

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts

LocationOakland county, Mich.

Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:59 AM
I believe Aristotle’s book, Prior and Posterior Analytics is replete with symbolic logic/ philosophy…

O.A.

#97 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:13 AM

View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 16 July 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:
I believe Aristotle’s book, Prior and Posterior Analytics...
Glad you put the part about Aristotle in there. "Posterior Analytics" might otherwise be misconstrued as being an analysis of Edgar.
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#98 Whiplash

Newbie
Moocher
Pip
1 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 01:28 PM
Seems to me that Libertarianism and atheism have some similar components. For instance, there is no contradiction between being a Christian and being a Libertarian---just as there is no contradiction between being a Libertarian and being an Objectivist (or objectivist). (However, one cannot be a Libertarian and a socialist.) Similarly, one can be an atheist as well as either an Objectivist or a communist. Atheism is not a philosophy of life; rather, it is the answer to a single philosophical question. Likewise, Libertarianism does not pretend to be a complete philosophy; rather, it is the answer to a single political question. Libertarianism is a politico-economic philosophy just as socialism or mercantilism are.

I contend that libertarianism, at least, and most likely Libertarianism as well, are derivative from Objectivism, objectivism and the political writings of people like Locke, Mises, Paine and Jefferson, to name a few. In other words , one does not have to be an Objectivist to be a Libertarian, but it helps!

Here's a question for everyone: Given that one may not agree 100% with a political candidate (unless one IS the candidate), who might Rand more approve of, Obama, Romney or Johnson?

#99 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 07:55 PM
>>> just as there is no contradiction between being a Libertarian and being an Objectivist (or objectivist).<<<

Then you know nothing of Objectivism. (Sigh).........

#100 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 19 July 2012 - 06:43 AM

View PostFrog king, on 18 July 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:
>>> just as there is no contradiction between being a Libertarian and being an Objectivist (or objectivist).<<<

Then you know nothing of Objectivism. (Sigh).........
That really depends on the Libertarian, doesn't it?

I mean I vote Libertarian despite the problems with the dropped context of their starting premise.

#91 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:10 PM

View PostEdgar, on 13 July 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:
And all of them, except the Snark, topics I took in mathematics classes. Which y'all still stampin' yer little feet about, apparently.
Yes, but you don't see any of us actively denying that it's also a mathematics subject.

#92 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 13 July 2012 - 08:26 PM

View PostSignofthedollar, on 13 July 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:
And your point is...what?
On the top of his head.
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#93 Edgar

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
184 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 09:00 PM
Ah, Randian "humor."

#94 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 14 July 2012 - 06:55 AM

View PostEdgar, on 13 July 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:
Ah, Randian "humor."
You live under a rock or something to never hear that joke before?

Man you have a warped definition of Randian - what happened, Edgar? Did a Rand fan break your heart or something?

#95 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 08:58 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 14 July 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

You live under a rock or something to never hear that joke before?

Man you have a warped definition of Randian - what happened, Edgar? Did a Rand fan break your heart or something?

Uh huh - he's finally getting to you.

#86 Eudaimonia

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
223 posts

LocationConnecticut, U.S.A.

Posted 13 July 2012 - 08:38 AM

View PostSignofthedollar, on 12 July 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:
Of course Symbolic Logic is a Philosophy subject!!! That's the department I took it in. If you take it in mathematics it's whole different approach.

I am currently working for a double degree in Mathematics and Philosophy.
At the University I attend, symbolic logic is taught in both departments, I have taken both classes.
However, there is a difference.
The Philosophy course, Logic, taught very rigorous symbolic logic for the sake of being able to think in a manner consistent with symbolic logic.
The Mathematics course, Introduction to Mathematical Proof, taught symbolic logic as a means to the end of doing mathematical proof.

There is a subtle difference between the two, the Mathematics course *used* symbolic logic, the Philosophy course *was* symbolic logic.
"Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave." Capt. (Sgt.) Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity.

#87 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 13 July 2012 - 11:35 AM

View PostEudaimonia, on 13 July 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:
There is a subtle difference between the two, the Mathematics course *used* symbolic logic, the Philosophy course *was* symbolic logic.
Yeah - try getting Edgar to recognize that. ;)

http://forums.atlass...p__667#entry667

#88 Signofthedollar

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
78 posts

LocationCalifornia

Posted 13 July 2012 - 12:11 PM

View PostEudaimonia, on 13 July 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

There is a subtle difference between the two, the Mathematics course *used* symbolic logic, the Philosophy course *was* symbolic logic.

I found it much easier to "use" symbolic logic in Mathematics after taking it in Philosophy.

Edgar would just say "it's all about context, and symbolic logic is a "Randian" abstraction that we are all blinded by" ;)

#89 Edgar

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
184 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 05:02 PM

View PostCajunGodzilla, on 12 July 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:
Symbolic Logic / mathematician George Boole / Boolean Algebra / Venn Diagrams / mathematician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (a.k.a. Lewis Carroll of "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" fame) --- brings back memories of the marvelous Lewis Carroll poem "The Hunting of the Snark". Definitely worth a read.

And all of them, except the Snark, topics I took in mathematics classes. Which y'all still stampin' yer little feet about, apparently.

#90 Signofthedollar

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
78 posts

LocationCalifornia

Posted 13 July 2012 - 05:59 PM

View PostEdgar, on 13 July 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:
And all of them, except the Snark, topics I took in mathematics classes. Which y'all still stampin' yer little feet about, apparently.

And your point is...what?

#81 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 12 July 2012 - 03:08 PM

View PostSignofthedollar, on 12 July 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:
What a bonehead Edgar is.
That may be the most agreed-upon statement in the thread.
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#82 Solver

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
59 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 07:43 PM

View PostSignofthedollar, on 12 July 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:
Of course Symbolic Logic is a Philosophy subject!!! That's the department I took it in. If you take it in mathematics it's whole different approach. What a bonehead Edgar is. My professor handed us a page from the current newspaper and had us breakdown politicians statements. None of them ever really said anything. No structure at all. It was eye opening. All stylistic variants of "and" "or" and negation that came to no conclusion. They don't do that in the mathematics dept. in collage.

Such as in this grand plan that could have come from any of the modern progressive political rhetoric we hear these days:


It “...will reconcile all conflicts. It will protect the property of the rich and give a greater share to the poor. It will cut down the burden of your taxes and provide you with more government benefits. It will lower prices and raise wages. It will give more freedom to the individual and strengthen the bonds of collective obligations. It will combine the efficiency of free markets with the generosity of a planned economy”
“Don’t you ever again, any of you, start doubting or running or giving up! Tomorrow is here today—and what a tomorrow! With three meals a day for everyone on earth, with a car in every garage, and with electric power given free, produced by some sort of a motor the like of which we’ve never seen! And all you have to do is just be patient a little while longer! Patience, faith and unity—that’s the recipe for progress!”
- From Atlas Shrugged

#83 CajunGodzilla

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
122 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 09:56 PM
Symbolic Logic / mathematician George Boole / Boolean Algebra / Venn Diagrams / mathematician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (a.k.a. Lewis Carroll of "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" fame) --- brings back memories of the marvelous Lewis Carroll poem "The Hunting of the Snark". Definitely worth a read.

