Repairman

Tadmjones: I knew you were alright. No sweat. No accusations here. My approach to Objectivism is somewhat less than the profoundly academic philosophy students responding on this site. So far, it appears no one is going hostile here, and we, the rational, survive. As we experience greater acceptance of self-identified atheists, I expect some confusion from people of faith, but much less confusion here among us. Much of the hostility toward atheists is the result of misunderstanding. Consider this, Marx and Rand were both atheists. Most Americans know of neither Marx nor Rand.

I have just returned from making a quick look at the Wikipedia article on Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wisconsin. While this is my initial impression, and not a thorough one, it seems they have a record of interloping in local governments' use of religious symbols, as well as overseeing and intervening where taxpayers' dollars are used to support Christianity in a variety of ways. And they have privately funded advertisements crudely discrediting Christianity. So far, I don't know if they suppress other religions with equal fervor. The use of taxpayers' dollars is not a small matter in a nation that is supposed to have no established religion, that is, Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion. As for local laws, my view is: it is a local matter, and if local atheists feel oppressed, they have a right to protest. FFRF provides the funds to fight on behalf of the local atheist(s). This subject may be better prosecuted on another thread, but I urge my fellow Objectivists to remember that taxes are not optional; government forces that wealth from its citizens, and spends it anyway they wish. Do you wish to promote Christianity by force? I do not foresee an American theocracy approaching any time soon. But in incremental measurements, our freedom is eroding. I will continue to support the rights of my Christian friends in their efforts to practice their religion(s) as they harmlessly do so. But I cannot condone the use for taxation to fund the promotion of religions, no matter how popular they are.

If atheism is not a "core tenet" of Objectivism, could we agree the objective reality is the standard of metaphysics? Atheism is a convenient term, if not the exact and most correct term, as I applied it in an earlier reply. Specifically, this thread was probing the possibility superimposing "faith" with Objectivism. More specifically, it asked how men of "faith" can consider themselves Objectivists. Is their anyone who can explain their theology, and prove it to be a matter of objective reality? Make your case.

I think we, on this forum, can agree that altruism and Christianity have a common root, and that atheism can be condemned, when coupled with brute force. The big burr in my saddle is that religious trends for more than 40 years in the US have had mainstream protection up until recently. As atheism emerges from out of its closet, people of faith struggle to shove it back in. I do not think of "winning" when as atheism is granted a wider hearing. I do not wish to suppress any one person of religion or superstitious practice. But are we forgetting that atheism, aside from being a core tenet of Objectivism, is a willful recognition of reality, rather than a suspension of disbelief? In public places, being an acknowledged atheist can still draw overwhelming condemnation in many quarters. We all have friends with whom we share much in common, in spite of their Christian or other mystic beliefs. But so far, I know of only one self-identified atheist in The House of Representatives, and as far as I can tell, outside of California, being an openly atheist candidate would be futile. Article 6, section 3 of the US Constitution prohibits any religious test for high office. And yet, the majority of our "modern" voters can't get past the fact that the Founders were NOT so devout as they wish their current legislators to be. I realize I have strayed a bit from the original argument, but when I hear of people that wish to dilute politics, I shrug it off. When I hear of people trying to dilute Objectivism, I will not have it.

Perhaps, but I'm not one of them. The latter that is.

Of course, I'm not ignoring the Marxists. But true to my quote, I've never met one, that is, never met one that had any aggressive posture in his argument. Also true to my claim, I do not condemn any individual for the flaw of being a Christian; I do not judge them as a collective. Indeed, many Christians I know are quite decent, and I suppose I'm not sociable enough to know all that many atheists. There are few people with whom I learn of their religious or philosophical inspirations, but I do know quite a few Christians who might be "voted out of the Pearly Gates," if the majority of their fellow Christians had a vote on the matter. Please grant me some credit; those Christians can be a swell bunch,; some are my best of friends. But I have often seen in them that "deer-in-the-head-lights" look when the discussion gets "too real." Furthermore, your quote may give one the impression that all 20th century atheists were eager to commit mass murder. Certainly there were more than a few Marxist-Leninists that really sought to do good in the world, and at least one openly atheist philosopher that opposed the trend of socialism.

