utabintarbo

The purpose of government is (supposed to be) to protect individual rights. The only way to violate individual rights is by initiation or threat of force. Therefore, the government maintains a monopoly on force to ensure that it is only used in retaliation and only against those who initiate or threaten its use.
As such, the only "mandates" from a proper government are negative obligations, e.g., don't murder people, don't defraud people, don't steal from people, don't extort stuff from people, etc.
The government can enforce these without ever initiating force.
Individual rights are not (supposed to be) subject to vote. Unlimited democracies usually end up tyrannical, as mob rule.
As for vaccine mandates, the issue here is whether one has a right to one's own body. I would say so, and therefore I oppose vaccine mandates on the same grounds that I oppose the forced pregnancy and childbirth that result from abortion bans.
A vaccine mandate is not the same thing as a vaccine itself, and it's possible to recommend a vaccine without supporting a mandate. I mean, I think everybody should read Atlas Shrugged to "inoculate" themselves against socialism and communism, but I absolutely don't believe that the reading of Atlas Shrugged should be mandated by law.

You brought it up as a reason to think it is part of Putin's game plan to maintain authority, in a thread discussing whether Putin did/would manipulate the election. If it's crazy idea, I don't know why you linked us that article then, or what's wrong with what Swig said. He didn't do anything except tell more about a term he didn't know about until you mentioned it.
 

Huh? How could you be aware of this "overwhelming evidence" before the CIA told us about it?
Are you a government spy with access to secret information?
Regular folk still haven't seen this "overwhelming evidence." I hope you'll keep that in mind before accusing me of spreading far Right propaganda.
I hope you'll also consider giving your evidence to news organizations, because they don't seem to have it either.
Nicky, you act as if we should automatically trust what Obama, Clinton, and the CIA are telling us, when we have numerous reasons not to trust them, least of which is the fact that Wikileaks has gone out of its way to deny their claims. I won't bother going into prior CIA, Obama, and Clinton trust issues. Those should be obvious by now.

But you should try to explain the anomaly. Why did so many Independents support the Democratic ticket in 2008 but not in 2016?
Obama, being a black Democrat, represented a raw assault on the white, Republican Establishment. But then, as President, he became part of the hated Establishment and thus lost some support from Independents in 2012.
And now we have Hillary in 2016, whose bland femininity could not blind people to her rank as Queen of the Democratic Establishment. Thus, anti-Establishment Independents who normally would have helped out the Democrats instead stayed home on election day.

I'm not "for Trump" at all but his opponent should be in prison for her crimes. Instead she will be elected President. lol Wouldn't the Founding Fathers be proud if they were alive to see today's clusterfuck of an election.

I was going to vote for Trump to keep Hillary out but that was months ago.  I can't do that now.  I know now what Nicky has known all along.  He's a disaster in the making if he's elected.  Vote for Johnson if Hillary is unacceptable to you or don't vote.  

The notion that Republicans can't win is ridiculous. For most of the past eight years, Republicans have held Congress. They can win just fine. They're even set to hold the House this year, which is a miracle, given who their Presidential nominee is.
In fact, before Trump won the nomination, polls showed that Kasich and Cruz had favorability rankings above Clinton, and they would've both beaten Clinton. Kasich in a landslide, Cruz by about three points. Studies that look at the history of the elections (including several that have guessed correctly in every election since the 70s) back that up, saying that the opposition candidate should have swept this election.
So, had the Republicans nominated a candidate who didn't alienate 2/3 of the country, and most Republican donors, by being disgusting in every way imaginable, and then some I couldn't possibly have thought of, he or she would be the favorite in this election. Especially since the Dems are also fielding their weakest candidate since Dukakis.
You see, the problem with the last three elections isn't immigrants favoring Dems. Immigrants are a small minority. The problem with 2008 and 2012 was that Bush doubled government spending, spent trillions on wars against Middle Age savages the US military had the power to annihilate for the cost of airplane fuel, and continued Clinton era financial policies that caused the biggest recession and financial crisis in decades.
 
