rebelconservative

I'm not going to psychoanalyse their motives, but the fact is that the dominant theme of our culture is one of altruism, one where a man is heralded as moral not for making millions but for giving money away. The businessman is not congratulated for providing a great product and service to consumers at a profit, but only when they "give back to society" (I hate that term). In our culture people receive psychological rewards when they give to other people, the rich man likely feels good about himself for giving money - less guilt about amassing riches beyond the imagination of the 99%. This is the culture in which the rich min finds himself, the culture that serves us trash like this from a business paper... http://www.businessweek.com/management/idolize-bill-gates-not-steve-jobs-11012011.html?campaign_id=rss_topStories If a rich man does not have a strong grounding in philosophy, he will very likely accept the moral message of the altruist, even though his life is testament to its impracticality.

It is possible for a rich man to give away millions of dollars entirely rationally. I'm not just talking of rationally self-interested motives like funding research into diseases you may die of, but if you have more money than you could ever spend and if you value education, then supporting schools in Africa is entirely rational even though you won't directly benefit.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to make a fundamental and clear statement about the rights of man. The rights are fundamental because all Congressional acts are subservient to them and clear because, unlike the complex legal code, the basic rights were intended to be known by all.


Having lived through war, the Founders recognized that during war, it is necessary to suspend the normal function of law, as "law" is a concept that is only possible in civil society. But they also recognized the danger of allowing any exception that would lead to the violation of rights. So, they provided strict limits: the President is the Commander in Chief, but he may only act with the consent of Congress, and that consent expires after two years. Furthermore, Congress has the power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal, which authorizes specific individuals to attack specific groups and bring them to admiralty courts. In both cases, enemies were to be explicitly identified by Congress and enjoyed the protection of the rules of war.

We may argue about how practical these principles are and how earnestly they were followed from the start, but it is worth considering how grossly they are violated in the so-called "war on terror" going on today:

There is no actual war: "Terror" is an emotion, not a group of people. Therefore, no actual "war" (which requires clearly identified parties) is possible. This makes a congressional declaration of war impossible.

There is no enemy: The Constitution provides for Letters of Marque and Reprisal in cases where a war is not possible or desirable. But there is no enemy in the "war on terror." "Al Qaeda" is a quasi-mythical entity which has more existence as an entity in the minds of those who hate/fear and/or admire it than as a physical organization of material command and support. Most of its "followers" are non-violent. Many more advocate violence (not admirable but not an act of war) than practice it. Many of those killed as "terrorists" have only some vague emotional bond with its ideology, others none at all. Certainly there is no physical network in which all such individual can be proven to be involved.

Killings are extra-judicial: The executive branch has created a new category of enemy: the "unlawful combatant." This person is exempt from both civil protections as well as the rules of war. (By the way, the purpose of so-called "rules of war" is not to protect the enemy, as in any conflict at least one party is by definition willing to violate rights. Their purpose is enable peaceful coexistence possible afterward. By contrast, the historical purpose of disregarding the laws of war is to dehumanize the enemy and thus make post-conflict peaceful coexistence impossible.)

No one is off limits: in a war, combatants and non-combatants are clearly defined, and non-combatants are off-limits. While this is never perfectly practiced, at least the enemy and the conflict are clearly identified and so are violations can be exposed. But by identifying an emotion as the enemy, no end to the conflict is possible, and no one is off-limits.

For example, the U.S. government has no problem killing its own citizens without any judicial process for advocating violence outside of the country. That is a crime within U.S. territory, but not an act of war when conducted abroad, so it violates both the legal rights of U.S. citizens and the sovereignty of other nations.

Most "terrorists" tried in the U.S. since 9/11 were actually recruited and provided with their targets and plots by the FBI. They are not guilty of plotting any attack, as the government did that for them, but of the emotion of hate and/or the desire to spread fear in the public. In fact it is the U.S. government that terrorizes the public by finding peaceful but angry people and training them to be terrorists - and then prosecuting them for the same thing.

Guilt is tautological: While the "war on terror" is nominally against "terrorism," it is actually defined not in terms of any particular action, but by the potential emotion created in the (hypothetical) victim. The ultimate result is that anyone may be imprisoned or assassinated for the sole reason that something they thing did scared someone. Until there is a fundamental change to human nature, no end is possible for such a conflict.

