valjean

I haven't been here long enough to make a judgement on you in particular--but I disagree with most of what iouswuoibev said. I form definite opinions of people on forums over time--including a few people here (without having to look back at their posts). I personally think your question is a valid one to ask if you did for the right reasons; of course, the scope and appropriate subjects of this forum are up to the people who are in charge, though.

It's very inspiring to see that you've changed your ways. Don't worry about forgiveness anymore. The only person that can forgive you is yourself. You acted to promote your values--that is admirable; you just had the wrong values because somebody had tricked you first. P.S. There is a song by Morrissey called "I have forgiven Jesus" which you may be interested in.

Thanks to everyone who's helped out in this thread. I understand now!!!

I get social security money. It's hard to deal with the horrible government beaurocracy; I hate going to the Social Security office and dealing with people who cannot speak English and having to sit there and state why I want money from some idiot employee who loses my records, etc. They play a looping informational video in the background nonstop and it's so dumbed down in every way that it's about on a third grade level. I am eligible because I have one severely disabled parent and one deceased parent and thus qualify for it. I do it only because I am simply taking back a small part of the money my father paid into Social Security for so many years. And it makes me so sick to have to do it (have to in that it'd be stupid to throw away the money, although I don't need it to survive). I just want to puke. Is it okay to cheat the government out of money, since it itself cheats people out of their money? Even if (unlike my case) you're not just drawing out money your parents put in?

Spano--what you're saying seems the same as the point softwareNerd made about god being arbitrary. I guess, to answer your quesion softwareNerd, that there are no facts that could be used to prove that gremlins don't exist. Same goes for god. Can't seem to prove or disprove the bugger. Sorry I didn't thourougly search earlier. I think I'd just find what I'm finding here and be unconvinced.

Some say god wouldn't have to follow logic, but logic could still exist and knowledge could still be obtained. So this doesn't fully answer my question. Decartes, specifically, argues that God can make 2+2=5, a square have 5 sides, and can lift a stone heavier than he can lift. agnonstic n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. atheist n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (both from dictionary.com) softwareNerd - despite God's existence being arbitrary, I still think it would take facts to say affirmatively that God does not exist. So agnosticism still seems to make more sense. Practically, for me, being an agnostic or an atheist would make no difference--but in theorey it does matter. Thanks to everyone who's participated so far--I had outside help with the Descartes thing. Please continue to point out logical fallacies in anything I've said or try to explain better to me the Objectivist position regarding atheism (if there is anything else to be said for it).

I haven't read any of Rand's nonfiction yet besides The Romantic Manifesto, so I am honestly asking this question and not trying to argue it. I see that Rand advocated reason, but I don't see how God can be disproven and thus how Rand could have been an atheist and not an agnostic. Could someone please explain her position specifically? Or point me to a place online where I can read about this from an Objectivist standpoint? I recently heard some talk about the nature of infinity etc. -- I don't think you can convince me with that because it was too abstract for me to really, truly understand unless it can be explained very coherently. Thanks!!

I'll take OR as well, except perhaps the justification bit. I don't necessarily know that starting this war was in anyone's best interest, and I don't know that continuing it is, either. It would be different if we had done it properly. Although still not necessarily justified, especially considering the fact that the justification--to destroy weapons of mass destruction--has been invalidated by Bush's admittance that there were none there.

Having a bill that would cause the close relatives of Republicans to be drafted if a draft were instituted would make me feel much safer than I do now. They wouldn't go against their own (irrational, albeit) self-interest! That doesn't mean I don't think Rangel and the other idiots aren't Democrats. I mean, Rangel and the other Democrats aren't idiots. The draft is a possibility, but it would be much more reasonable for the national leaders to withdraw from prolonged conflict than to try to reinstitute a draft if it comes down to a choice between the two, and I think even they would realize that. Giving up in Iraq would be better than trying to fight two wars--one there and one on our college campuses, as has already been mentioned. P.S. The Objectivists should make their own island nation... or perhaps there already is one? We wouldn't know, would we? *Edited by valjean for spelling.

I agree with this. The police corporations could easily give orders to the government, rather than taking orders from it, if things got just slightly unbalanced.