#84 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 13 July 2012 - 05:49 AM

View PostCajunGodzilla, on 12 July 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:
mathematician George Boole / Boolean Algebra
As an aside what are the odds that the guy who discovered Boolean Algebra would be named George Boole????? Must be astronomical!
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#85 lostinaforest

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
34 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:10 AM

View PostJonEdanger, on 13 July 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:
As an aside what are the odds that the guy who discovered Boolean Algebra would be named George Boole????? Must be astronomical!

Hehe :D

#76 michael80

Newbie
Moocher
Pip
7 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:44 PM
Hmmm....comparison? Good vs Evil, Democrat vs Republican, Rangers vs Canucks, How about we do a "Comparing Objectivism with Libertarianism"?

#77 ObjectiveAnalyst

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts

LocationOakland county, Mich.

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:57 PM
The Evil Greebo,

I very much enjoyed your last reply. I think some are mistaken about your demeanor. It is most excellent reading when your light hearted side reveals itself.

You may as well be a professor, at least of this philosophy. I have read most of Ms. Rand's work over the years but your recall is exceptional.

What other philosophies/ philosophers have you studied. Are there any others you approve of?

Regards,
O.A.

#78 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 12 July 2012 - 01:28 PM

View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 12 July 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:
The Evil Greebo,

I very much enjoyed your last reply. I think some are mistaken about your demeanor. It is most excellent reading when your light hearted side reveals itself.

You may as well be a professor, at least of this philosophy. I have read most of Ms. Rand's work over the years but your recall is exceptional.

What other philosophies/ philosophers have you studied. Are there any others you approve of?

Regards,
O.A.
I took an interest in philosophy in College and studied Metaphysics, then Epistemology, and finally Symbolic Logic (which contrary to Edgar's continued belief, *is* a Philosophy subject, and mathematics stems FROM logic, not the other way around...)

I am by no means a philosophy expert in general. Until I came across Rand I never found a philosopher who seemed to live fully in reality, and I have little tolerance for fictional non-fiction.

#79 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 12 July 2012 - 02:57 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 12 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:
I have little tolerance for fictional non-fiction.
I'm with you. I also don't care too much for non-fictional fiction.

Wait...
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#80 Signofthedollar

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
78 posts

LocationCalifornia

Posted 12 July 2012 - 02:59 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 12 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:
I took an interest in philosophy in College and studied Metaphysics, then Epistemology, and finally Symbolic Logic (which contrary to Edgar's continued belief, *is* a Philosophy subject, and mathematics stems FROM logic, not the other way around...)

I am by no means a philosophy expert in general. Until I came across Rand I never found a philosopher who seemed to live fully in reality, and I have little tolerance for fictional non-fiction.

Of course Symbolic Logic is a Philosophy subject!!! That's the department I took it in. If you take it in mathematics it's whole different approach. What a bonehead Edgar is. My professor handed us a page from the current newspaper and had us breakdown politicians statements. None of them ever really said anything. No structure at all. It was eye opening. All stylistic variants of "and" "or" and negation that came to no conclusion. They don't do that in the mathematics dept. in collage.

#71 michael80

Newbie
Moocher
Pip
7 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 11:25 AM
VS implies conflict....no?

#72 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:31 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 12 July 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:
What in anything that I presented makes you think that my morality or rationality would cause me to do that or even want to do that? I am free to do as I please, and they are free to do as they please. Neither of us has the right to initiate force against the other. Does not lead to "I am my brother's keeper." Let my brother keep himself - that's his responsibility, not mine.
Robbie, I never said your premise leads to the counter premise. Fighting straw men doesn't win your argument either.

I said that your premise, without proper grounding, does not have the strength to DEFEND against "Their freedom leads to their own suffering. You can make it better for them. You should make it better for them, it's your duty as a stronger, more capable human."

As proof of this claim on my part, you, again, have not offered a counter argument. You have simply repeated your earlier assertion - that the other has no right to force his demands upon you.

Contrast that with michael80, who did defend the argument, but take note carefully of how he did it! He did it by explaining the underlying reasons why your supposed self-evident axiom is true. Axioms do not have underlying reasons. The self evident does not have underlying reasons.

#73 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:32 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 12 July 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:
Which I believe is implicit whithin the statement.
See previous post.

Quote
For the record, I consider "navel gazing" to be the atheistic equivalent of mysticism. Not denegrating, just a description of something that is unnecessary to the "proof."

I respectfully suggest that you learn the difference between introspection and mysticism.

#74 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:38 PM

View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 12 July 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:
Robbie53024, The Evil Greebo,
Gentlemen,

Oh please, no flattery. I'm no gentleman. ;)



Quote
Snipping the gush
I'm no professor. Ms. Rand did the leg work - what I found when I studied her was someone who could put words to the things I felt were ideals but hadn't managed to verbalize.


Quote
he is not as flexible as you and I are
I know my ideals and am confident in the soundless of their foundation.

Living up to them in practice is the real challenge. ;)

Quote
"“I have never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” Thomas Jefferson"
Are we sure he said that? ;)

I also wonder if in practice Jefferson did withdraw from his friends who held the philosophy that England should continue to rule the US... ;) I certainly wouldn't hesitate to withdraw from someone who's philosophy would have me be a slave. On that front I believe Robbie and I are firm allies. ;)

#75 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:39 PM

View Postmichael80, on 12 July 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:
VS implies conflict....no?
Oh - the topic title?

Sometimes - it can also simply refer to a comparison, however.

#66 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 12 July 2012 - 09:43 AM

View Postmichael80, on 12 July 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:
Seems you guys are trying to make a point.....but what the point is escapes me. A is A. Initiation of aggression against another violates the premises of life, liberty, property and voluntary association.
True. But none of that is *implicitly* stated in the "It is wrong for man to initiate force against other men" premise. That premise does not stand on its own as self evident - the very fact that you can explain why its true using supporting reasons proves that it is not axiomatic.

Comparison between that an an actual axiom: If I say to you that Existence does not exist, there is no underlying premise upon which you can refer in order to prove me wrong - you must prove me wrong by showing that in saying existence does not exist, I've conceded that it does.

The explanation you gave as to why the initiation of force is wrong doesn't really upon itself as its premise - it relies on the underlying truth - Man is possessed with volitional rationality, as such he must be free to choose his actions. Other men are likewise endowed with the same need. To deny that to others is to deny the need in it for ones self.

Quote
We all judge, all the time. Libertarians don't impose their beliefs on others...Objectivists do as evidenced by Rand's excommunication of "non-believers" from her collective.
Check your premises. Rand defined the term Objectivist and what it means to be one. She did not impose her beliefs - she defined the concept. Nobody has the right except Rand and her designated heir to corrupt the term. Your statement implies that others somehow have some right to claim the title Objectivist when they do not fit the definition of the term. You may as well claim to be a different race or gender, and then declare that others are imposing their beliefs on you when they say, "Uh, no you aren't"...