And the the problem with this election is that Republicans nominated the most hateable person they could find.
If, in four years, the Republican Party gets its act together, they can win by a lot more than that extra million Dem voters Clinton might, if all the stars align in her favor, naturalize.

People love to hate politicians, and to claim that politicians are some particularly disgusting breed.
But consider... a GOP acquaintance of mine was complaining about Obamacare. When I pushed, it turned out he wanted the government to somehow bring down rates, and wanted the government to help the poor who cannot afford healthcare. Yet, this person -- typical of the average voter -- has no clue about how the government should go about this. This voter simply wants stuff.... somehow. It doesn't matter if it is contradictory. 
Similarly, another acquaintance was talking about how she could not afford to retire. The discussion went to social-security, and it turns out she does not want SS taxes raised, did not want SS benefits curbed, and wanted the budget deficit to be lowered in the bargain. How? Well, that's not her problem... politicians should figure it out.
A colleague is very conscientious about recycling, wants coal plants shut down, wants more regulation; but, also wants the economy to grow twice as fast as it is doing.
Sorry, the fault, dear Brutus lies not in our politicians, but in ourselves, that we are whining, un-intellectual voters who have no clue about what government ought to be. So, we get the government we deserve.
[Of course, by "we", present company -- and other more-intellectual voters -- are excluded. I'm speaking of the average-Joe American voter.]

Here is a post that fits this topics: http://deadstate.org/hashtag-designed-to-bash-millennials-get-hijacked-by-millennials-and-spits-truth/
I don't get the optimism some people have of the millenials, it seems that the millenials are just going to doom the economy even more... Remember "The Student Rebellion" essay in CTUI? Those kids had the same views as the kids today... they could've been even more left leaning...  Every generation knows that something went wrong with the previous generations  but they always turn around and blame the wrong people in those previous generations.  To fix the problems they just have the same anti-liberty solutions that the previous generations had. The millenials, most likely, are only going to exacerbate the problem for the next generation and then the cycle of blame will continue...  

The most consistently racist people I've met are progressives. They mostly engage in paternalist racism (affirmative action, etc.) and identity politics (inciting hatred between different racial groups for votes).

I could have been more clear.  I believe that no elected Federal politician(s) can garner enough support to reduce Federal Bureaucracies.  They are way too entrenched in the economy and either directly or indirectly employee a very large number of Americans who vote or depend on Social Security, health care. etc.  Short of a Balanced Budget Amendment, I don't hold out much hope that Federal Spending will be curbed regardless of who is elected President.

Objectivism only has one thing to say on how someone should fight against thuggery: morality ends where a gun begins. If something prevents even a single act of force against me, it's consistent with Objectivism.

That invalidates everything you said. Voting against someone like Obama is subject only to practical evaluation. If a vote for Romney prevents an act of force from being perpetrated against me, I have the moral right to vote for Romney. The only reason why I didn't is because I couldn't think of anything significant that would be prevented.

But others might have. Romney doesn't have to be an Objectivist to prevent some of the things Liberals want to accomplish. In fact, Republicans just like Romney have been preventing such things for the past two years, and they will continue to prevent them for the next two (and hopefully four). All you need to do to figure that out is take a look at the Democratic and White House proposals that never came to be in the past two years: the list is long and horrifying.


Yeah, the finer points of Romney's particular brand of mysticism are almost as idiotic as they are unimportant compared to taxation, fascist financial regulations, socialized health-care and crippling debt.

Income inequality regularly shows up in polls (Here's one.  Here's another.) as one of the issues least important to voters, down there with global warming.  Anyone but a Democrat should be praying that the Democrats play it up in the next election.

