edward j williamson
-
Posts
90 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by edward j williamson
-
-
-
Jefferson, as were the other Founding Fathers, were men of principles, products of the enlightenment of the 18th century. Men who eschewed medievil religious fanaticism, who sought to seperate religion and state, and they are being compared to the likes of evil men like Lenin, Stalin, and other dictators? Absurd and ridiculous! They fashioned a document and an idea of limited government which was to be subservient to the people, an enlightened Bill of Rights, and promoted the correct idea of the soveirgnty of the individual. Those who denigrate Jefferson and his achievements, along with those of any of the Founding Fathers are not lovers of liberty, nor are they true Americans. Revisionism, aided by the forces of big Lincolnesque government, government indoctrination centers (public schools) have spun history to the point were the Founding Fathers have been denigrated and pilloried. No wonder our society or government no longer has any respect for our BoR, private property, small minarchist government, or individual achievement and initiative.
-
I'm linking to Bidinotto's blog where he posted an article by Libertarian John Hospers. First let me say that I am no fan of John Hospers and while a like Bidinotto, I am well aware of his institutional affiliation. But I think the Hosper's piece makes some compelling reasons to vote for Bush. Too often I find that Objectivist's on this forum criticize Bush according to a standard of comparison with John Galt. Any politician will appear corrupt and repulsive standing next to Galt. But as Harry Binswanger pointed out recently, Bush is pretty much all that the current culture is psychologically prepared to accept (Binswanger speculated that the most the culture would accept would be someone maybe 10% more agressive than Bush). Hospers makes the same essential points with some new important ones. His plus Binswanger's reccommendation have convinced me to vote for Bush and to believe that it is very important he win.
I know some on this forum will not be swayed by this essay; ie MisterSwig, Noumenal, etc. Its not my intention to sway anyone, but to offer another good piece of reasoning to be digested.
http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=181
Hospers certainly is not popular within the ranks of the LP. Basically what he proposes can be summed up in a very well known cliche: "Vote for the lesser of two evils." No thanks, standing on principle is the only way I know how to conduct myself. Hospers has all but sold out his own political party out of expediency.
-
So why was capitalistic America dependent on socialistic England for 50 million doses of flu vaccines?
And why is socialistic Europe not experiencing any shortages of flu shots?
Good question, MisterSwig. That is one of the questions that I have had with this entire fiasco.
-
Neither one should be in the Senate. Alan Keyes came out with a brand new version of reparations, trying to put a new spin on this disgusting movement. Talk about redefining political correctness, sheesh! He proposes legislation that would exempt all descendents of slavery from federal income taxes as reparations for bondage. Now, unless someone is over 139+ years old, they were not a slave. Alan, isn't that discrimantory in and of itself? No one should have to be subjected to the government thievery that is income tax, yet you only propose blacks to be exempted? This not only puts a new spin on the idea of reparations, but by proposing this idea he all but justifies and sanctions the idea of income taxes. This negates any credibility he ever had and certainly exposes him as unworthy to be a holder of elected office and a public servant.
-
-
The whole reason there is a "shortage" in the first place is because the government destroyed all the domestic market incentives by putting price controls in place and at the same time built-up demand by sending all of its people to scare the hell out of everyone inot thinking they may be in imminent danger of death without a flu vaccine.
This is exactly the reason for the shortage, that and ruinous governmental regulations. This is another example of just why the FDA, along with all alphabet soup "Raw Deal" government agencies should be either abolished or privatized.
-
If someone doesn't stop spending like the 14 year old socialite daughter of an oil tycoon, sooner or later we are going to be forced to default on our depts, or print more money and hyper inflate the dollar, or raise taxes to the point where the economy can not sustain itself. We are facing an economic bubble which has Wesley Mouch (err, excuse me, I mean Alan Greenspan) scared silly.
You are absolutely right. This is exactly what would happen. Politicians just aren't very smart. They equate making money with printing it. They have no concept that wealth is created in the private sector through turning raw goods into finished products, i.e. manufacturing. This is what we get by letting government weave their nefarious fingers into the free market. Damn, just damn!
-
This thread is what my friend would refer to as a "conversation handgrenade". I agree with Mr. West that it was tossed into the crowd with the intent to see how much "damage" could be done.
As has been pointed out, I have yet to see our topic starter successfully explain any philosophical or epistemological basis for libertarianism, let alone one congruent with Objectivism.
VES
Hi RationalCop,
Actually it was not meant to do that at all. I have stated my apologies for this thread devolving into a verbal brawl, I do not like seeing that happen on boards, especially good boards like this one. Let's let this die right here. I bear no ill will towards anyone here and I commend each of you for defending your beliefs so well and so passionately.