Why was Anwar al-Awlaki (and his 16-year old son) killed? Because he is a terrorist. How do we know that? Because he is dead. If he were not guilty, he would not have been assassinated. No legal proof is needed because this is a military decision, and military decisions are outside the realm of civil law. Why is killing unarmed U.S. citizens for their violent rhetoric a military matter? Because we're in a "war on terror" and fear is now an act of war.

Conclusion:

The ultimate purpose of making an emotion the enemy is to take the rules of military action (which are properly outside the realm of civil law) out of the limited context of war and allow them to be applied to anyone. Thus is justified endless war, unchecked expansion of the power and size of the state, and a total end round around Constitutional checks on the State's power to violate individual rights.

I watched a few minutes of Obama's speech and couldn't stomach anymore. It was obviously a campaign speech. He was pretending to be pro American and to have supported our efforts in the middle east all along. He even admitted that Al Qaeda was at war with America. He was clearly moving to the center out of desperation over his approval rating. But then Obama started masturbating to Islam and I had to turn off the TV.

I am very happy that we got Bin Laden. But it sickens me that a President who has consistently opposed and undermined our weak efforts to protect this country would be taking credit for a victory like this and using it to get himself reelected. It also drives me crazy that he wants us to believe that Islam is not dangerous and getting Osama means we're safe. All of the terrorist attacks that have killed Americans over the last few decades - including Osama's attack - were sanctioned/ordered by Iran. And Iran is still out there and getting more dangerous by the minute.

Points 2, 4 and 5 seem irrelevant as proof of anything to me. People in power switching sides, some winning, some losing? Zealots dying for their beliefs? Kind of an everyday affair, is it not?

Points 1 & 3 are more "factual". Except that we have no contemporary description of Jesus or his crucifiction, and they seem to find a new Jesus' tomb every other thursday 'round here in Israel. I think someone even dug up a couple around Nazareth, just for the hell of it.

Possible alternative: guy sees a preacher dude get nailed by the Romans (Jews?). Waits a few years, starts telling amazing stories about him to anyone willing to listen. Maybe steals his corpse, dumps it somewhere, maybe not. Starts a cult and away we go.

There's a Chasidic sect that hailed its head as the messiah. Dude's been dead for over 20 years now - an act that for all intents and purposes prevents him from being the messiah (the torah's pretty specific about it: son of David, born in Bethlehem, not dead. I'm almost quoting it verbatim). Doesn't stop 'em one bit. The guys at the top are raking in the dough and the ones at the bottom are conditioned to obey the top. Get confrontational with them on a large scale, and I'm sure you'll encounter a whole bunch of willing martyrs.

I've noticed that certain people just use democracy to mean "whatever I think is good".

I once saw a flier that said Israel was democratic because health care was state run

They actually need a 3/5 quorum, which means they need 20 senators. 19 Republicans, one with a donkey on his lapel, will not suffice.

A common theme of the union-side is that Gov. Walker is abandoning democracy. Of course I don't need to explain why democracy is bad on this forum, but I still think there is some irony here that shows how confused the term, "democracy," is today. Reducing the power of the teacher's unions is exactly what many of us in Wisconsin elected the Republicans to do. We voted, the unions lost. Sounds democratic to me.

Not exactly an in-depth discussion there, or anything new really. It is quite clear from all the available evidence that government aid to Africa is not only immoral but counter-productive. For more info, this interview with the author is much more detailed, http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/1112/full

I found #6 quite interesting too, I've been saying that the UK government has had an utterly irrational policy on University for a long time.

Thanks, good reply.

I think there is a risk of viewing this ruling from a pragmatic 'ends justify the means' attitude. When in fact the remaining institutions in our political system that barely still protect any individual rights are being dismantled and undermined. I see this ruling as a victory for one right, but a defeat for potentially many others because of the continuing political implications of a judge justifying an argument on specious grounds merely because he supports the political issue.

I'm not a legal expert, so my argument lives or dies on this next point depending on the legal reality. I could only be for this ruling if its specific justification for overturning democratic and constitutional outcome is based on an appeal to individual rights in general that could then legally become a more or less binding precedent that would apply in more broad situations. That's they only way this is a victory.