I searched the web and skipped over all the bloggers (who were mostly Christians re-blogging stuff), and looked for newspapers. I assume the Washington Examiner is respectable enough: here is their article.
It appears to be a minor bureaucratic screw-up. A policy manual was issued when combining two facilities, and the wording of this policy overly excludes willing individuals. I'd bet that the history was some policy that was trying to stop the priests who stop by soldiers beds from actively selling them religion. The new policy was worded to exclude willing recipients, so that was obviously wrong. However, the news article said it was never enforced: which sounds like what one would expect. Someone screwed up on how a policy was worded and so nobody enforced it anyway. Then, some Christian noticed it and that led to some Christian group asking their members to call Congress.

When it comes to city manger-displays, I think the issue is too trivial to matter, though of course the city ought not to be funding any such stuff in the first place. I also think that going after the smaller stuff can create a bit of a siege mentality among Christians, and so it may be a fight best avoided, for tactical reasons. Nevertheless, in the Walter Reed example, there was no atheist group pushing any agenda at all: it was simply Christian over-reaction.

I think Edward Snowden made the point perfectly, in his Guardian interview: your communications and financial activity is all stored and cataloged by the government. No one reads it, of course, because frankly they don't care. But, it is stored and ready to be accessed and used against you if needed.

We don't have to become North Korea before someone uses it against you. It could be used against you even today. And not because you've done anything wrong. All is required is the mere appearance of wrongdoing, and your career, business, government or private contract, public image, etc. can be compromised.

Not only that, but the people who do it will probably even get away with it, especially if they're high enough on the food chain. There are almost a million people with access to this info. Snowden, a simple employee for a private contractor, had access not only to the data, but even the court orders authorizing it. It's a massive bureaucracy, and, as we've seen many times in the past few years, it's pretty much impossible to hold wrongdoers accountable within it.

I'm not the "oh lord Jesus, 1984 is here" type, but as someone with a. some controversial political and personal views and habits and b. with ambition to make something of myself, the fact that most things I say and do have been logged and are available for query, worries me. Not because I fear a coming dictatorship, it worries me even if things don't change much.

Well I just don't understand the nature of your objection. What would constitute evidence to you? What would that even look like? Obviously I can't teleport you to Boston, going back in time, and show you exact houses. I figured I could just make assertions with words, but that's probably not very good evidence. So instead I post tons of pictures and news footage and home camera footage figuring that would be pretty good evidence. But I'm ridiculed sarcastically and told to "use words."
 
Was there house arrest? People were ordered to stay in their homes, businesses ordered to close. So check.
Was there curfew? As per the above, check.
Warrantless house to house raids? See videos, check.
Warrantless stops? See videos, check.
Military police checkpoints? Again, see articles and pictures previously posted. Check.
 
 
 
So the argument, in syllogism form, goes like this;
 
Major: The above points constitute a kind of martial law.
Minor: Those things were present in sections of Boston on April 19, 2013.
Conclusion: Therefore a kind of martial law was present in Boston on April 19, 2013.
 
Now the real question is why there seems to be a certain strain within the "objectivist movement" which is barely distinguishable from mainstream conservative Republicans and neocons, which takes a "go get em" type attitude to things like the imposition of police state and interventionist foreign policy measures, and which will find any excuse possible to parse words ("people with guns politely request citizens leave their house for their own safety" LOL are you fucking kidding me?) and split hairs to apologize for an ugly act of statism, people being dragged our of their houses and accosted for their papers. Funny statist objectivists get upset when people complain about a massive swat team and military police invasion of a whole neighborhood and find some way to justify it like "it could be worse if it was real martial law."
 

Oh okay. No one here comments on the fact that federal agents, militarized local police, and military police basically invaded the town and forced everyone under house arrest right before out eyes, as the democratic flag-waving mob applauds on, and as China and the rest of the world are watching. Oh but we're arguing over whether it is appropriately Objectivist to be against all Musilms. Geez.
 