What I meant by a "neutral force" is that, for the intents and purposes of the U.S., they are neither enemy combatants nor legally allied to us. I don't believe the Iraqi people are sentimentally neutral... they probably resent our occupation, but i don't think we can call them, as a body, "the enemy" until every single Iraqi adult takes up arms against us. The people of Britain weren't the enemy in the Revolutionary War. The Japanese people, who supposedly would have fought to the last man in World War II (or so our textbooks tell us), WERE the enemy and that's why we can have a resonable discussion about he morality of nuking them.

GC's cat analogy earlier is interesting but real biologists have specific definitions for cats that are objectively true (ALL cats can reproduce with ALL cats of the opposite gender, thus making a unique species which can be confirmed genetically). In the same sense, as a real philosopher, I'd expect Rand to have specific definitions of her words and to mean precisely what she says. Generally this IS true for her, and this is the first time I've run across anything like this: I think this is the core of our current argument: It seems that Rand just plain didn't mean precisely what she said, and Eric Mathis (hope you don't mind if i speak for you here) and I have trouble accepting that (although at this point I do unhappily accept it). The suggestion that the government would solely contract out to corporations was an attempt to reconcile Rand's words with practicality, but since the government certainly must have private property in the form of money to operate, it seems that there can be no reconciliation.

The Iraqi government must be our ally because we are occupying their country; they have no other option right now. It came into existence because the US held elections and we would do away with it if it didn't cooperate with the US. The Iraqi people are a neutral force (in the same way the French are), and the insurgents--and only them specifically--are the enemy.

I see what Eric Mathis is saying. Clearly, Rand stated that "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” Apparently, that is not exactly what she meant. I'm uncomfortable with this (she's usually so specific and precise). Perhaps we need to check our premises--including having a look at the entire passage wherein that statement is contained. Because yes, in general, Rand did say what she literally meant, and wanted to be taken literally. y_feldblum's comments were helpful but don't totally clear it up. (P.S.--government contracting out to private corporations is NOT anarchism; having private corporations in control IS.)

In the thread "America Won't Defeat the Insurgency," MisterSwig insists that "Iraq" is the "enemy." I insist that "Iraq" is the "enemy" in no sense of these words--the Iraqi government is semi-soverign and allied with the U.S., and a small percentage of the Iraqi people are the "enemy" (i.e. enemy combatants). I created this thread so we can continue the discussion and get participation from others as well. MisterSwig had brought up the point that the majority of Iraqis seem to be more sympathetic to the terrorists than to us. My response is to say that the majority of French people may be more sympathetic to the terrorists than us! That does not make the people of France the enemy; neither should it make the people of Iraq the enemy. (Also I'm not sure that the majority of either French or Iraqis really are unsympathetic to us, but my point stands illustrated nonetheless.) MisterSwig--sorry I related what you said to what one could hear in a church; the difference is that you're trying to qualify your points with facts, and they don't (when they make statements bashing the Iraqi people as enemies). This is demeaning to me because I have met American Iraqis who are not enemies and I am sure there are many individuals in Iraq who are by no means in opposition to the U.S. I just hate to see a whole population branded, collectively, as "the enemy."

The idea was that we stop arguing over something we won't agree on out of repsect to the other participants in this thread. I see little point in continuing our discussion. I'm not abandoning my position per se--I just don't want to argue with you anymore. On second thought--we can continue to discuss the status of Iraq as "enemy" or "ally." I will make a new thread (in this subforum) to encourage participation by others, since this thread it so long etc. I feel that we've gotten off topic, so I'll just make a new topic.

Could GC (or somebody) please explain how this advocates altruism? I admit, I could just be missing something. Saying "Give me money" would be advocating altruism. Saying "I need some money" is a rational statement--it's essentially necessary to have money to survive nowadays. A natural extension of Moose's statement would have been "Now let me earn some money;" I think he was expressing that sentiment, not "Give me money." The two biggest impediments to deriving Rand's philosophy on your own (in my opinion) 1) Sense of life, as derived before you've reached an age to properly use rationality. 2) Religion and mysticism--most of humanity is brought up being taught NOT to be rational. If you overcome these, I think much of Rand's philosophy should come naturally. In my case, #1 wasn't a problem at all; #2 was.