Quote
Help me understand the conflict between Objectivism and classic Liberalism. Libertarianism is a modern day abridged version of classic Liberalism. Rand and von Mises and Hayek, even Rothbard, all had parts of the equation.
Conflict? Who said anything about a conflict?

#67 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 12 July 2012 - 09:43 AM

View PostCajunGodzilla, on 12 July 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:
EvilG, I think I am beginning to believe in reincarnation. You must be Ayn Rand in another life! :)
Well that's arbitrary! Now I have to excommunicate you!

;)

#68 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:03 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 12 July 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:
Their freedom leads to their own suffering. You can make it better for them. You should make it better for them, it's your duty as a stronger, more capable human.
What in anything that I presented makes you think that my morality or rationality would cause me to do that or even want to do that? I am free to do as I please, and they are free to do as they please. Neither of us has the right to initiate force against the other. Does not lead to "I am my brother's keeper." Let my brother keep himself - that's his responsibility, not mine.

#69 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:14 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 12 July 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

The explanation you gave as to why the initiation of force is wrong doesn't really upon itself as its premise - it relies on the underlying truth - Man is possessed with volitional rationality, as such he must be free to choose his actions. Other men are likewise endowed with the same need. To deny that to others is to deny the need in it for ones self.

Which I believe is implicit whithin the statement.

For the record, I consider "navel gazing" to be the atheistic equivalent of mysticism. Not denegrating, just a description of something that is unnecessary to the "proof."

I have to go do some actual work for a few days, so will need to drop off the discussion for awhile.

#70 ObjectiveAnalyst

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts

LocationOakland county, Mich.

Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:46 AM
Robbie53024, The Evil Greebo,
Gentlemen,

I am pleased with the words I find this morning. It is perfectly civil and appropriate when reaching an impasse to agree to disagree. You are both highly valued contributors.

The Evil Greebo,
You are the toughest philosophy professor I have encountered! I feel our real battles reside with those whose philosophy is diametrically opposed to our own. Libertarians are the most simpatico and the minor differences are the least of our problems. I do however appreciate the strength of your arguments as they are based upon sound, thorough reasoning. I find them most difficult to contradict. I feel at times that I am not meeting your standards and like anyone else this is frustrating. You have no doubt felt this through some of the responses. Please be patient and tolerant, as what you are trying to disseminate is not accepted by all at the same speed, nor is it likely to be accepted by those of strong convictions and philosophic views contrary to your own without thorough patient examination and contemplation. Even then some may feel their arguments as valid or the points you stress as nitpicking, for lack of a more diplomatic term. Your input is invaluable, but please accept that all will not see things completely to your satisfaction. Let us not sweat the small stuff.

Robbie53024,
You are practical and pragmatic. You are equally devoted to your convictions. I can see that you are struggling as I do with the purist outlook of The Evil Greebo. He is a brilliant theoretician, but he can be a bit demanding and impatient. His devotion to the nuts and bolts of this philosophy are commendable but a bit hard to live up to. You will have to be patient with him also because he is not as flexible as you and I are. I am a practical man and find that as a machinist and manufacturer I am accustomed to accepting less than perfection and am happy to meet a mean tolerance because absolute precision is impossible to maintain. This is a life experience I have learned to accept. In this way I believe we share common ground.

I find you both to be excellent advocates for your beliefs, and they are not so far apart as to cause derision. Please remember, if we were all of the same mind our discussion would be pointless. Patience and tolerance are essential to avoid misunderstanding and animus from our discussions since we are writing brief posts without benefit of audible and visual cues from the speaker.

“I have never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” Thomas Jefferson

Respectfully,
O.A.

#61 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 04:30 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 11 July 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:
To be clear - this sidesteps the question. You have not defined WHY it is wrong to initiate force against others if it works out better for them than if you didn't.

There is no reason to initiate force. I am free, so is the other person. So long as that person does not threaten to take away my freedom in some fashion, I have no right to deprive them of their freedom.

This is where we cannot reconcile the issue. You want to navel gaze and self-derive the rationale. I believe that it is axiomatic and self-evident. You will refuse to accept why this is so, since that requires what you denegrate as "mysticism."

As OA has said, does the difference really matter? At most they converge in one or two steps.

#62 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 12 July 2012 - 04:11 AM

View PostRobbie53024, on 11 July 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:
And I evaluate those "proofs" as nothing more than navel gazing. You can continue to believe that this is some utterly profound difference, that is your right. You have not presented an argument that convinces me that it is any more valid than my fundamental premise. (and again, you refuse to accept the validity of that premise, so we're at a stalemate).
You have not been listening, if you think I don't accept the premise.

It is a valid premise. It is not an axiom. It does not stand on its own as self evident - I have presented arguments to you that refute the premise without simultaneously accepting them, and so if you use the premise as your starting point, you (at least so far) do not have a counter argument, you have only got gainsaying and accusations of "navel gazing".

Objectivism explains why that premise is a fact of reality, using logic that is based in the irrefutable axioms that cannot be rejected without accepting them. That premise is not a premise, it is a conclusion built upon the moral code that is the proper nature of Man Qua Man. Whether you believe in some divine being or not, whether you believe that existence was created or simply is, you yourself have said, Man is a volitionally rational being. THAT is a self evident fact that cannot be rrefuted without accepting it at the same time.

Once you understand the full implications of what that means, and the moral code that comes with choosing to fully engage your rationality, then you have the foundation needed to defend what you call your premise.

#63 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 12 July 2012 - 04:13 AM

View PostRobbie53024, on 11 July 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:
There is no reason to initiate force. I am free, so is the other person. So long as that person does not threaten to take away my freedom in some fashion, I have no right to deprive them of their freedom.
Their freedom leads to their own suffering. You can make it better for them. You should make it better for them, it's your duty as a stronger, more capable human.

Quote
This is where we cannot reconcile the issue. You want to navel gaze and self-derive the rationale. I believe that it is axiomatic and self-evident. You will refuse to accept why this is so, since that requires what you denegrate as "mysticism."
Reverting to negative terms is also not a refutation.

Quote
As OA has said, does the difference really matter? At most they converge in one or two steps.
When it comes to determining what is proper for man in a society, no.

When it comes to man determining what is proper to man qua man for himself, yes.

#64 michael80

Newbie
Moocher
Pip
7 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 08:47 AM
Seems you guys are trying to make a point.....but what the point is escapes me. A is A. Initiation of aggression against another violates the premises of life, liberty, property and voluntary association. We all judge, all the time. Libertarians don't impose their beliefs on others...Objectivists do as evidenced by Rand's excommunication of "non-believers" from her collective. Help me understand the conflict between Objectivism and classic Liberalism. Libertarianism is a modern day abridged version of classic Liberalism. Rand and von Mises and Hayek, even Rothbard, all had parts of the equation.

#65 CajunGodzilla

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
122 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 09:00 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 12 July 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:
Objectivism explains why that premise is a fact of reality, using logic that is based in the irrefutable axioms that cannot be rejected without accepting them. That premise is not a premise, it is a conclusion built upon the moral code that is the proper nature of Man Qua Man. Whether you believe in some divine being or not, whether you believe that existence was created or simply is, you yourself have said, Man is a volitionally rational being. THAT is a self evident fact that cannot be rrefuted without accepting it at the same time.

