Sidewinderpro2

I have read each of these too many times to count. I appreciate the suggestion, and it is looking like this will be the route I take. Great summary, if I must say. However, I'm looking for what I envision as a numbered succession of premises and conclusions, something neat and clean if that makes sense. Not a purely deductive proof, of course, but something with similar organizational traits. Furthermore, it would be helpful to have varying presentations of the argument by different writers to assess, particularly if they were in a clear, concise form already.

I have not had much success in the way of finding concise, collected arguments against the initiation of physical force by prominent Objectivist intellectuals and scholars. I am in the process of researching for a lengthy analytical paper incorporating such arguments, and it would greatly streamline the process if Rand, Peikoff, Branden, etc. have concisely and systematically laid out the argument for "Why should I not use physical force to obtain values?" If anyone knows of any, I would appreciate a link or source. FWIW, the overarching topic of the paper is benevolence as a positive guiding principle for social interaction (say, as opposed to a negative guide of what not to do, like initiate force) and its application to contemporary political issues. All from an Objectivist standpoint, of course. Thanks, SW

It seems I am beyond the point of editing, so to continue... In regards to the claim that our enemies determine our allies, this is not immediately so. Our enemies may force an unpleasant situation upon us, but it ought to be our values that influence with whom we decide to ally. For example, if Iran declares war on the US, do we ally ourselves with anyone and everyone who doesn't like Iran, or do we select our allies based upon the degree of their respect or disrespect for their citizens' individual rights? Do we ally ourselves and arm any random nation, just to seek victory? It seems that that sweeping generalization brings us Pyrrhic victory, if anything, when say years later, our own Stinger missiles are being launched at us (e.g. Afghanistan). To further the discussion of alliances and treaties, consider the implications of constantly breaking and forming international agreements. This myopic foreign policy measure would create total legal uncertainty. International corporations would not know where to safely establish factories and other plants. Captains would not know whether the route they sailed last week will be legal or protected the next. So long as an ally remains relatively free and also employs a rational foreign policy, they ought to remain an ally to the US in the face of a world of slave states, pirates, terrorist organizations, etc.

First, in regards to justification, I am not trying to morally justify recent US military action, I was simply explaining it as it is. Political pragmatism and goldfish public attention span generally govern such military decisions. Drawn out conflicts become unpopular (e.g. Vietnam and Iraq), and the public loses its interest in favor of more exciting news rather quickly. Altruism and democracy are just popular reasons that stick when the government hurls their usual cocktail of excuses at the wall (e.g. the ever-dynamic justification of war in Iraq). As for the Hungarian uprising and other Cold War era conflicts, this should be blatantly apparent. Allying directly and meaningfully (beyond normal proxy war tactics) with the Hungarian resistance would have equated to open, hot war with the Soviet Union. As discussed elsewhere in this forum and numerous Objectivist periodicals and publications, American foreign policy ought to be conducted much differently than it is. Intentions should be clearly stated and rationally justified and decisive action taken to protect individual rights. Likewise, alliances should not be thrown together with just anyone because war has been declared by another state. They should be maintained during 'peace' times as well as open conflict. Consider it this way: Do we form new alliances (possibly contradictory if frequent enough) every time some new conflict breaks out, regardless of magnitude? What about when pirates take over American or friendly ships? Do we wait for the Senate to approve a new treaty so we can deal with every new thug that comes along? Law, including treaties, must be general, not specific to just one specific situation.

Or is that just a consequence of the fact that our military is superior, being substantially larger, smarter, and better equipped than others? Citizens of the United States are relatively free in comparison to the subjects of states we have either freed or re-subjugated under pragmatic puppet governments. Hence, Americans are able to think and produce such inventions as stealth fighters, body armor, and accurate weaponry. The large amount of wealth they generate also provides the US government with a large base to pillage funds from in order to support such a military. So, when compared to the rag-tag bands of small slave states equipped with weaponry they pillaged from Soviet stocks or received from other slave states (or the US in the case of the Mujahadeen...), of course we have the advantage of military might. From my understanding, the United States government rarely, if ever (maybe actions related to manifest destiny?) justifies its actions by the 'Might is Right' notions of the Old World. For example, considering the prominence and success of the US, we have not been particularly imperial or aggressive when compared to the Old World states of Britain or Spain. Military action of the past few decades has generally been founded upon the altruistic notion, not "Might is Right". Except for the hawkishness riled up by politicians trying to get re-elected, we don't really care to see lives and money wasted in war. No values are gained, only destroyers are halted from further value-destruction. Rose Wilder Lane discusses this at length and with greater eloquence in "The Discovery of Freedom", comparing her experience with that of an Italian man of the Old World mentality. Furthermore, In regards to Ron Paul, Gary Johnson comes across as a far superior candidate. He doesn't have the isolationist attitude towards foreign policy and he respects individual rights much more wholly (e.g. abortion and marriage issues). From what I can see, Ron Paul is using the presidential race as an educational megaphone in archetypal libertarian fashion, while Johnson is running as a serious candidate for president while espousing his largely pro-individual rights political platform. Johnson lacks eloquence and philosophical depth, but he definitely seems genuine in character (everything from the way he built up his own business to his mountain climbing) and approach. So, given the alternative values of Paul and Johnson, I have and will again vote for the latter (so long as he does not compromise on any issues from now to Nov.). The "electable-ness" factor does not concern me so much when considered longterm. Johnson has plenty of time to make an impact on this election and try again in the next cycle. He most certainly will not win this time around. But it would be far better to show him support rather than lending it to one of the major parties that will ensure more of the same statism. Every vote is one more additional, though minuscule, voice against a two-party manufacturer of bad candidates.

I have posted the final piece in the Productivity forum. Again, thanks for the assistance.

I have attached the final draft of the editorial "Equality" for which I sought feedback in the metaphysics subforum in its earlier stages. I submitted it to a newspaper today and hopefully it will be printed in the near future. The document posted here is not to be redistributed (in any form) anywhere else without my permission. Equality.rtf

Thank you all for the input. I am in the process of finalizing the piece. I placed quite a bit of emphasis on picking apart the basics of egalitarianism, in relation to the various uses of the word "equality." I described three popular ideas, "Equal opportunity," "Equality of output" and "Equal protection of the law," the final being the only one I advocated. The scope and length restrictions prevented me from going out of the original scope of the piece, but I plan on writing about other issues to try to stimulate some minds out there. Even if all the readers continue on as they are without change, the process of writing helps my understanding.

I am currently writing an editorial piece concerning the misuse of the word "equality" in political, economic, and social contexts and analyzing the nonsense of egalitarianism. My problem at the moment is providing a basic definition and explanation of equality. Following an introduction, the piece in question currently reads: "What is equality? A dictionary will provide one with a basic answer: the state of being identical in value (i.e. “the same”). However, one must realize that one entity cannot be another entity, only itself. The entity can never be fully equal to something else. Two objects, no matter how similar they appear to be, cannot be the same thing as they occupy different , particular quantities of matter. Equality in a material sense cannot exist when such a definition is held as it is." Simply put, did I explain this correctly, or have I made some errors in the logic? The next step will be a comparison to equality in concepts (to set the grounds for a comparison on interpretation of rights based on common phrases that use "equality"). Any and all feedback is appreciated.