MY reconciliation is to say that, perhaps, Rand meant what she said--the government should not own private property. This would be leasing out the services/equipment/material of corporations or individuals for everything--police, military, etc. I don't know if this is correct, so somebody please let me know. EDIT: I think physical currency would count as property, and I don't see how a government could operate without money. This throws another bone into Rand's statement about all property being privately owned (which wasn't my intent).

Voting makes one NOT a terrorist, in general. The point is, Iraq is not a nation of terrorists as you allege. We're pratcially a "Christian Republic" here in the U.S. Just heard on the radio that many of the new Iraqi cabinet ministers were sworn in--and part of that included a pledge to fight terrorism. Which society is that? Sure, some of them do. Not all of them or most of them. If you don't want to agree with me, that's fine--this should be the end of the discussion about whether or not 'Iraq' is an enemy or ally. Neither of us will budge on our positions. To say the things your saying about the people of Iraq is, in my opinion, demeaning to humanity. It reminds me of things I've heard in church, and it makes me sick.

I feel a sense of metaphysical joy (is that the term I should use?) when in an airport or on an airplane; this sense of exaltation is much greater than I ever felt in church (in the past, of course), which is why I like to think of the airport almost as a modern temple (kind of like, say, the Stoddard Temple would be). I also love the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel complex (click here for info).

In the 2005 national election, Iraq had 58% voter turnout. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Nationa...lection%2C_2005) In the 2004 national election, U.S. A. had 60% voter turnout. http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm If you don't think "Iraq" means the Iraqi government, you must want it to mean "the people of Iraq." 58% of the eligible people voted in the election. Of the remaining percent that did not vote (42%), probably a small proportion are insurgents or enemy combatants. I think Iraq is certainly not an enemy nation that needs to be conquered. We are not in the process of "defeating Iraq." We are in the process of controlling a small number of insurgents which, by the nature of guerilla warfare, are capable of causing significant damage.

I am totally in agreement with you Oakes. The military (and police and courts) can never be completely privatized. However, one reason we have excellent military equipment is becuase (as you know) the corporations that build the best equipment get the contracts, and there is competition. The same could apply to other fields of military operations. Corporations could be hired for surveillance work. They could hire, train, pay, and deploy troops. This would make the military more efficient and cost effective; we'd end up paying less, and troops would get paid more. This would have to be very carefully managed. The government could give contracts to a very limited number of very large corporations. To prevent the military-industrial complex from pushing us into war, the corporations would get paid based on what services they could render, regardless of whether they're rendered or not; they'd have to render these services well to keep their contracts and keep making money. The likelyhood of a military corporation trying to take control of the country is very slim. If a nation became "Objectivist" enough in its thinking to implement this system, the troops and citizens would be intelligent enough that nobody would go along with a military coup at all. Corporate leaders and would never initiate such a thing anyway. Like Oakes said, this is outside the realm of Objectivist philosophy; it is personal opinion and speculation. Also Oakes I like your advocacy of lightness and agility.

lie: n. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. (dictionary.com) Under the first part of this definition, Bush didn't lie until you prove it, and I take your side Felipe. Under the second part of this definition (after the ";"), Bush did lie. That's what I meant when I originally said he lied--he stated a "falsehood". Generally a ";" represents equivalency in definitions!!! So the dictionary definition is conflicting! It's good that we've discovered the reason for this misunderstanding. Probably a large proportion of the disagreements on this forum arise because of differences in the connotations and perceived denotations of words. It is made clear by this definition how easily words can mean different things!

I just looked up the word "entity." I did not understand it to mean "a single existant" as Felipe defines it, and I still do not think it necessarily always means "a single existant." However, it's clear that that is how Rand was using the word and probably how it is usually used in the study of Objectivism--I should have realized that. So therefore, "the public" and "society" do exist--but not as "entities," just as Rand stated.

Oakes's post made me look at your post more carefully, kilgoretrout. What i've quoted seems to be a logical conflict.