If there is a cause to unite behind, it is the advocacy of an individual's rights. The individual is the ultimate minority. As individuals, many Christians I know are decent and constructive people, while a few others are irrational to the point of being a general nuisance. The politically active Christian elements in the US are the worst, and my tolerance for their arrogance has shifted my opinion on the Culture War. To my friend in South Africa, I wish you could experience the full-scale assault on reason first-hand. It absolutely justifies the provocations of Darwinian advocates, atheists, agnostics, or others; I would even include Satanists and nihilists, if one wished to list the lot of them. But seriously, by simply saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, you abandon the real argument. When the state enforces an altruistic policy, it is channeling a moral policy procured from religious texts. The late-19th century American Populists ushered in the Progressive Era by insisting that Christianity dictated such policies. This insanity has never lost its momentum. The opposing camps of "liberals" and "conservatives" both often use religion as a vanguard in their arguments. Atheist-statists use altruism. I could never feel a smidgeon of respect for anyone advocating government policy based on either religion or altruism. If it is an individual(s) who wish to have a super invisible friend, named Jesus, I am not here to burst his or her bubble, but I would point out the folly of government action guided by his or her "friend." Objectivism offers causality to the argument. It offers no quarter to the pragmatist or practical compromise.

While I can agree with you in regard to character, I am not going to respect convictions when those convictions include the initiation of violence. In my life, I have met many people of faith who become violently irrational, whether verbally abusive or physically, when confronted with someone who challenges their beliefs. As I've said earlier, I may not agree with my Christian friends about their superstitions and fantasies, but I will defend their rights to hold and express them. This does not apply to all people of religious faith. Some wish to impose an Islamic Kalifate on the world. The Catholics held much of Western Europe in theocratic tyranny for centuries. The Russian Orthodox Church enabled the Czar to suppress human nature and impose slavery until the Bolsheviks re-established the same evil. I have met people who openly admit that they would approve of another theocratic dictatorship, as long as that order imposes the religion of their choice. Excuse me if I cannot sympathize, but I will not respect such convictions. These people need to be confronted with the truth. If we can have a secular government until we have a rational society, I have no complaints. But there are far too many in power who wish to shut off the lights of The Enlightenment.

On the subject of "militant atheism," I have yet to meet anyone willing to physically fight anyone else as a means of expressing a belief. However, I have met people who are willing to engage in physical violence as means of expressing their mystic, in this case, Christian belief. Such people are rare, and this is one reason that reason is muted in our American society. The Culture War, for lack of a better term, has a subtly brutal dimension. So, where is the forum for reason? Unfortunately, THIS website maybe the only forum. Religion, and tolerance of diverse beliefs, is the predominant philosophy of our times. I don't know what more I can say; my disapproval of oppressive majorities worsens everyday.

Reconcile faith and Objectivism, no, it ain't happenin'. While I have had discussions with avowed Christians with whom I can agree on many things, the subject of why we agree is one which I avoid, if I value the relationship. I can respect a person for their behavior, but when I have a Christian friend, I make it known that my philosophy is not compatible with his or her faith. I have had discussions with an avowed atheist, with whom I felt the need to point out that people need the freedom to express their beliefs every bit as much as anyone. As a self-proclaimed Objectivist, I may hold opinions that differ from other Objectivists, but not on matters of faith. One of the most important premises of Objectivism is that reality presents its own validation, and therefore requires no subjective or mystical claim of morality. While I still defend the rights of Christians to believe in fantasies, I do not judge them as a collective. America's on-going Culture War has no quarters for Objectivists. You might say, we're in a no-man's land. The "right" reject atheism; the "left" cling to altruism and collectivism. No matter how weak the defense, people of mystic persuasion will refuse to abandon their beliefs, and I have long ago learned not to attempt to persuade them. However, if one finds a particularly obnoxious hypocritical holy-roller, let'em have it. I recommend softwareNerd's thread, mentioned above.