Photos of the "manhunt":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311443/Boston-bomber-caught-Dzhokhar-Tsarnaev-captured-ALIVE-hiding-inside-BOAT.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/photography/2013/04/boston_marathon_boming_standoff_photos_of_dzhokhar_tsarnaev_from_watertown.html
 

Nicky, I agree that the way you describe is ideal and is how it should be.
However, that way is currently illegal and these two men are not hypotheticals.

Under the current flaws and immoral laws that we have I would be willing to donate to someone because I would want the same available should a loved one of mine require it.
And I would understand why someone would choose otherwise. We all react as rationally as we can within our characters to this unjust situation (government controlled bodyparts)

I agree the current state of the laws forces us into impossible and immoral situations.

Your emphasis is pretty selective though.

Looking at the entire quote: (I have underlined what I consider to be the most important parts)
 
Lyle of Plaistow, N.H., said he had been told there was a one in five million chance for a non-family match.
"It was kind of a no-brainer for a decent human," Lyle said. "I couldn't imagine just waiting. He could have been waiting for years for a match. I'd hope that someone would donate to me if I needed it."


I see no problem with his choice. His use of "I" statements are correct.
He wouldn't want to wait, knowing he would die for lack of a donor. Because he would not want that to happen to him it is rational self interest to go through with the donation.

And lets really look at it... it isn't as though he is giving up a career. Unless something went terribly wrong he will get back to normal and could eventually compete again.
Perhaps he would give more pause if he were staring down the barrel of losing a multi-million dollar football position.

I don't consider myself an altruist and I would likely make the same choice, under the same conditions.

I asked you to explain to me where the racism is. Repeating your assertions with an avalanche of snarkiness doesn't accomplish this. You can take my last post as a rejection of this kind of rudeness and another opportunity for you to man-up and admit your mistake or actually answer the question. If you want to pretend this is a personal attack, fine. Just keep in mind that you're not fooling anyone.

An example of religious totalitarianism is Iran, or the Dark Ages. Calling Romney a religious fascist is much greater hyperbole than even calling the Tea Party socialists. Romney wants religiously motivated government control in a couple of areas (all of which can easily be circumvented by simply traveling out of the state, not even the country - since even the very unlikely overturning of Roe v. Wade would only result in a few states limiting abortion), while Obama wants near-full control of all Americans' work, more than half of all their earnings, full control over their health care, etc. , and he's proven that there's no escape from him anywhere on this planet (by enforcing his fascism all the way into Switzerland).

But, I'm sure, logic will fall on deaf ears, and Kate will continue proving the evil ways of everyone but the political Left with her endless stream of fallacious arguments and plain arbitrary assertions, and consider herself the smartest, most modern and open minded person on here, for doing it. She's every freshly brainwashed, liberal college graduate I've ever met.

You're wrong about the Greece part. We're exactly like them but worse. There are only three major differences. The world has not yet realized that our debt is junk, our debt and inability to repay it is far worse and we have a gun pointed at our own heads in the form of a printing press.

It shows. Take a deep breath and we can discuss this sanely next year. Maybe your God will help you calm down! Where was he yesterday when you needed a miracle?
The substantial point that you make amounts to this: you're pointing out the the Democrats have a lot of assholes too. Well, who said they weren't. The point I made was: if the GOP had a few less assholes, they would get another 1% of the vote and would win. It's a pretty simple statement of fact.

I once had a thought that if Obama won, I could take solace in knowing that at least Obama will probably get the blame for the coming economic collapse instead of Romney. I feel no such solace. I see this election as nothing less than a devastating defeat.

I want Obama out because of what I understand to be his motivating philosophy, and as evidence his choices for people he put into power in the executive office. To not see their naked socialism and recognize it as such is a little baffling to me. Collectivists of all various ilks seek power in order to further their agendas. While vanilla candidates from other parties may not be ideal, not voting against a known, proven, dedicated collectivist is I think a position I can't wrap my head around so to speak.
As far as I understand it, to truly cast a ballot against Obama one must cast a ballot for Romney, all other scenarios are equivalent to not changing any advantage an incumbent candidate enjoys