Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


2046 last won the day on August 16

2046 had the most liked content!


About 2046

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

6460 profile views
  1. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Yes let's debate about the statue. I kinda don't get all this "let's dismantle all statues that represent bad things" mentality. The cultural left is making a concerted effort recently to attack all Confederate symbols, the flags and parks and monuments, and have them removed from public places. I am completely unsympathetic to the Confederacy and consider myself a left-libertarian, I was originally sympathetic to the Antifa side and got involved with them until I learned they were violent and hated free speech. But I still don't get it. I don't feel a huge need to take down Confederate monuments. I feel like that's their (southern whites?) history. I don't know, doesn't bother me, but I can't explain it. RE Lee doesn't even seem like all that bad of a guy to me. Maybe it's all the problems in American inner cities. Educational system is a failure and everyone knows it. Black illegitimacy and the black family is in shambles. Welfarism is rampant and black on black crime is shockingly high. Baltimore can't even get no one to murder during "nobody murder anyone" weekend. The drug war, welfare state, socialized housing, gentrification, is wrecking the inner city, but hey let's go tear down a statue. If anything, I feel like the one semi-legitimate grievance the Nazis had was protesting "they're erasing our culture and heritage!" If they could've stuck to that instead of the whole killing all Jews thing, might've been better for them. I get the argument that it represents bad things, but as many have pointed out, most historical statues do. I guess we have to pave over the Spanish steps because Roman culture was oppressive? We should dismantle the Parthenon and "put it in a musem"? We must destroy Native American artifacts too, Chinese, Muslim (good luck!) and generally side with ISIS in wiping out all historical culture that doesn't conform to current PC beliefs? Whose beliefs? Who decides? What about the statue of Lenin in Seattle? Who decides and on what basis? It's impossible. Ah but intent. Most people want to draw a line and say historical representations are okay, but if the government intends it as honor, then we have to remove it. But I haven't seen anyone argue for that from foundational principles. I don't get it either. Who can make an argument? I'll try to start out with something like this: 1. From a strict libertarian point of view the problem would be solved by private property. All statues would be privately owned and displayed on private property and thus avoid conflicts over their use. 2. Since the above isn't going to happen and governments insist on funding public statues with public money, we can at least say that decisions over which statues should be displayed should be the decisions of local communities and councils, not outsiders. Non residents should get no say in the matter. 3. The city council of Charlottesville had voted to remove the statue. The vast majority of the protestors and counter protestors were outsiders. 4. Since the statue is public property and on a public park, the city council was wrong to deny a permit to protest the removal. Another issue private property would have solved. 5. The park and the statue could have been placed on the market for an open bid. The proceeds then donated to a scholarship fund for promising young black students or entrepreneurs, for example. Or the city taxpayers could have been given direct ownership shares in the park as a publicly held corporation. The new owners as shareholders could then decide internally on what to do with it and would not be required to issue a permit or accommodate Nazis. There were so many more creative ways of dealing with this. The market is capable of finding so many other mutually beneficial solutions, to demand one single government monopoly solution in every government statue case, as if the authoritarian left is going to go around and purge all the statues, a la ISIS, is stunting creativity and an intellectually lazy response.
  2. Immigration as related to loyalty

    Also: The great 26 page thread Immigration Law in Arizona In short: In a free society you have a right to private property. To exclude immigrants if you want on yours, but not to prevent newcomers from me on mine. But maybe we can keep this thread for Charlottesville and discuss immigration in a different one?
  3. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Nobody said that. Of course "America First" is a great term and a great anti-imperialist political tradition. I was excited by his use of it, at first. But that is decidedly not the tradition Trump is placing himself in. Insofar as nationalism goes, if you are reducing it so simple preference of the near over the far, then you've sufficiently defanged it. But that is decidedly not what the Nazis and alt-right mean by it. Mises often distinguished between more peaceful and liberal types of nationalism aiming at self-determination, localism, and subsidiarity, for example, and nationalism aiming protectionism, aggressive war, bigotry and race struggle, redistribution and socialism, and a new American ceasarism. In short, the strain of nationalism embraced by the alt-right and neo-Nazis is not exactly the same thing Ayn Rand believed when speaking in support of the America First Comittee pre-WW2.
  4. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    To be fair though, what this has to do with blaming Trump, is vis-a-vis the political narrative in the fallout of the event. Just like after a presidential debate is over, no matter what happened and what the facts are, all participants and their spokesmen will retire to the "spin room" to try and mold perception in their favor. As we are in the midst of a kulturkampf, the characterization of the events during and after the rally is being used to score political punches in the wake of the event, I agree with Grames on that at least.
  5. White Supremacist Protest Violence