For what it's worth, we are technically still at war with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, (North Korea). United States lead the effort to secure an armistice in 1953, but so far, there has never been a formal treaty ending the conflict. In the realm of hypothetical situations, the scenario of a preemptive strike might be justified. I would not wish to construct such a hypothetical. Brinksmanship has been the order of the day, with the exception of the numerous invasions undertaken by the US. Full-scale war with a power armed with nuclear weapons has been the nightmare of strategic planners since the atomic bomb became a reality. I have many thoughts of the Cold War, and the recent crisis in Syria, but I don't think those thoughts directly relate to the question. But the short answer is, yes, in certain circumstances.

While I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know all of the facts surrounding your case, nonetheless, Steve, you have my sympathies. I support 2nd Amendment rights for US citizens, and yet there are some people who, by their past behavior, should be restricted, not saying you're one of them. With that, I would appreciate a chance to address your opening question: Are there flaws in the Founder's Constitution. Short answer: Yes. Aside from accepting slavery for a portion of the population, there were only a few in the wording of the Preamble. The slave issue was, by far, the hottest. All debate on the subject was to postponed until after 1800, or 1810, or some such time when things had settled out. Five slaves counted for three electoral votes; seems rather nutty today. One of the debated phrases that found its way into the Preamble was the explicit purpose to "promote the general welfare." Opponents of this phrase recognized it for what it was, and it has been applied to various arguments leading to our current welfare state. If you look at the wording of the Confederate constitution, 1860, the Southerners omitted this clause, and otherwise transposed the wording of the original. That is, with one other major exception: The Southerner included a reference to "God" thereby invoking his "blessings" on the slave-holding nation. Omitting god, (or gods) from the Constitution was also debated, and the rational founders won out, quite fortunately. Perhaps my inclusion of the Southern Constitution may seem like too much information, but it is relevant to illustrating the ideas in play during the nations early construction.

I believe entrepreneurs will continue to struggle for their niche in the market; larger industrialists will dominate. All those truly committed to their success will face growing difficulties, but some will rise to the challenge in spite of difficulties. I realize that these are banal statements, but these are basically the sentiments I expressed to one young man interested in Atlas Shrugged, and the possibilities of a "Strike" of this sort. In addition, I believe there are multitudes of ambitious, creative, and able men and women who will abandon their dreams for either the allure of secure employment, or the pressure of barriers created through government agencies. This is the sort of strike that Rand alluded to at one point in Galt's Speech. John Galt faced the possibility of having his greatest achievement made property of a company that would misuse the profits, and deny his creative contribution. Many great minds leave their employers to go into their own independent operations. These are the men and women to whom we all own our thanks, and we can only hope they never go on strike.

Let's not forget this week marks the 100th birthday of the Federal Reserve System, signed into law by President Wilson in 1913! OH BOY! ... Why do I not hear of any national celebrations of this glorious event? Let's see, the Great Depression, the Stagflation of the 1970s, and most recently, the Great Recession. It's enough to give one a greater appreciation for JP Morgan. But seriously, there have been a few articles written on the metaphoric significance of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, by Frank L. Baum, and how this children's fantasy reflected the Populist Movement at the end of the 19th Century, and the demand for "soft" money. Anyone searching for greater understanding of America's banking history might find it an amusing connect between Oz, and the once (oz.) of silver. If any cares, I could look for one of the articles or Youtube presentations that actually explain the symbolism.

I would argue that the best way to make a national government "safe" is to have the strongest possible currency note. The United States could have taken that road, when President Clinton was making policy regarding the revenue surplus. At one point, he mentioned the national debt, which I believe would have been by far the most moral and sensible pursuit. Profits and earnings are for private businesses. Balances books are for the public sector. In any realistic case, the best way today to "raise money" in the treasury, would be to decrease spending money through government.