Once you understand the full implications of what that means, and the moral code that comes with choosing to fully engage your rationality, then you have the foundation needed to defend what you call your premise.

EvilG, I think I am beginning to believe in reincarnation. You must be Ayn Rand in another life! :)

#56 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:43 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 11 July 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:
[/font][/color]
Although in this case I'm disappointed because the expression of interest quickly turned to an expression of almost teenage like petulance once presented with answers that weren't liked.
I assume that you are speaking of me. No, I'm engaged in a debate. I won't answer your challenge to "prove it" because you have already demonstrated your reluctance to accept same.

As I said earlier, other than the navel gazing I can't find a spit's worth of difference. So prove ME wrong.

#57 ObjectiveAnalyst

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts

LocationOakland county, Mich.

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:45 PM
Hello The Evil Greebo,

I do have expectations. I expect that as we all make an effort toward deeper understanding and help others likewise we could change the future, hopefully for the better.

Please, don’t misunderstand me. I enjoy reading your arguments and checking my premises. I believe others do as well. I am pleased you answer those who express interest. I am just opining that we should also make an effort where it will make the most difference.

Petulance… The word has several connotations; perhaps irritation would be a better choice among friends… Our differences are miniscule compared to what we face outside of this board.


Regards,
O.A.

#58 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:21 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 11 July 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:
I assume that you are speaking of me. No, I'm engaged in a debate. I won't answer your challenge to "prove it" because you have already demonstrated your reluctance to accept same.
If I missed a request for proof, it was not deliberate. Please point me to the overlooked request.

Quote
As I said earlier, other than the navel gazing I can't find a spit's worth of difference. So prove ME wrong.
I've done so twice. Your first refutation was an inane fallacy claiming that A<>A. Your second didn't address the assertion but side stepped it and has not stated why it is wrong to initiate force against others for their own good.

#59 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:22 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 11 July 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:
Not at all - they are free to do with themselves what they wish. What is it to me? I only enter the picture when their actions intersect with me. At that point, then I am able to act/react as necessary and in my interest. (act being one of pre-emptive action given a judgment that another's action will affect me. In this case, yes, I do judge as it has some potential impact to me).
To be clear - this sidesteps the question. You have not defined WHY it is wrong to initiate force against others if it works out better for them than if you didn't.

#60 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 04:19 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 11 July 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:
If I missed a request for proof, it was not deliberate. Please point me to the overlooked request.


I've done so twice. Your first refutation was an inane fallacy claiming that A<>A. Your second didn't address the assertion but side stepped it and has not stated why it is wrong to initiate force against others for their own good.
And I evaluate those "proofs" as nothing more than navel gazing. You can continue to believe that this is some utterly profound difference, that is your right. You have not presented an argument that convinces me that it is any more valid than my fundamental premise. (and again, you refuse to accept the validity of that premise, so we're at a stalemate).

#51 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:11 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 11 July 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:
But that decision is about me and whether my needs/objectives are being satisfied and only relates to you in that you are the provider of my satisfaction. I trust you do the same, thus we have an on-going debate.

I bet if you think about it you'll find that you've got judgments about things other people do that are wholly unrelated to your needs/objectives.

Quote
While heroin isn't the greatest example, I'll use it. No, I would not tell another person (outside of those for whom I care or can directly impact my well being) not to do as they wish. I would support efforts to educate, but not prohibit.
WHY would you try to educate? Because you would have judged that the practice was harmful to them, right? Judging the act as harmful is a moral judgment. Not trying to force that judgment on them is also a moral judgment.

Quote
Better examples would be ...
Snipped for brevity - no, not in the context of you rendering a *personal moral judgment*, which is what we're talking about in this instance.

Quote
Likewise, a person choosing to commit suicide has chosen to make the highest moral decision they can make, and it's not my place to judge them for it. I can feel sorry for their decision, I can feel sorry for the results of their decision, but I cannot judge that person for their choice - as it is their choice, and nobody knows what may be going on inside the other person's head. And as you are fond of saying - a decision (judgement) without complete knowledge is arbitrary.
All of those feelings *are* judgments - being emotion they are automatic, unconsciously reached conclusions reached by your own subconscious mind.

And yes, those judgments may be arbitrary, which is another (but not the primary) reason not to try to inflict them on others. Nevertheless, they remain judgments.

#52 ObjectiveAnalyst

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts

LocationOakland county, Mich.

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:12 PM
Hello The Evil Greebo,

Regarding your point about Libertarianism v. Libertarians, I concur. Perhaps when enough libertarians are given proper footing the basic ideology will adapt since there is no contradiction in practice. However I believe it to be quixotic to expect the world to change simply because the Objectivists have the best moral reasoning on this matter. People will not become deep thinkers despite the benefits unless they are properly educated while still receptive. This is why I am content to leave those people who come to the right conclusions (despite their ignorance of the proper foundations) be. That is not to say that exposing them to the proper foundation is a waste. As I said, they may adopt your reasoning and reinforce their beliefs with proper footing, but since they already follow the proper course it is not they who adversely affect me. It seems to me, that any reasonable libertarian once exposed to proper foundation would find it so, and be amenable. It is those who act contrary to individual rights, hold erroneous precepts based upon erroneous reasoning, foundation that affects us all adversely. No one is perfect. The critical point is criticism may be better spent on those further from proper practice. IMHO.

Quite correct it is a failing to check ones premises, and thought unpardonable by Rand. It is however a fact of life for many. We need to be teaching our youth critical thinking skills as well as the basics necessary for life long learning. The rest of the curriculum of political correctness and progressive claptrap should be abandoned post haste.

Philosophy, for me, is the search for truth, knowledge and wisdom. For most it is a word in the dictionary…

Regards,
O.A.

#53 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:14 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 11 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:
What it really comes down to is that libertarians (not going to capitalize 'cause I'm not talking about the party) believe that liberty/freedom is an inherent trait to sentient rational beings
Prove it. :)

Since you absurdly refused to consider my previous counterargument, consider this one:

Not all sentient humans act in a rational being in even a majority of the time. As a result, with freedom, they hurt, not help themselves. Therefore, it is in their best interest to have others judge for them and tell them how to live, so that their lives may be better.

Again, without a rationally based grounding for *why* force may not be initiated - why doing so is intrinsically evil - you will find it very hard to argue against this without resorting to fallacy (again).

#54 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:18 PM

View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 11 July 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:
However I believe it to be quixotic to expect the world to change simply because the Objectivists have the best moral reasoning on this matter.

Who said anything about expectations?

Quote
People will not become deep thinkers despite the benefits unless they are properly educated while still receptive.
Steer clear of Texas ;)


Quote
The critical point is criticism may be better spent on those further from proper practice. IMHO.
The question was asked. I'm answering. I'm interested in dealing with those who express interest. Although in this case I'm disappointed because the expression of interest quickly turned to an expression of almost teenage like petulance once presented with answers that weren't liked.


