Devil's Advocate

It's all about the headlines that generate the ratings, that create and sustain a following that wins elections.  The Republican Purge is real, and the midterms will determine its success as political strategy in American politics.  An extended family member of mine recently noted, "Impeachment is just street cred for him," and that pretty much sums up my opinion of The Donald and his Dark Wing.
 
The Donald's 1st term election was unimaginable, until it happened. Former republican opposition candidates undermining the election in Congress on his behalf was unimaginable, until it happened. January 6th was unimaginable, until it happened... and the Dumbercrats continue to campaign as though if only everyone understood what a bastard the Former President is, no one would vote for him, while those who vote for him don't care because, "He's our Bastard!"
The Former President will be restored to office as the party default if the current political trend doesn't produce someone who can beat his political base.  Do you see that coming?  Last go round I gave him and his following 50/50 odds, and this time I think if the Republicans make gains over the Democrats in the midterms, it's their presidential election to lose, if narrowly.
Lady Liberty was raped on January 6th. That's what I think.
 

DA.
"Darker" - because of Trump - or despite him? Not to sing his praises too much, but weren't the shadows already gathering before his time, fully revealing themselves increasingly and disturbingly in only these last few months after his departure?
That's what I was catching strong hints of from the US, pre-2016.
And -possibly- perhaps his shock tactics were in a partial measure of calculated opposition to such forces, which even an unintellectual Trump could recognize were dangerous to the nation.
(Stephen King would say that, being about as Lefty as they come).
Oh and I have been to some shithole and basket case countries in Africa. It was about time they were (crudely) called out, maybe to take stock of themselves rather than this faking pretense by the delicate diplomatic community that all is fine and dandy on the continent. As long as they keep throwing guilt money at the problems there won't be change.

In the episode Who Mourns for Adonais, a gods strength was measured by the quantity of its followers. The Roman goddess Libertas, or her Greek predecessor Elutheria, do not need to shrug under such a premise. 
In J.R.R. Tolkien's book, Gollum's possession of the ring of power had generated whispers of a shadow growing in the area of the mountain he was harbored within. 
Note the focus on the gods, placing them at the center of interest, the object of veneration and love, provides the metaphorical increase in power and influence.
When the 'god' is made to be the loss of liberty, its degradation, its erosion — to what would the conversed 'metaphorical increase' apply?
Yes, what goes on in the world need be taken into consideration. There is also the the adage regarding one finding what one seeks, i.e.; if one is focused on finding negative, is it any surprise that negative is found? 

Not so long as we're able to argue for her long-overdue restoration. I cannot tell how far away that point is from the present (and I have been trying) but we're not there yet. When we get there I'll make sure to let you know where all the best spots are down by my river.
 
Also, I don't think "dark lord of the Republican empire" is too much at all.
Ayn Rand opposed Ronald Reagan (in her own words) because of his embrace of the religious right, which she thought would destroy anything which had been good about the Republicans before that. As a millennial it's not easy for me to picture what the Republicans were before Reagan but in my own lifetime the hardcore mysticism has been one of their main vices (and by far the thing I personally find most annoying about them).
Trump seems to have actually countered that specific trend to some extent. He never pretended to be too religious, and in his wake that issue seems to be dying out among his sycophants. But I too am waiting for the other shoe to drop, in terms of what exactly replaces it.
I agree with Yaron Brook that Trump may well have already destroyed any good there was in the right wing of this country. And I think your characterization is basically correct.
 
My river is the Rum River, though. Its name currently doesn't align too well with reality, but maybe we can do something about that! Newcomers must bring their own supplies, of course. 

That would be nice, but more like I'm exposing something that I say, and I think it's bad. I guess we could say that you weren't expecting some sort of... Spanish Inquisition.
It is still a method of asserting authoritarianism or dictatorship. Julius Caesar did the same sort of thing, where he used his own army to assert authority over the Senate to create the Roman empire. And as I recall, Machiavelli would argue that overt military action is less effective than making sure people love you and rally behind you rather than strictly using fear.
Having the charisma alone to convince the the military to stand down (without an existing mechanism of the government to accomplish the same thing) makes this general a military dictator. Maybe you like him, but he is still a dictator. No one is controlling that military except for the general. There is no check on the general. You rely on him to be virtuous and good, assuming that he would only use the military against the initiation of force. There is no example from history where there was a charismatic general where there was anything but dictatorship in the end. The only way I see to avoid this is to starting the government which immediately implements checks and balances, effectively a new constitution.

That is actually a bit abnormal. If I remember correctly (and I'm speaking purely off-the-cuff here on a cigarette break, so I may not be) I believe most people think primarily in auditory fashion, as a sort of "inner monologue". I know that's the way I do (although I almost always have an inner soundtrack playing as well).
So congratulations - you're slightly abnormal! Maybe that's why you don't seem to be recognizing the secret passphrase ...

Nope. Just waiting to confirm or deny your status as a closet Q-drop addict.