The United States is not likely to alter its present course on immigration. It should be noted that both mainstream parties are embracing amnesty, or any other toothless compromise that "guarantees" votes. As suggested with selected quotes above, there are solutions to America's immigration dilemma, but they would not be politically possible at this time. Perhaps it the hypothetical Republic of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, one of the constitutional requirements for citizenship would be some form of literacy test, (also politically unpopular), along with some other voter's responsibilities. It is the misfortune of the US that so many of our residents embrace the morality of the welfare state, with no clue as to its long term effects on the lives of individuals. Whether non-citizen or native, I often hear people quite casually expressing praise for the "good deal" made possible by the "Fair Deal, New Deal, Square Deal, Great Society, and the Big F***ing Deal(s)."

Another recommendation is simply checking out the Sparks Notes of Atlas Shrugged. I did that several years before actually reading the full novel, and it didn't ruin anything for me. Also, here is an exceptional visual interpretation with a reading of John Galt's speech: While the full reading in not complete, (the full reading could take up to 3 hours), I often let it play in the background for inspiration.

Lotteries were used to build some of the first highways in America. War bonds were one means to generate funding during several of America's wars. Leonid is quite right about using insurance companies to accomplish many of the services mismanaged through government. There are a number of Youtube presentations illustrating various ways to use market solutions to replace government services. I would be cautious of government ambitions of "making money", or government for profit. I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but if setting government on a mission to secure wealth within its treasury vaults, they will be tempted to use immoral methods.

A splendid rhetorical question. Indeed, if the LFC is to be sustainable, it would require its citizens to learn the processes and principles, the pros and cons of capitalism, although it would not be a compulsory education, (obviously, or it would not be laissez-faire society.) To establish such a society, the members, and their children, would need to have private schools unlike any I have any knowledge of. Objectivism would be my choice of requirements in a school for any of my children, while for others, let them choose. But it is the society that forms the nation, not the nation that forms the society. Back to the original question of foreign trade, all of the same principles of classic economics apply. A truly free nation could trade freely, and international treaties could address the problem of copyright infringement, or theft. Could we have this nation? Probably not in our lifetime. As Dreamweaver pointed out, education is critical. I think I would add that, in my opinion, the eligible voters of this society have some requirements, as we in the USA have. But my requirements would be more strict, such as having enough literary skills to read and understand some rudimentary transcript of law and history, in the national language. If the basic problem of ignorance is diminished, other problems become so much easier. As it is right now, the United States is so dependent on transfer programs for upper, lower, and middle classes that repealing any of these laws would result in almost certain political suicide for the party of repeal.

I am in full agreement with any statement regarding educational reforms, especially those leading to the elimination of public education as it exist in present-day USA. The LFC nation, that is, the functional nation of rational people committed to free-market principles would not fear currency-manipulators, import-dumping, or slave-labor nations, (assuming LFC has impregnable defenses.) One concern that LFC might face is an ignorant and irrational immigrant population. I am by no means hostile toward entrepreneurial or professional immigrants, or even low-skilled laborers with the proper orientation and attitude necessary for a demanding and competitive economy. As long as every individual within a set national border understands their own responsibility for their own sake, immigration would not be a problem. Prevention of popular action through government, in favor of principled action, would be one of the fundamental goals of the LFC. The United States Constitution was supposed to do exactly that: limit the power of government on a federal level. However, the reality of history, or the reality of those times, demanded the new government to impose many of the same neo-merchantile trade restrictions as its trading partners. From this, the US economy was "tainted," and preserved as the majority wished it to be preserved. The steps toward greater free-trade are being taken, but the activity within the US borders are going in the opposite direction. It is a noteworthy irony that one of the questions presented to immigrant to the US asks what America's economic system is called: Capitalism. I wonder why most native-born citizens couldn't explain the difference between capitalism and communism. My answer: public schools.