Quote
We need to be teaching our youth critical thinking skills as well as the basics necessary for life long learning.
See Texas, again ;)

#55 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:35 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 11 July 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:
Prove it. :)

Since you absurdly refused to consider my previous counterargument, consider this one:

Not all sentient humans act in a rational being in even a majority of the time. As a result, with freedom, they hurt, not help themselves. Therefore, it is in their best interest to have others judge for them and tell them how to live, so that their lives may be better.

Again, without a rationally based grounding for *why* force may not be initiated - why doing so is intrinsically evil - you will find it very hard to argue against this without resorting to fallacy (again).

Not at all - they are free to do with themselves what they wish. What is it to me? I only enter the picture when their actions intersect with me. At that point, then I am able to act/react as necessary and in my interest. (act being one of pre-emptive action given a judgment that another's action will affect me. In this case, yes, I do judge as it has some potential impact to me).

#46 Aztriman

Newbie
Moocher
Pip
3 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:08 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 11 July 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:
Except that it does not mention rational self interest at all - so again - whatever you wanna do man, it's all good long as you don't initiate force. The morality of Libertarianism starts in the middle.

I get it. But, the Libertarian Party is not a philosophy, it is a political party. If there were an Objectivist Party I'd register there, but there isn't one.

How about the following quotesfrom John Allison, "Cato is a great asset for the libertarian free society movement...The libertarian vision is a moral vision and we own the moral high ground. A free society is the only society in which people can think for themselves and pursue their rational self-interest."

I agree with him completely.

#47 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:17 PM

View PostAztriman, on 11 July 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:
I get it. But, the Libertarian Party is not a philosophy, it is a political party. If there were an Objectivist Party I'd register there, but there isn't one.
I vote Libertarian because it is the party that most closely echos my values. There are many Objectivists who do likewise.

But an O'ist isn't going to say, "You wanna shoot up heroin and destroy your brain? Go for it." We'll either say nothing or say, "That's a horrible idea" or something like that.

A Libertarian operating from the platform's opening premise has NO moral basis to say, "Bad idea" to the would be druggie. You cannot philosophically identify why, despite the fact that the druggie has free will, the use of such a drug is an evil practice to perform on one's self.

Mind you, we won't try to STOP you from doing damaging drugs - that's not our place - but we're not going to surrender our right to form a personal judgement about your actions either.

As I said to Robbie - you can't help judging other people - its what we do. Even being indifferent is the result of a judgment - a decision not to care about what the other person says/does.

Quote
How about the following quotesfrom John Allison, "Cato is a great asset for the libertarian free society movement...The libertarian vision is a moral vision and we own the moral high ground. A free society is the only society in which people can think for themselves and pursue their rational self-interest."

How about it? It doesn't change the starting point of the platform - it just means Allison has thought it through and expressed the right thought more fully.

#48 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:25 PM

View PostAztriman, on 11 July 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:
For those Objectivists who will vote for Romney, you are voting for a mystic - a Mormon of all things?????

A Mormon of all things?????
A Catholic of all things?????
A Babtist of all things?????
A Lutheran of all things?????
A Medothist of all things?????
A Babtist of all things?????
A Jew of all things?????

Why this emphisis on Mormonism? What religeon isn't mystical?

#49 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:28 PM

View PostAztriman, on 11 July 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:
I get it. But, the Libertarian Party is not a philosophy, it is a political party. If there were an Objectivist Party I'd register there, but there isn't one.

How about the following quotesfrom John Allison, "Cato is a great asset for the libertarian free society movement...The libertarian vision is a moral vision and we own the moral high ground. A free society is the only society in which people can think for themselves and pursue their rational self-interest."

I agree with him completely.

What it really comes down to is that libertarians (not going to capitalize 'cause I'm not talking about the party) believe that liberty/freedom is an inherent trait to sentient rational beings (derived from the fact that we own ourselves and all else follows), whereas Objectivists (such as my debate partner Greebo espouses) want to gaze into there navel and come up with the same foundation from a different source (I believe mostly due to an inability to accept that their may be a supreme deity that endowed us with the right to liberty). Either way, the foundation is personal liberty and for the life of me, cannot see a gnats whisker's worth of difference.
Now, as was said earlier, some of the early proponents of libertarianism seemed to believe that it meant being a "libertine" which is an entirely different thing. Nor are libertarians anarchists, as any organization/society of any size needs some structure. (l)ibertarians believe that this structure should be limited and kept to the minimal necessary to provide solely those functions not possible by the individual or through the auspices of capitalism.

#50 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:52 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 11 July 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:
As I said to Robbie - you can't help judging other people - its what we do. Even being indifferent is the result of a judgment - a decision not to care about what the other person says/does.
But that decision is about me and whether my needs/objectives are being satisfied and only relates to you in that you are the provider of my satisfaction. I trust you do the same, thus we have an on-going debate.

While heroin isn't the greatest example, I'll use it. No, I would not tell another person (outside of those for whom I care or can directly impact my well being) not to do as they wish. I would support efforts to educate, but not prohibit. Better examples would be for drugs/medical procedures that are banned in one location, but allowed in another and the afflicted individual obtains the banned item elsewhere. There are instances where this healed the person, irrespective of whether the medicine/procedure was the causal factor. Thus, one person "judging the effectiveness" and thus prohibiting it was immoral.
Likewise, a person choosing to commit suicide has chosen to make the highest moral decision they can make, and it's not my place to judge them for it. I can feel sorry for their decision, I can feel sorry for the results of their decision, but I cannot judge that person for their choice - as it is their choice, and nobody knows what may be going on inside the other person's head. And as you are fond of saying - a decision (judgement) without complete knowledge is arbitrary.

#41 CajunGodzilla

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
122 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 09:32 AM
"Go to: http://aynrandlexico...bertarians.html Start reading at the top and scroll down for all writings on the topic."

This has me thinking and re-evaluating. I KNOW that I don't substitute whims for reason or anarchy for capitalism, as Rand accuses the liberatarians of 40 years ago; and I don't beleive that Stossel, Napolitano, Paul, Johnson or most other of today's "leading" libertarians do either. But I also know some self-described libertarians who do fit Rand's description of "hippies" who do lean rather strongly to whims and anarchy rather than reason and capitalism.

#42 ObjectiveAnalyst

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts

LocationOakland county, Mich.

Posted 11 July 2012 - 10:35 AM
Hello CajunGodzilla,

I investigated the provided link also. I agree with your assessment. It isn’t accurate to pigeonhole all libertarians; they are no more homogeneous than any other political faction. The same can be said about the conservatives. Purists are rare. Many in both camps practice the good aspects of their ideology while others spoil the title. I believe some who are truly anarchists co-opt the title Libertarian. Likewise some “conservatives” are social conservatives but not fiscal conservatives. The reverse also being true has only demonstrated the corruption of the meaning of words, and the co-opting of same.

To me, it makes little difference if libertarians or conservatives don’t understand why they come to the proper course of action/ conclusions when they do, so long as they do. If Objectivism has a sounder moral basis, so be it. Most people never check their premises, never investigate philosophy, or even contemplate critical thinking.

Regards,
O.A.