  6. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    It does appear, at least from a cursory glance at accounts, that this is a somewhat correct sequence of events: 1. VA government wants to take down government statue of government employee in government park. 2. Nazis organize to protest, apply for necessary permits to do so. 3. Permits are rejected, Nazis, with help of ACLU take government to court and win. 4. Nazis march along preplanned route to park. 5. Counter protests organized with mostly angry normal people with a healthy contingent of Commies (BLM, Antifa, etc.) 6. Commies confront Nazis along their route, trying to physically block them, disrupt them, fight them ("punch a nazi"), pepper spray them, throw things, etc. and tried to block them from rallying around the statue, as they were legally permitted to do, and violence ensues. Again, we must also mention the Nazi motorist that appears to have intentionally ran over a bunch of Commies. Even if BLM and Antifa are at fault for the street fights, and the Nazis wanted a peaceful protest, they still do want to kill all the Jews and for the government to forcefully remove all non-whites. In the words of Ludwig von Mises, "You're all a bunch of socialists."
  7. Individual Rights Timeline

    To help fill your gap between the natural law theologians and Locke, try researching the jurists Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf. Both were hugely influential to Locke and Paine and quoted by both.
  8. Yeah are you not familiar with the entire western liberal philosophic tradition? Basically one giant "No" to the pessimistic view of human nature expressed by Hobbes in which the authoritarian right has adopted wholeheartedly.
  9. And what's with this superstitious reverence for the constitution? Don't Objectivists want to subvert the constitution? What's with people sounding more like Rush Limbaugh than Lysander Spooner? So much for "radicals for capitalism"...
  10. What an absolute pile of garbage, who even is this "Dr Hurd" guy? I have a hard time believing an actual PhD could write this.
  11. Donald Trump

    Free immigration = letting criminals in free speech = making death threats free trade = theft Let's change the name of things, it's fun!
  12. Re: "It's too early" Meanwhile, in the non-objectivist world...
  13. Well that's the thing. You seem to assume "revolution" and "violent change" are the same thing. And, not so explicitly, but perhaps assumed, we have "acts of persuasion" and "working through the political system" as equivalent on the other hand. But why must that be so? I think the point Eiuol is trying to get it is that the choice isn't between working through the political system on one hand, and acts of force. Might there be direct action strategies for political change that are not working through the political system or "educating" (which is the usual broad term) and that don't necessarily involve uses of force? Leftists, as Eiuol mentioned, have been largely successful at using such tactics as sit-ins, strikes, blockades, counter protests, civil disobedience and non violent resistance, boycotts, shaming, community organizing, direct provision of services, ignoring the state, going around the state, etc. And maybe some also legitimate strategies, from this point of view, that do justify uses of force? Most people assume it would be moral to, say, assassinate Hitler. Why sit and wait for him to be voted out? Yes Ayn Rand wrote novels, but what about the character Ragnar Danneskjold? What about sabotage, piracy, hacking, rioting, property destruction? When is that okay versus not okay? Peikoff stated it was, for example, from his point of view moral to hack into statists' servers. And yet Objectivists and Objectivist organizations seem to simply repeat the mantra of personal improvement, learning, and "we need to educate people," and still largely supported voting for the supposedly least offensive candidate. (Rand herself having famously said that it would be hugely immoral for John Hospers to steal a single vote from Nixon.) Could it be that these tactics are stale and it's time to start working outside the political system (nonviolently)?
  14. Reblogged:Police Lives Matter

    And before the "you're condoning Dallas" starts, which I guess it already has, and which I certainly do not, one would expect an Objectivist response would include somber minded philosophical question of fundamental ethical issues, something like "Is it ever legitimate, from a point of view of Randian ethics, to kill agents of government?" Surely the creator of Dagny Taggart would answer "yes" and proceed to outline reasons or situations that might be applicable according to her principles. So that might be a more interesting topic to explore than Hurd and his article.