-
Hi RationalCop,
This thread is what my friend would refer to as a "conversation handgrenade". I agree with Mr. West that it was tossed into the crowd with the intent to see how much "damage" could be done.Quite the contrary my friend. It wasn't meant to be that at all, it was never my intention, nor do I wish for this thread to continue on. I have stated my apologies, and I sincerely wish each and every person well, and I bear no ill will. I have given alot of complimentary statements in many of my posts in this thread. It is time to let this die out folks.
-
*** ATTENTION *** Board owner GreedyCapitalist ***
See, David. He would not put up with there, what he gets away with here. The promotion of libertarianism is more offensive to real Objectivists than NAMBLA is to real Libertarians, so why don't you establish a forum policy restricting the promotion of libertarian views here?
I'll go ahead and repost this portion, which I just edited to my previous post:
Listen, like I said, I am an administrator of a political/opinion/news message board. I am seeing this thread devolve into something other than what this board is intended for. You all have a good thing going here, and alot of good topics and material. It is not fair to the owners and administrators of this board for this nonsense to continue. It is best just to let this thread die out. I will continue to read, but for now I will limit my posting. I have no desire to be the crux or instigator of trouble, nor is that my intent. So, it is best to let cooler heads prevail and just let this thread end right here. I offer my sincere apologies for what has transpired here. My intention was never to step on toes or to cause trouble.
-
So you got what you wanted now? Your very first post was a polite kick in the teeth to Objectivists, because you proposed something you knew very well that Objectivists disagreed with. Then you made no substantive case for your assertion, claimed you were familiar with all the arguments against it, etc. Now your rants show what you thought about Objectivists all along, when we reject you Libertarian Party propaganda. The same sort of anger I'd expect a Libertarian Party NAMBLA member to feel when a disgusted young boy scout throws his gift box of chocolates back in his face.
Really? My first post was angry? I could have sworn that I was very gracious, as I have been in most of my posts. Yours, as a matter of fact, was the first one of the first demonstrating any hostility. I have praised the efforts of Objectivists as to the work they do on our University campuses, and have given encouragement to keep up the good work. How is that hostile? Tell me that! My intent was never, ever to stir the pot, or to kick Objectivists in the teeth, as you put it. I have a great deal of respect for Objectivists, actually. No, I am disappointed in the hostility that I have encountered, I am not angry at all towards Objectivism. I may be angry at some of the people here, but that is as far as it goes. Yes, I accept part of the blame for that as well. As far as your NAMBLA insinuations, that is completely out of line, and if you were a member of the political/opinion board where I am an administrator you'd be summarily banned for it. Yeah, I know, not very libertarian, but it is a private board, so it would be my right.
Listen, like I said, I am an administrator of a political/opinion/news message board. I am seeing this thread devolve into something other than what this board is intended for. You all have a good thing going here, and alot of good topics and material. It is not fair to the owners and administrators of this board for this nonsense to continue. It is best just to let this thread die out. I will continue to read, but for now I will limit my posting. I have no desire to be the crux or instigator of trouble, nor is that my intent. So, it is best to let cooler heads prevail and just let this thread end right here. I offer my sincere apologies for what has transpired here.
-
Mr. Speicher,
Ironic that this should come from one who bills himself as a deep thinker. Your arguments are nothing more than a house of cards built on sand. What, did you get your ideas for this retort from Peter Schwartz as you and Bowzer so aptly like to quote. Hell, the way you two seem to revere the likes of Schwartz, who is the master of the non sequitur argument, I'd swear that you think that he walks on water.
Go ahead, refer them to that thread, it is full of holes and baseless arguments, none of which give any evidence as to the varacity of any claims. Can't have anyone thinking for themselves, why not refer them to what was already written, that way they can demonstrate the same intellectual laziness as Peter Schwartz and all those who endlessly quote him.
Besides this thread, where else am I promoting my views, as you put it? Now, I have posted a couple of my published articles in the Essay Forum, but it is not intended to promote libertarianism. I was more interested in feedback, to see where people such as yourselves stand on certain issues. You mean to tell me you have no problems with the so-called Faith-Based Initiative as what I discuss in one of my articles, the one titled, "Uncle Sam's Charity"? If you think it is tripe, well, that is one man's opinion.
-
Inquisitor,
RationalCop - You should try butcher shops, the meat is fresher and often better quality.Absolutely, of course the butcher shop is the next best thing to hunting fresh meat. I just got back from a hunt, along with tasty fresh venison, I also have a nice trophy - can't get that from a butcher shop.