#43 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 July 2012 - 12:11 PM

View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 11 July 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:
Hello CajunGodzilla,

I investigated the provided link also. I agree with your assessment. It isn’t accurate to pigeonhole all libertarians;

Correct - this is why I tried to clarify that I was talking about Libertarianism, not Libertarians

Quote
To me, it makes little difference if libertarians or conservatives don’t understand why they come to the proper course of action/ conclusions when they do, so long as they do. If Objectivism has a sounder moral basis, so be it. Most people never check their premises, never investigate philosophy, or even contemplate critical thinking.
But to circle back as to why Rand had such a problem with Libertarianism - this is exactly why. The failure to check one's premises - the deliberate choice NOT to think - this to her was the unpardonable sin.

#44 Aztriman

Newbie
Moocher
Pip
3 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 12:44 PM
From lp.org :

"The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud."

This platform seems to be much more in line with Rand's idea of rational self-interest than does this from democrats.org:

"Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules."

or the following from gop.org:

"Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic commitment, and concern for one another."

Maybe it's not axiomatic that one shouldn't harm another person for one's own benefit, but it's still the proper way to act in society. If one disagrees philosophically, fine; but just go out and start harming people and see what happens.

I consider myself both an Objectivist and I'm a registered Libertarian. For those Objectivists who will vote for Romney, you are voting for a mystic - a Mormon of all things????? Bush 43 was about the worst President ever in my opinion, and although I support Ron Paul, he's not a panacea either - another mystic after all.

#45 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 July 2012 - 12:57 PM

View PostAztriman, on 11 July 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:
From lp.org :

"The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud."

This platform seems to be much more in line with Rand's idea of rational self-interest than does this from democrats.org:
Except that it does not mention rational self interest at all - so again - whatever you wanna do man, it's all good long as you don't initiate force. The morality of Libertarianism starts in the middle.

#31 Solver

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
59 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:15 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:
The founding fathers were very smart.

They were not, however, infallible. Calling these rights self-evident was a mistake. So was the Commerce Clause.

So was including that big promoting the general welfare mistake. Big government has promoted their numerous prosperity destroying social dependency programs to rank of a four star general.
With Obamacare it looks like they are going to get another star.

#32 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:20 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:
Frog: Since I am not well versed in Ms. Rand's other writings, can you summarize so that I might learn?

Go to: http://aynrandlexico...bertarians.html Start reading at the top and scroll down for all writings on the topic.

While the thread thus far has concentrated on the differences in philosophy, nobody has engaged on the aspect that Ms. Rand may just have been jilted by a couple of specific Libertarians, and that causes her vile revulsion with them. Much more so than with either the left or right, and on par with Marxists.

Rand "...jilted by libertarians" ???? LOL! It's more likely that monkees wtll fly out of John Stossel's butt before that could happen.

#33 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:23 PM

View PostFrog king, on 10 July 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:
Rand "...jilted by libertarians" ???? LOL! It's more likely that monkees wtll fly out of John Stossel's butt before that could happen.
Posted Image
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#34 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:30 PM

View PostJonEdanger, on 10 July 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:
Posted Image

Priceless! I wish I could give you 10 "likes" on that one.

#35 JonEdanger

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
225 posts

LocationAtlanta (OTP), GA USA

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:40 PM

View PostFrog king, on 10 July 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:
Priceless! I wish I could give you 10 "likes" on that one.
Every now and then luck shines on each of us...
"Torque it down til it strips and then back it off half a turn." - JonEdanger

Be who you are. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.

#36 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:00 PM

View PostJonEdanger, on 10 July 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:
Every now and then luck shines on each of us...

Affirm that. Even a dog gets a warm piece of the sidewalk. :D

#37 DR_BRETT

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
63 posts

LocationUNITED STATES Of AMERICA

Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:29 PM
I have a BIG PROBLEM, with "The Evil Greebo" -- his name contradicts his actions .
I even have a theory -- he is NOT evil .

#38 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:20 PM

View PostFrog king, on 10 July 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:
Rand "...jilted by libertarians" ???? LOL! It's more likely that monkees wtll fly out of John Stossel's butt before that could happen.

Read it, still don't get what you find so definitive.

As for the Jilted - you don't think that the dissolution of the relationship with Nathaniel Branden or the subsequent "conversion" of Barbara to Libertarianism could have any part?

#39 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:49 AM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:
No. I exist as a rationale being. A rationale being owns oneself. In owning oneself, I have inherent freedom to do with myself as I choose (ipso, facto; Freedom). I do not rely on any outside rationale/philosophy/sanction for my liberty, it is inherent.
Ok, I misunderstood.

FYI Rationale is definitely the wrong word here. Rationale is "the underlying reason for something" -

Assuming you meant rational, then NOW you're starting to define a foundation for why the initiation of force against other men is wrong.

To wit: The rationale for the need of men to be free is that they are rational beings.

It's not complete but it's getting there. ;)

#40 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:51 AM

View PostDR_BRETT, on 10 July 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:
I have a BIG PROBLEM, with "The Evil Greebo" -- his name contradicts his actions .
I even have a theory -- he is NOT evil .
I am to altruists. ;)

#26 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:32 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:
That's not a decision, that's indifference. I appreciate the debate, but other than that (which benefits me, and when it doesn't, I will cease my participation) don't care one way or another.
You opened the topic. I'm explaining to you why Objecitivists and Libertarians are not comrades in arms, and why Rand did not care for the Libertarian movement, per se.

Did you WANT to understand it or not?

#27 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:37 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:
How did I imply that I require a sanction to exist? I exist - rather axiomatic, don'tcha think?
"I can make the same argument about libertarianism, since liberty (freedom) provides me the singular decision authority about what is good for me."

Did you not state that your right to decide your own course of action comes from Libertarianism?

Perhaps you meant that your freedom of action *IS* your authority to decide your fate - and I misunderstood you to be saying your source of rights was external. If so, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

But your freedom does *not* compel you to act in a moral manner - quite the opposite. Your freedom gives you the choice to act or not to act. It is your reason and only your reason that gives you the ability to choose the correct course of action.

Freedom without rational moral consideration leads to "Will to power" - it leads to the strong over the weak, simply because they're free to act.

#28 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:47 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:
I thought so (although Frog seems to believe this has already been hashed over).

Not quite, Frog doesn't need to hash over this subject. I've said here that libertarians have hijacked certain Rand ideas and think that they (libertarians) and Objectivests are kindred spirits. They arent.

For further information see The Ayn Rand Lexicon, subject "Libertarians". I agree with Ms Rand 100%.

#29 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:48 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:
"I can make the same argument about libertarianism, since liberty (freedom) provides me the singular decision authority about what is good for me."

Did you not state that your right to decide your own course of action comes from Libertarianism?

No. I exist as a rationale being. A rationale being owns oneself. In owning oneself, I have inherent freedom to do with myself as I choose (ipso, facto; Freedom). I do not rely on any outside rationale/philosophy/sanction for my liberty, it is inherent.

#30 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:53 PM

View PostFrog king, on 10 July 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:
Not quite, Frog doesn't need to hash over this subject. I've said here that libertarians have hijacked certain Rand ideas and think that they (libertarians) and Objectivests are kindred spirits. They arent.

For further information see The Ayn Rand Lexicon, subject "Libertarians". I agree with Ms Rand 100%.