Political Philosophy
Political philosophy, capitalism, rights, law
For current topics, post in Current Events
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It looks like this thread may have been more properly "Current Events" than here, as I see little to no political philosophy in the thread, all through it. Be that as it may, DA, here's my two cents worth on your post two before last. (Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner; my hands were simply out getting dirty pulling weeds.)
No. Do not suppose Atlas in its producers-going-on-strike is the world you live in or ever have or will live in. I read Atlas ten years after it was issued. I was a young man and supposed the government powers and initiatives projected in Atlas were unfolding around me. I thought for sure that was the story of the real and darkening world around me when Nixon imposed wage and price controls. That was a low point.
Many terrible steps have been taken by our government, but if one reads the government steps in Atlas, they simply have not been taken in all these decades in the real world. (I noticed that during the financial meltdown during Bush-Obama, nationalization of the banks was not a seriously considered option; in earlier eras of this country, it would have been.) From my own perspective, the worst thing going on in the last couple of decades with the government is unbalanced budgets. Debt, debt, debt. The little one can do about that is make that one's top issue in discussing political problems. During the 2020 Primary interval, one Independent and one Republican tried to make that their top issue in their Presidential bids. Both found there was no interest among the voters, and they soon ended their campaigns. Still, I think the issue must be gotten to the top for the future of our country. Notice this is not an issue one learns about from or is tops in Atlas. That's not a criticism of the politics in Atlas, only of real people with mythology and handwaving in place of seeing one's real surrounding world and what is more important in the political scene, seeing through all the diversions of culture wars and sloganeering.
But most importantly, locally, individually, is one's controls of one's own life. No, do not withdraw. Some of my young comrades in the '70's were saying withdraw. No. They were wrong, and it would still be wrong. Try to make money for yourself and your family. Try to get more and more education. That is what I did, and, with some good fortune in the mix, I've had a good life. I think that is still the way to make for one's life and happiness, right here, right now in this country.

Some time ago, in another Objectivist Forum, a poster noted that I appeared to assemble information in the form of images as, I guess a kind of transformation of written content.  I do tend to think in terms of images, but as that is natural and unremarkable to me, I haven't any idea how different this may be generally.
On reflection, my hope is that it is unique. I'd like to be really good at something no one else does!

Not-Neil responding: I believe Americans have too much (or misunderstand inherent rights) when they demand a right to freedom from want.

Certainly.  If I remove myself from society, the rest of the world will continue turning just fine without me - only I won't have to deal with them.  That's the point.
This is so weird.
 
To recap, DA mentioned the possibility of Trump being "reinstated" either through the courts or reelection.  Alright; one can argue about whether or not the courts are going to do anything about this last election (and if one was feeling particularly uncharitable one might even characterize such an idea as a bit unhinged) but it's neither advocating violence nor conspiracy theories.  Even if he were advocating a conspiracy theory why wouldn't we hear it out and then (if it is, in fact, a conspiracy theory) pick it apart like we would with any other bad theory?
Why do you need to know DA's real name?  Are we not going to consider any of his arguments unless they're accompanied by a social security number and a DNA sample?
 
@Devil's Advocate I don't care if you're this Neil character or not.  I'm not sure we'll agree about the answer to the OP and I'm confident we do not agree about what happened this last election - and that's okay.  I don't need to see your papers.

Well, not "to shrug". Although I like this telling paraphrase regarding the (con)temporary state of America (as I and many others view it).
(I had said pre-US elections that coming off a higher base than anywhere in a greying, long-compromised Western world, it would be the ~relative~ drop of liberty/freedom - by her own standard - that would hurt America. There would not be a complete collapse, like in AS. You would never fall to Venezuelan and Zimbabwean levels, as some misleading, alarmist, examples given, but the moral damage would be greater).
Not to shrug then. But to see this phase through with moral grit and intellectual conviction, with zero or the minimum of sacrifice and self-sacrifice. Never a conflict, that could cause more irreparable harm than would be worth it.
 Atlas Shrugged ends with: "We are going back to the world". Of course, returning to reality after a break and now work to be begun again. You and we all, haven't the opt-out choice the strikers had, one must remain here in the world.

For the sake of the children,
If you saw Lady Liberty, the giant who holds the free world on her shoulders, if you saw that she stood, blood running down her chest, her knees buckling, her arms trembling but still trying to hold her torch aloft with the last of her strength, and the greater her effort the heavier the looters and their children bore down upon her shoulders demanding freedom from want - What would you tell her?
(Ayn Rand's Francisco d'Anconia, paraphrased)

Until what passes for republicans today can win elections without The Donald, nutty is as nutty does.

I believe that January 6th was an insurrection promoted by republican party seditionists, to state it bluntly. You may judge me by that.
My question (restated) is, "Should the Statue of Liberty shrug off securing the 'Blessings of Liberty' in order to drive home the need to secure it?"

That she shouldn't have blindfolded her sister?

I see that literature is another one, and if you include movies, it seems there's quite a bit more fascination today with zombies and vampires; Is this the reflection of philosophically lifeless society? I'm a big fan of Sci-Fi, and a diehard Trekker, so I kinda see today's literature as an appeal to cynicism (as opposed to "boldly going where no man has gone before"), or a validation of Jimi Hendrix's, "there ain't no life no where", but perhaps I'm reading too much into it...