The World Trade Organization is established, in part, for the purpose of lowering trade barriers. I would encourage anyone to learn more about the WTO, and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. There is a great body of history behind global trade, from the Silk Road, to Columbus, to the low point of global trade that prefaced World War 2. While the WTO is a bit mysterious, it is a forum for trading nations allowing them to negotiate, which is certainly one of the primary solutions to anti-capitalist sentiments endemic to all national governments. It must be frustrating, perhaps even dangerous, for a national leader to tell a part of his constituents that they have been screwed as a result of a treaty with a foreign power. Torches and pitchforks come out in full force, when the folks at home find out that new trade quotas have put them out of their lively-hood. It is always more comfortable for the leader to tell his people, "We will NOT allow foreign imports to threaten our jobs!," while charging higher prices for the domestic product(s), and very likely, laying off the people later, under the next regime. (Let the next chump take the blame.) Explaining this to my union brothers never goes over well. Nonetheless, it is vital that the basics of classic economics is understood by as many rational people as possible.

This topic is one of interest to me, and I am glad some to see some discussion on it. If I don't respond fast enough, it is only because I work full-time, and look after my own properties. As I see it, America's mix economy is largely responsible for setting a standard for modern-industrialized nations more than any other. Historically, England, France, and Germany were leading models. Their economies had always had some sort of paternalism or protectionism corrupting industrial growth in Europe. As the United States developed its industries, trade barriers were also established, although the lack of paternalism of government regulation allowed rapid growth, and the shear geographic size of the New World industrial power ensured an expanding market. Even with foreign trade-barrier, we could price our goods competitively. Higher wages and lower land prices drew the best of Europe's craftsmen and farmers to America. European economies suffered from militaristic ambitions, and burdensome aristocrats interested mainly in maintaining their regal life-styles. So, corrupted market economies are nothing new in Europe, therefore their former colonies find them acceptable for their nations. After two world wars and one Cold War corrupted the US economy, US workers and industrialists alike find "specific policies" of a corrupted economy acceptable. I don't wish to argue whether or not those wars were necessary, but President Dwight Eisenhower himself warned our nation against the forces of an "military-industrial complex," the nucleus of an expanded corporate welfare state. If I may use a metaphor: How does one put the genie back in the bottle? It is true that other nation will try to "conquer" American markets, once we lower our trade barrier, reduce subsidies, or attempt to deconstruct the corporate welfare state. And in addition, the unemployment rates would, for an unknown period, escalate into armies of disgruntled mobs. Part of the solution is to attempt to educate the mob before the crisis arises. So far as I can see, that ain't gonna happen. People have abandoned reason and self-interest, in favor bromides, cult-of-personality politics, or "painless" injections of stimulus. I don't wish to say, "I'm stumped," but we've all seen the riots against the World Trade Organization, the Occupy Movement, the blather of Tea Party populists, and frankly, ignorance has the overwhelming strength in numbers. Our "democracy" is failing.

By "tainted," are you referring to price manipulation, such as those commonly in practice? For example, most national economies subsidize their oil companies in order to reduce the price of the barrel, thereby making it competitively priced with other nations' oil exports. I admit, I am not an expert in these commodities, or nationalized industries, but I know it is a common practice, even in the United States.

Engaging in argument is often much like the rough-housing and school yard fighting guys go through in junior high school. I agree with JASKN, in that there is little benefit to arguing for the sake of argument, with the exception of simply improving your arguing skills. Over the years, I have found that you rarely ever change anyone's mind, and that they have to arrive at the shared understanding on their own. If one is ignorant, or short of facts on a subject, there is no shame in admitting that it is not an issue you have much interest in. State some generally accepted (and documented) facts as to why you hold the opinion you have, and leave the other guy to his. If it is a matter of genuine interest, whether of a material or abstract nature, be prepared. Have your opinion supported with a solid premise. As Rand was often quoted, "check your premises." Incidentally, I never liked rough-housing on the playground, but I was always bigger than the others. I didn't have to.

If your book club includes non-fiction, my I suggest, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. Of the published works of Ayn Rand, this was the second book I read, after The Virtue of Selfishness. It depends on whether you prefer fictional literature, or ideological essays. I prefer straight non-fiction to the former.