Frog: Since I am not well versed in Ms. Rand's other writings, can you summarize so that I might learn?

While the thread thus far has concentrated on the differences in philosophy, nobody has engaged on the aspect that Ms. Rand may just have been jilted by a couple of specific Libertarians, and that causes her vile revulsion with them. Much more so than with either the left or right, and on par with Marxists.

#21 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:08 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:
You also indicated that libertarianism is based on "faith" From where do you get that? As our founding fathers indicated, it is an inalienable right - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - and self-evident (therefore, axiomatic).
The founding fathers were very smart.

They were not, however, infallible. Calling these rights self-evident was a mistake. So was the Commerce Clause.

#22 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:08 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:
[/font][/color]
Except for the decision that you don't give a rats ass about me...

I have already fully explained why taking that statement as self evident is taking it on faith. Perhaps it would do you well to go back and re-read my answers WITHOUT jumping to respond before considering them in their entirety this time, then perhaps they will be clear.

I look forward to your proof on A<> A.
You won't like it.

#23 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:23 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:
[/font][/color]
Except for the decision that you don't give a rats ass about me...

That's not a decision, that's indifference. I appreciate the debate, but other than that (which benefits me, and when it doesn't, I will cease my participation) don't care one way or another.

#24 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:29 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:
As for providing you singular decision authority - you just stated that you require a sanction to exist.

How did I imply that I require a sanction to exist? I exist - rather axiomatic, don'tcha think?

#25 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:31 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:
You won't like it.
You can't provide it.

#16 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:50 PM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:
I can challenge it on the following premise:

"If I initiate force against others, I can get what I want. If they do not get what they want, well, that's too bad, there's no reason for me to be concerned with their rights, only mine, because I'm stronger."


And I can challenge your assertion by the following logic: A<>A because then I can solve an equation that is non-sensical otherwise. Do I care that A=A, no, because that doesn't help me solve my problem, because I'm too dumb to solve it otherwise." Just as fallacious an argument. I say that man not initiating force against fellow man is axiomatic as we are both rational creatures, and ...


wait for it...






wait for it...





created in God's image!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#17 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:52 PM
Ok, I will accept your conclusion, if you can do one thing.

Prove that A != A.

#18 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:57 PM
Robbie - to be clear- asserting that an argument is fallacious does not make it so if you cannot provide the grounds upon which the fallacy rests. Simply saying, "That isn't true" is not a proof.

#19 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:03 PM
The definition that I find is: "Judgement (or judgment) is the evaluation of evidence in the making of a decision"

While I may reason and evaluate many things, until I make a decision, I have not exercised "judgment."

Again, I don't give a rats a$$ about you and have made no decisions about you. I have chosen to continue this debate as it serves my purpose of challenging my own beliefs and rationale, thus benefitting me (and perhaps others who read through this thread, but that is ancillary).

You also indicated that libertarianism is based on "faith" From where do you get that? As our founding fathers indicated, it is an inalienable right - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - and self-evident (therefore, axiomatic).

#20 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:06 PM

Quote
While I may reason and evaluate many things, until I make a decision, I have not exercised "judgment."

Again, I don't give a rats a$$ about you and have made no decisions about you.

Except for the decision that you don't give a rats ass about me...

I have already fully explained why taking that statement as self evident is taking it on faith. Perhaps it would do you well to go back and re-read my answers WITHOUT jumping to respond before considering them in their entirety this time, then perhaps they will be clear.

I look forward to your proof on A<> A.

#11 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:35 PM
Greebo:

You cannot simply start from "Man should not initiate force against other men" - it immediately requires the question: "Why?"

Answer: That is the definition of an axiom - it just is and requires no derivation. A=A just is and any derivation is superfluous. And the statement is about whether man "should" commit force against another, not whether it is possible. I can say that A<>A all day, doesn't mean it's true. Similarly, one man can initiate force against another, doesn't make it moral to do so.

#12 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:42 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:
On this site? Where?
View PostRobbie53024 END

I've touched on the issue here. The rest is a non-issue.

#13 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:44 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:
Greebo:

You cannot simply start from "Man should not initiate force against other men" - it immediately requires the question: "Why?"

Answer: That is the definition of an axiom - it just is and requires no derivation. A=A just is and any derivation is superfluous.
View PostRobbie53024 END

Yes, that is the definition of an axiom. Almost. An axiom must be self evident and not reducible to constituent parts.

No, the quoted statement above is not one. It is a dropped context - it lacks foundation on its own.

Why?

It is *not* self evident that man should not initiate force against other men. We initiate force all the time - against animals, against plants, against earth. Why shouldn't we initiate force against other men?

I can question the statement, on its own, since it lacks a foundation. I can challenge it on the following premise:

"If I initiate force against others, I can get what I want. If they do not get what they want, well, that's too bad, there's no reason for me to be concerned with their rights, only mine, because I'm stronger."

And since the statement is not axiomatic, I can challenge it WITHOUT implicitly accepting it as true.

With the proper premise BEHIND that statement, which Objectivism defines, the statement becomes irrefutable - but it is never axiomatic.

A proper axiom is something like "Existence exists", "A is A", "Consciousness exists". They are not only self-evident but any attempt to disprove them must implicitly accept them.

To deny existence presupposes the existence of someone who's doing the denying.
Ditto consciousness.
To disprove a is a implicitly accepts that it is possible to prove that proof is impossible - which means if proof is impossible one cannot set out to prove it.

The statement *IS* True - but Libertarians do not have the moral grounding to understand why, and cannot prove the Will to Power argument incorrect without it.

#14 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:45 PM
Greebo:

"In Objectivism your own sense of reason will compel you to act in the best possible manner that you can determine."

I can make the same argument about libertarianism, since liberty (freedom) provides me the singular decision authority about what is good for me.

Here's one for you - this drives my kids nuts: "A person never does something that they don't want to do." or its corollary "You cannot make anyone do anything."

#15 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:50 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:
Greebo:

"In Objectivism your own sense of reason will compel you to act in the best possible manner that you can determine."

I can make the same argument about libertarianism, since liberty (freedom) provides me the singular decision authority about what is good for me.
View PostRobbie53024 END

False. Libertarianism does not require you to use reason. It only requires you to accept its premise - on faith - which is the opposite of reason.

As for providing you singular decision authority - you just stated that you require a sanction to exist.

#6 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:20 AM

View PostThe Evil Greebo, on 10 July 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:
Libertarianism adopts the tenet that the initiation of force against other is wrong as a primary given,
View PostThe Evil Greebo END

Why would you object to that? Initiation of force except in the interest of self-preservation, and generally as the last option, should be wrong. Modern science has made waiting for a first strike to respond a suicide proposition. Thus, a moral code/philosophy must take this into account.

Quote
which it is not,
Quote END

By whose authority? You are imposing your moral standards on others. I would no more do so to you than I would do so to a Quaker.

Quote
and ignores the moral standard man must set for ones own self in order to BE moral.

In Libertarianism, as long as you don't initiate force against others, it's all good baby.
Quote END

Is that ALL that Libertarianism requires? Seems too simplistic to me.