-
Bowzer,
Just so that you know, I have studied each facet of Objectivism, I am familiar with the basic tenants of Objectivism. I have read Ayn Rand’s major works, and Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were two of my favorite books. I also value reason and logic above emotionalism, just like you do. You seem to confuse rational thought with the concept of Rationalism. You would be the type that spends the better part of his life trying to ‘prove’ that reality is real. Theory in its purity takes
precedence over actual observable proof (evidence). I have news for you and all who dwell within your insular little cocoon, the concepts of individual rights, self-ownership (libertarian philosophy) and freedom pre-date Objectivism. Many of the arguments that I have encountered here against libertarianism center around the perception that the concepts of rights are deduced from philosophy, forgetting that natural rights and natural laws are as immutable as are the laws of gravity. It is my experience that many Objectivists equate reason, morality, and rights with sententious phrases, as if that were to pass as truth and wisdom, especially the Peikoff acolytes.
You like to pass off quotes from Peter Schwartz and Dr. Peikoff as absolute truths, it appears to me that for you the ‘wisdom’ that pour from their mouths is somehow omniscient. The way you go about quoting them it makes it appear as if you deify them. Oh, I like the irony of that from an Objectivist. LOL How about searching for something a little more irrefutable, such as evidence to back your assertions. Insinuation and innuendo do not pass for wisdom or truth in the real world.
Now as to philosophy as it relates to the concept of liberty, the possession of a firm philosophical base is important, absolutely, as it helps one to refine the understanding of the details of freedom and liberty, but it is not a necessity to grasp the concept.
-
That says it all, and explains why you are a libertarian rather than an Objectivist.
Well, you can sit around for the rest of your life debating as to whether or not reality is actually reality while the forces of big government continue to chip away at your basic liberties, taxing you into oblivion for the effort, all the while with continuing to shackle the free market with onerous and disasterous regulations. Perhaps you can philosophize it all away with superfluous language.
-
I know you have a lot to do this weekend, but I'd like to see an answer to some of these other questions that have been posed. Do animals also own and control their own bodies? How about plants? Do both males and females own and control their own bodies? Or do newborn infants own their own bodies? How about unborn infants? And what about some being from another planet? I understand that if you're talking about fundamental principles and not derivative ones, the answers have to be, at some point "Yes, and that's that". The thing is, I can't predict your answers to these questions.
Professor Odden,
Ironic that you should pose that question in light of the fact that I am right now getting ready to leave on a hunting trip with some buddies that we have been planning for several months. I suppose that if I believed that animals owned their own bodies I'd be right in the middle of a real moral quandry right now. LOL No, ownership is predicated upon sentience, and since animals are not sentient, they have no real ownership of their bodies. Plants? What kind of question is that? I almost get the idea that you are insulting my intelligence with such a question, as the other questions are reasonable.
So, did you predict the answer to that question?
As to the rest of the posters here. First off, my main concern and focus is on politics and the political arena. It is my belief that libertarianism has a step up on objectivism in that regard, and this is not meant as an insult. I am more concerned with the practical, the here and now. I want to see government scaled back to the original scope and intent of the Founding Fathers. I want to see most of what government currently is engaged in either abolished or privatized. I want to see regulations eliminated on the free market. I want to see the income tax abolished. I want to see the day in which government is our servant, not our master. I want to see a society where all land ownership is in private hands, where government has no land ownership. Those are the things that matter. I want to see a society where the rights of the individual are honored above the rights of groups and collectives, where achievement and accomplishment are honored above political correctness and platitudes.
Let me end tonight by saying that I wish the best to you all. I am heartened to see the work that Objectivists are doing on our university campuses. You are all to be commended for that, and certainly our kids will surely benefit. I notice that alot of young kids come to your site, that is a good. I hope they do not become disenchanted with the manners of a few, but in the end I can think that your overall message will certainly make an impression.
-
You did not acknowledge with a reply my previous post, wherein I pointed out that Ayn Rand and Objectivism consider Libertarianism as an avowed enemy.
It wasn't worth the reply, that is why. It is based on misquotation, hyperbole, and half-truths, spun by minions who worship at the feet of Dr. Peikoff. Don't bother engaging me again, I have no use for you are your ilk. Apparently civility, decorum, and manners are not traits to be honored around here. Goodbye and good riddence!
-
There are plenty of libertarian Christians, Secular Humanists, Moral Relativists, and theists. As the nature of those groups, they do not practice a morality of self-interest. Neither do you, as a theist.