But I doubt this ruling will have any bearing on: eminent domain, environment regulation, enactment of Obamacare, even free speech in the UC higher education system (the politically incorrect kind). It seems like it's the judge deciding this time on this issue that individual rights apply, by whim. That is a mockery and defeat of the principle of individual rights.

That is also why I mentioned the Arizona ruling. Again, a controversial issue - but it seems that the judge ruled by political whim more than anything else.

When politics enters the judiciary, it's a big problem, because that's when rights die. No, Objectivists are not conservatives - but that's just a basic conclusion of the law of identity. Please don't conclude that my use of 'conservative' and my discomfort with this ruling means that I am implying that Objectivists should be in favor of 'traditional institutions like marriage' and against 'radical, uncouth, repugnant mockeries of tradition like gay marriage'. I can see that connection being made. But that is absolutely not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that the protection of rights is an achievement of society. The 'institutions' I refer to are the result of centuries of political discoveries, hours and months and years of hard work and study by professionals, and a lucky combination of social forces that support and uphold these institutions. Objectivists ARE radicals, but not anarchists. In today's political climate, being 'conservative' in that context - of defending the institutions we have today from that which threatens them today - is something I think is consistent with objectivism.

In other words, in this political climate, Objectivists should oppose Prop 8, and they should advocate for a judiciary that regards and respects individual rights more. But they should not support a ruling that is justified in a manner not consistent with that attitude after a fair and free debate and vote on the issue. While the 'system' supports rights in general - if it hasn't gotten to the point where revolution is necessary - then it is proper to put up with the rights the system does not allow.

But if only this issue were that broad. It's so obvious and narrow - a judge ruling by whim and not principle is not good for individual rights - even when he rules in their favor!!

Despite the extremely verbose and wide-ranging post on zillions of topics of law and modern politics, I do not see a shred of evidence to support this assertion. Not a single statement quoted from the decision to support your conclusion. Why is that?

Only democracy, the rule of law in general. His argument is specious. At this moment in time, his political movement happens to think gay marriage should be allowed. Didn't my reference to Obamacare register with you?

If this was an instance of individual rights being upheld by a judiciary that does so consistently, I would be more than happy about it. But the decision, in light of the broader liberal agenda in America, is capricious - it's all about rule by whim.

The political institutions - judiciary, legislature, executive, the constitutional structure that acts as an interface between democratic sentiment and law must guard against whim so that the rational have the capacity to act towards the preservation of their interest.

True, that makes this an odd case - because the proponents of Prop 8 are themselves in error - but the decision to rule against Prop 8 was made for reasons that destroy, not preserve, the institutional safeguards against whim.

The difference is that the whim of an elite took precedent over the masses. Reason and objective judgment by the elite is supposed to be the last bulwark against the masses.

Our government is so illegitimate that I don't expect it to consistently stand up for all individual rights - but I do rely on it to protect those that exist. I need the government to be institutionally sound for that to happen. Otherwise, you get Obamacare and that sort of thing - which a judge could easily rule in favor of because 'morally healthcare is a right despite the constitution' which is essentially what this judge did regarding gay marriage - our system of government doesn't explicitly designate many rights beyond a few ammendments. So I do rely on democracy to protect some rights. At least then there is a process to advocate for rights and make changes - but when you convince a million minds of the importance of rights, what good is it when one elite has the power to overturn you? The process is destroyed, made arbitrary, and you can only hope that whatever it is that is popular with the government-academia crowd will be in favor of your rights. But chances are it won't, for reasons as obvious as those demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged.

But I think you're just being a smart aleck - "institutions" in quotes implies that you are mocking my concern. Which means that either you aren't intelligent enough to extrapolate from my earlier comment what I meant - or it means that you did, but you live in some unserious world where you choose to pidgeonhole any and all opinions into convenient labels to be referenced for the sake of convincing yourself incorrectly that you have the intellectual high ground.

Please, if you're going to make a comment like that - especially after a fairly long and articulate post - provide more details. If you disagree, then explain why you don't think any important institutions are threatened by the legal mentality behind this particular ruling.