Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Wilderness

Regulars
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wilderness

  • Rank
    Novice
  • Birthday 07/22/1950

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    DistrictOfColumbia

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Spokane, WA
  1. Steve, Let's talk elsewhere. Shoot me an email at [email protected] William (Wilderness)
  2. NeoRand4774, I've been following your argument with DonGalt and I appreciate the way you express your ideas. You are better than I in that respect, but I'm learning. Anyway, you mentioned being a philosophy and poli sci major. There is one subject that I have not found any Objectivist material on, and it has been bugging me because I am unsure of some of my conclusions. Like I said, I'm still learning. And, of course, unlearning a bunch of the false ideas that are floating around out there. So the subject is treason. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the subject. That is, what would be considered treason by an Objective government. Wilderness
  3. NeoRand4774, I stand by my statements. And, yes, I am an Objectivist. Perhaps I oversimplified in some cases, but I was trying to make my point short so that our seemingly anarchist fellow-poster, DonGalt, might get the point. As far as your comments go: I recently heard someone quote that passage from Peikoff's book (which I have read) and they left out the part in parenthesis, which led me to stipulate exactly was is in the parenthesis. As far as Rand using the word self-defense, I do consider that incorrect. The dictionaries I have seen define self-defense as I did and retaliation as I did. Whereas I do prefer Rand's definitions in almost all cases, I think in this matter the distinction is important, and Rand, seemingly, lumped retaliation and self-defense together (although, yes, see does make the comment in parenthesis). Example from dictionary.com: Self-defense: Defense of oneself when physically attacked. Retaliation: Action taken in return for an injury or offense. The rest of your corrections to my argument are apt, and I appreciate the clarification. Wilderness
  4. In order for an Objectivist government to be enacted the majority of people in a given region must first accept most objectivist ideas- at the least the criminality of the initiation of force or fraud. These people then go on to write a Constitution, which delimits the powers of government. If it is based on Objective principles, then said Constitution only gives the government the power of retaliatory force. (Note: Rand and others often misstate this point. They give the government the power of force in self-defense, which should properly remain in the hands of every individual. In extreme situations, when the police are not around, it is properly legal to defend oneself by the use of force when the crime is underway, if necessary. This is different than retaliatory force, which is used after a given crime has taken place.) The Constitution is just a piece of paper, but the ideas incorporated in it (individual freedom, separation of government powers, etc.) are the will of the majority of the people. It is this will that keeps the government at bay. It is this will backed by the citizenry’s own arsenals that prevents the government from becoming tyrannical and in line with the Constitution. Proper governments are enacted by the people, not tyrants bent on doing whatever they want. As far as voluntary donations to the government for its function (the police, the military and the courts) go, these will be provided by the citizenry, who, hold Objectivism as their philosophy, and thus know that in reality there are no free lunches, and therefore pay for what they get. Namely, security to do what the hell they want. The argument that enough people will not pay for the government’s service, causing the government to go bankrupt and, presumably, be disbanded, is based on the philosophies held by the majority of the people in our world, who are largely collectivists. It is they who expect a free lunch, not the Objectivists. Additionally, a proper government that has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force is not an initiator of force. The people that formed the government voluntarily created it because they recognize the fact that government is necessary. Government is necessary because anarchy results in gang warfare- each gang, its own mini-statist regime. People form a government because it provides each individual with the protection of a whole Army. Protection against criminals, foreign and domestic.
  5. I live in D.C. and have seen many LaReich, excuse me, LaRouche disciples handing out pamphlets and "newsletters". I have not engaged in conversation with them because I know what their going to say before it comes out of their mouths. And the stuff in the fliers they hand out isn't any better. Just yesterday I was presented with a LaRouche newsletter with an article entitled something like "How capitalism evolved into fascism." Unlike, most left-wing rhetoric, LaRouche's stuff is actually grammatically correct and decipherable, but, of course, his arguments are completely fallacious and illogical. A lot of the time I want to grab these people by the shoulders and tell them the reality of what they preach, but when I do, as you experienced, they don't listen and just spew back at me their little slogans and disgusted dismissal of my opinion. These are the same people that say everyone's opinion is equally relevant. The more clever ones will bend your principles, take them out of context, and distort them until they fit into their irrational little world. Unfortunately, for most of them, I don't think there is any hope of changing their minds, or even getting them to listen. They don't know how to think logically and therefore cannot grasp the simplest of objectivist concepts. If you are going to attempt to reason with someone, you should probably try children. Wilderness
  6. "Human Action"- it sounds like a book on praxeology. Another book I've been reading lately is "Capitalism and Freedom" by Friedman- Unfortunately my economic reasoning skills are not well honed, so it takes a few minutes to wrap my head around some of his longer-winded trains of thought
  7. Hello, all. My name is William. Does anyone else live the D.C. area? It is difficult to find any rational Objectivists around these parts. Everyone is a Democrat and religious. Anyone read any good books lately? Right now I am reading von Mises' "Omnipotent Government"- good stuff. Lata, Wilderness
×
×
  • Create New...