A continuity?
The inevitability of mass deaths, corrupt leadership and poor living conditions used to justify a "no worse off" argument for what happened to native populations is counter-factual too, n'est-ce pas?  What occurred was exposure to formidable interlopers whose actions demonstrated the practice of "might makes right", regardless of how they spoke about it. And that lesson was learned, went viral and continues to rationalize the actions of those who vie for power today.
Therefore, I'm inclined to believe the practice of colonialism, imperialism and the like are immoral, regardless of whatever incidental benefits fall as scraps from the interloper's table, because the ends do not justify the means.
Perhaps the Trader Principle is an unknown ideal too?

In conclusion, and for clarity, my position is that the Golden Rule, aka Ethic of Reciprocity, IS the basis of rights, and specifically the Right to Life.  When you speak of justice, you are endorsing equity which is what the Golden Rule measures, i.e., are your actions towards others consistent with what you expect from others with respect to having a right to those actions.  You are the moral benchmark, i.e., it is the quality of your selfishness that is being judged.  In this respect, the Golden Rule is entirely consistent not only with Objectivism*, but with most religious, philosophic views** regarding the nature of man and his relationship with his fellow man.
 
In reviewing material from ARL, the following statement* expresses what I agree with and base my argument on:
"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ Individual Rights
 
If this is not an application of the rule, then it is at the very least a reflection of what the rule validates.  While I fully appreciate Objectivist aversion to all things Kant and catagorical imperatives, to dismiss the ethic of reciprocity by association with Kant or altruism is to throw the baby out with the bath water.  I have tried to the best of my ability, to respond to every criticism of the rule, and if I have fallen short of being persuasive the fault is mine.
--
* http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

I voted Johnson/Weld based on their credentials as two term red governors of blue states, and their rejection of the current duopoly.  I also changed my political affiliation from republican to libertarian based on a party platform of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (in that order).  They (and myself) may not represent the best political expression of Objectivism, but are at least making an effort to re-shape politics into a more positive approach of securing the rights and properties of individuals.

This assertion is not backed by facts. The 1929 depression had people up in arms. Their solution was FDR. In the recent "great recession", Bush et al got most of the blame. We got 8 years of Obama. Now, the 8 years of wallowing has turned many people against Obama and they're looking to Trump. Go back in history and you find Germany in severe crisis -- hyperinflation that basically wiped out all debt, the French re-taking parts of Germany between the two wars. People were anxious and turned to Hitler. 
Assertions like this are baseless unless you can provide counter-examples from history. Without that, it is like saying "if I heat water, maybe it will freeze".
The key flaw is thinking that politicians and the "elite" classes are the real problem. In fact, your average voter is the kernel of the problem. He only gets the politicians he deserves.

Good point Repairman.
I think my only rebuttal would be that Nature, warts and all, is still worthy of reverence, because even its less desirable aspects remain subject to intelligible and consistent rules of behavior. Which implies there will always be rational cures for the ills that beset us due to our momentary ignorance of them.  It is a 'God', if you will, that one can aspire to become knowledgeable about, and by doing so, command.  Here again I am relying heavily on Francis Bacon's observation, which I hold to be true.

Speak for yourself, brother!
Nicky is correct*
America is founded on the premise that all individuals have an inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The moral limitation to such a right is non-aggression.  Simply put, you are free to take actions that further your life so long as those actions don't impede another individual's equal right.  A moral society (of individuals) doesn't create this right; it secures it.  It certainly does not prohibit others from enjoying it based on nationality.
It is both legally and morally proper for a land owner to prohibit unwelcome use of their property, but of course that doesn't entitle them to assert who is or isn't welcome on another individual's land.  America as such, is "owned" by consensus, which is why issues like illegal immigration remain contentious.  Farm owners, landlords and businesses tend to view non-citizens as potential workers, tenants and customers, whereas supporters of Darkwing Donald, et al, tend to view non-citizens as potential threats.  The problem is the argument cannot be resolved in terms of potentials, because either you risk tossing the baby out with the bathwater, or allowing a fox into the hen house.
The proper social context for using force is to respond to actual aggression against individual lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness, and not those conjured up by jingoists.
--
* http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/14/ayn-rand-was-an-illegal-immigrant

My reading of Ayn Rand's statement is that regardless of intelligence, looters only survive to the degree that there remain producers to loot.  Therefore the ultimate destruction of the looters who don't get caught is one of exhausting their resource for survival.  So whatever momentary success a looter enjoys, his means of survival is self-destructive if practiced consistently.
Spock: "To hunt a species to extinction is not logical." ~ Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Libertarians have established themselves as a party on the fringe, something like a political wing of anarchists.  Perot and Paul added credibility, and having two former governors now helps, but they won't become a viable alternative party unless  they can maintain a presence in the presidential debates.  I'm encouraged that Johnson's percentage hasn't leveled off yet, he's likable, and handles interviews well.  We'll see what comes of it, but his participation adds a refreshing element to an otherwise dismal choice between the crazy uncle and shrill aunt brawling in the gutter.
At this point I'm just looking for someone to vote for without feeling the need to shower afterwards.