Quote
In Objectivism, your own sense of reason should drive you to act in the best possible most rational long term manner in all things. We simply wont' force you to do so.
Quote END

Nothing that you have presented indicates that a Libertarian would either.

Quote

Libertarianism doesn't judge individuals for what they do to themselves. Objectivism does.
Quote END

Ah, there's the rub. As a Libertarian I don't give a rats a$$ what you do. But you want to stand in judgement of me. You can do what you believe is right, by your code, but will judge me - who does not necessarily fully ascribe to that code. Seems a bit hypocritical, don'tcha think?

Quote

That's the gap in the nutshell.
Quote END

#7 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:22 AM
Oh, by the way, Greebo - I wasn't being judgmental (I didn't call you a hypocrite), just pointing out that having one standard for oneself and a different one for others is hypocritical.

#8 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:28 AM

View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 10 July 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:
Greetings,

Interesting subject!

Ms. Rand also derided the conservatives.

Regards,
O.A.
View PostObjectiveAnalyst END

Thank you, I thought so (although Frog seems to believe this has already been hashed over).
AR had a particularly vile opinion of Libertarians. While the thread thus far has concentrated mostly on the moral/philosophical aspects, it is my belief that her revulsion was driven more by personal animus. Nowhere did she deride Liberals or Conservatives as she did Libertarians. I'm looking to discover just why this is, since, as I said, most libertarians cite her works as a linchpin of their philosophy.

#9 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:10 PM

View PostObjectiveAnalyst, on 10 July 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

I don’t believe that all Libertarians are non-judgmental
View PostObjectiveAnalyst END

Clarification

Libertarianism is not judgmental as long as what the individual does initiates no force against others.

Individual libertarians may or may not be judgmental.

#10 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:24 PM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:
Why would you object to that? Initiation of force except in the interest of self-preservation, and generally as the last option, should be wrong. Modern science has made waiting for a first strike to respond a suicide proposition. Thus, a moral code/philosophy must take this into account.
View PostRobbie53024 END

You misunderstand my point.

Objectivism does not disagree with the premise. Objectivism disagrees completely with treating the premise as axiomatic.

You cannot simply start from "Man should not initiate force against other men" - it immediately requires the question: "Why?"
Libertarianism starts with that statement, and fails to consider why it's a true one.

Quote
By whose authority? You are imposing your moral standards on others. I would no more do so to you than I would do so to a Quaker.
Quote END

No, I'm imposing logic on the philosophy. A primary given - that is - an axiom - is that which stands on its own as self evident and cannot be contradicted because in doing so the attempt to contradict the axiom must first accept the axiom as given.

Quote
Is that ALL that Libertarianism requires? Seems too simplistic to me.
Quote END

It is the root principal from which Libertarianism begins, and as such, falls short on the individual morality level.

Quote
Nothing that you have presented indicates that a Libertarian would either.
Quote END

Correct - but nothing in Libertarianism requires you to do so. In Objectivism your own sense of reason will compel you to act in the best possible manner that you can determine.

Quote
Ah, there's the rub. As a Libertarian I don't give a rats a$$ what you do. But you want to stand in judgement of me. You can do what you believe is right, by your code, but will judge me - who does not necessarily fully ascribe to that code. Seems a bit hypocritical, don'tcha think?
Quote END

It's hypocritical for you to claim that you don't give a rats ass about what others do while you sit there clearly judging me for admitting that I WILL judge what you do (despite your later assertion otherwise - you ARE exercising judgment).

Man kind is a voltionally rational animal. It is our sense of reason that allows us to survive - and nothing else. Our ability to survive is not automatic, it is not instinctive, it is a skill we must develop. To fail to exercise judgment is to fail to use reason, which is to fail to exercise our survival skill to its best ability.

In plants and animals, when automatic survival skills fail, the creature suffers. With Man, the same is true. When we fail to judge we fail our future.

So yes, I *will* "sit in judgment" - I will sit in judgment over you and I will sit in judgment over myself. What I will never do is try to compel you to act as I think best. I may, if I judge it worth while, try to tell you when I think you're making a mistake - I also may not - I will be the judge of that. I will simply use my judgment to determine the best course of action FOR ME. If that judgment concludes that your actions are counter productive to me, I will disassociate with you. If they are beneficial to me then I may seek to associate with you, if you're willing.

And you, my dear sir, will AND DO sit in judgment of me as well - you WILL judge what I do, and what I say. You cannot help it. You might refrain from expressing an opinion, but you WILL judge me.

You cannot help it - you're a human - you think.

Right?

#1 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:14 AM
AR disliked Libertarians (and libertarianism) vehemently, yet most libertarians (and many Libertarians) cite Rand, or at least Atlas Shrugged, as a primary influence in them developing their libertarian ideas/philosophy. This is a dichotomy that seems worthy of exploration.

So, is there a philosophical fissure between Objectivism and libertarianism so wide so as to justify the animus, or is the disdain driven by a personal animus that is projected from a specific individual onto an entire body of ideas? Given Ms. Rands personal history, I feel the latter is much more likely.

What say you?

#2 Frog king

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
409 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:21 AM

View PostRobbie53024, on 10 July 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:
This is a dichotomy that seems worthy of exploration.
View PostRobbie53024 END

Been there. Done that.

#3 The Evil Greebo

Advanced Member
Moocher
PipPipPip
442 posts

LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:58 AM
The failing of Libertarianism is an ethical failure - specifically the ethics of one's self.

Libertarianism adopts the tenet that the initiation of force against other is wrong as a primary given, which it is not, and ignores the moral standard man must set for ones own self in order to BE moral.

In Libertarianism, as long as you don't initiate force against others, it's all good baby.
In Objectivism, your own sense of reason should drive you to act in the best possible most rational long term manner in all things. We simply wont' force you to do so.

Libertarianism doesn't judge individuals for what they do to themselves. Objectivism does.

That's the gap in the nutshell.

#4 ObjectiveAnalyst

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
168 posts

LocationOakland county, Mich.

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:40 AM
Greetings,

Interesting subject!

Ms. Rand also derided the conservatives.

Today’s conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are not the same as they once were. Labels have been corrupted and co-opted. Trying to fit all into one label is becoming increasingly more inaccurate.

I don’t believe that all Libertarians are non-judgmental, even if that were an expressed tenet of some. I believe that generally they simply do not feel they have the right to dictate personal activity as long as it does not violate another’s free will. This does not mean they all endorse self abuse.

I also do not believe they have abandoned any sense of maintaining a moral standard for themselves, but here again do not expect others to accept their, yours, or anyone else’s standards for themselves. Each individual has a right to set their own, with the only limit being the non-interference towards others. It is a live and let live philosophy. I can live with that.

Objectivism teaches to judge and be prepared to be judged, but it also does not allow for the initiation of force against one who is simply not towing the objectivist line of morality, unless it is in retaliation of force. In this way it is espousing tolerance in the same way.

Blanket statements are prone to error as I well know…


Regards,
O.A.

#5 Robbie53024

Advanced Member
Producer
PipPipPip
316 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:07 AM

View PostFrog king, on 10 July 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:
Been there. Done that.
View PostFrog king END

On this site? Where?