You have no idea of my beliefs, none whatsoever. I am a deist, which if you knew anything remotely about what deism is, you would recognize the ignorance of this statement. Deists reject fully the idea of revealed religion or faith, as we also reject the idea that the Bible or any other religious book as literal. So now you seek to score points using the tired old bandwagon fallacy, not realizing the ignorance of your statement. Go ahead, say what you want. You and your fellow cultists here can continue to pat each other on the back. Enjoy your mutual admiration society, for no one else out in normal society takes you are anything you say seriously. You have no idea the scorn and ridicule most objectivists are subjected to in circles political or societal. Stay wrapped up in your insular little world. You all do a real disservice to the vision and genius that was Ayn Rand. I'm through with you all, I have encountered a greater degree of maturity, and a more developed sense of etiquette from junior high kids. Great screen name, btw, it is befitting someone who is just one step up on the evolutionary ladder from your nearest ancestor. No wonder you all have a schism within your ranks that has basically assassinated any credibility your movement may have garnered amongst society.
-
Mr. Williamson,
What is the ethical base of libertarianism? What is the metaphysical/episteomological base of libertarianism's ethical base?
Good questions. For sake of brevity, I have summed up my answer to the first part of your question. Seeing as I have other duties to attend to, I'll delve into the second part after the weekend. (Gotta see if the Sox can come back against the Yankees. LOL ) Here is my response:
First of all, I want to debunk the false assumption that libertarianism has no philosophical underpinnings. That is patently false. As a matter of fact, libertarians have the same basic premise of ethics as Objectivists – that one's life, and happiness, is the prime value - i.e. a morality of self-interest. Libertarians hold sacrosanct the idea that we own and control our own bodies and I suppose that the most basic right is that of self-ownership and that since ownership implies control, we logically can conclude that our actions must also be the property of the individual. The natural result of this ownership is manifested in a social context, through trade and production, in property. Through these deductions derive the two major rights of action and rights of property.
-
Peikoff argues that philosophy is: that progressive education a la Dewey is the infection. Privatizing education may, to some degree, slow the spread, but it is no cure. The introduction of a philosophy of reason to today's youth is the cure.
Hi Mr. feldblum,
You'll get no argument from me regarding this assertion from Dr. Peikoff. It is absolutely correct. I do disagree with the premise that libertarianism bases, or derives its beliefs from any variant of altruism.
Yours in liberty,
Ed Williamson
-
Socionomer,
Thanks for the welcome. Listen, folks, I understand that I may have got off on the wrong foot here. I certainly am not trying to 'prostylze' my libertarian values, or impose my political beliefs. I do enjoy discussion of them, however. For those of you that wish to further find out why I believe so ardently in privatizing education, you can read my essay in the 'Essay Forum'. I'll also rephrase some of my earlier remarks as far as Objectivism. I agree with alot of what Objectivism teaches and I appreciate much of what Objectivism stands for, I admire the stand on reason and rationality. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, which I read over 25 years ago, were two of my favorite books, and they certainly made a big contribution to my life. I did not set out to offend any of you folks, and if I did I certainly apologize, it was not my intent. Now, I do think it would be benificial to both Objectisism and Libertarianism if we established more meaningful dialogue and searched for some commonality, we could also benifit from taking part in less invective. I'll grant that there are factions within libertarian circles that have not treated Objectivists very well, but for the most part libertarians support the work that you all do. I notice that on major University Campuses across our great nation Objectivist clubs abound, seminars and workshops are held, and kids are being actively engaged. That is something to be commended.
-
banana,
Now, however, the battle is being waged in America's universities.I have noticed that, and I applaud you all for it. Universities are bastions of socialist/liberal thought. The rot that has become academia is infecting, and has been infecting our society for far too long. Of course, that is one of the many reasons libertarians seek to privatize all education - government schools are nothing more than doctrination centers.
BurgessLau,
Pedophiles? How about giving a concrete example of what you speak rather than flinging out some unsubstantiated charge. I just may or may not decide to finish my answers, but certainly the attitude that some folks around here display leaves much to be desired. I suppose manners are not something that is practiced around here as a general rule.
-
YES!
In fact, "Liberal, Objectivist, Conservative: Divergent Voices in America" was the title of a PBS program a few years back featuring Dr. Leonard Peikoff. You can order a tape of the show (click here).
Hi Betsy,
I'm fully aware of that program having already seen it. I was impressed by Peikoff's reasoned and rational arguments, as I usually am. However, in political circles Objectivism is not considered a political school of thought or a political ideology, and no amount of lecturing by Dr. Peikoff will make that so. If Objectivism is not compatible with the GOP, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, then why haven't we seen the development of the Objectivist Party? Fact of the matter is that Objectivism needs a political conduit to ever make an impression, or a difference within the political arena.
Arafat Shocked
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
You are right, of course, but you also point out just how illogical revealed religions are. :LOL As far as stirring the pot, a specialty of mine I have been told!
As far as offending the sensibilities of terrorists, good! Let 'em be offended. Arafat was a terrorist and so are the so-called Palestinians.