Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'individualism'.
Found 3 results
I am glad to return to this forum which I have not seen in years. Hello to all! I am in Canada, specifically, Ontario. I work with groups who are not objectivist's but do understand the importance of freedom and individual rights. One such group is CANACE (Canadians for Charter Equality) working to repair Canada's "two tier" legal system, whereby some favored groups get favored treatment beyond Canadian treatment. Actually, it is much more than two tiers. It is a whole rapacious mob of various treatments pressure groups receive, all the while citizens get their rights stripped each year while being expected to pay for the charades. Now, my focus. Alberta (a western province of Canada) had a flood, citizens in a small town named High River were evacuated. As citizens were gone to higher ground, Canada's police took it upon themselves to search for possible missing persons who might not have made it up to higher ground. As they did this, they also took it upon themselves to confiscate (without warrants) rifles and guns of citizens in the homes they broke into. This act by the police was completely immoral, not to mention illegal. As Canadian tradition has it, people complain, but rarely DO anything about their frustrations. The below letter is a guide for any Canadians in western Canada who might see this to use as a possible guide - if you are outraged at illegal police activity. If you wish to contact me also, you can easily find me by typing my name: Ted Harlson. Open Letter to the People of High River: I am writing regarding the fact that the RCMP entered people's homes and removed guns. While I do not own a gun, I am outraged that police believe they have the authority to steal property from people - unless they had people's consent then it was illegal. In Caledonia, Ontario the police have repeatedly violated people's rights. As a result, my organization has filed criminal charges against senior OPP officers. To date, the courts have ordered 3 of the highest ranking officers in the province to be criminally charged - Commissioner Julian Fantino for threatening elected officials, Deputy Commissioner Chris Lewis for obstructing justice and Chief Supt. Ron Gentle on a charge of obstructing justice. In fact, our cases are now law across Canada as they are being quoted by judges in every province. Canada is the only country in the world that allows average citizens to charge government officials - in fact, our laws were changed in 2002 (under a Liberal government) to strengthen citizens' authority because parliament believed this ability to hold government officials accountable, via the laying of criminal charges, was the last line of defence in a democracy. No police officer is permitted to violate the Criminal Code and no officer is required to obey any order that causes him to violate the Criminal Code. Any senior officer who gave such an order has automatically committed a crime. Until average citizens step forward to hold police and government officials accountable there will be no end to such abuse by those in authority. Anyone interested in learning how to lay criminal charges against the officers (and/or their superiors who ordered them to do so) who removed property from homes can contact me at [email protected] Freedom isn't free - someone has to pay the price to ensure our rights are respected by authorities. Gary McHale Executive Director of CANACE Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality
Morality and War By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr. 05/24/2012 I’ve come across and interesting moral dilemma presented by individualists who love Ayn Rand’s rational egoism and think that the individual ought to be free to pursue his life using reason and reality to benefit themselves ardently. The moral dilemma is usually put in the form of an application of individualism and self-defense. How can an such an individualist be in favor of having a war, when the individual enemies cannot be sought out to be killed in the name of retaliatory justice, and one winds up having to kill a vast number of people on the other side not directly involved in killing members of an individualist and moral country? In other words, in their version of applying rational justice, it would be moral to kill enemy soldiers attacking a peaceful country in the name of self-defense – like shoot down their air force or their tanks or their armies – but leave the rest of their country alone, since the rest of their country is not attacking us. And this sounds quite reasonable on the face of it. If a murderer comes and kills your loved one; you don’t go kill their loved ones or their grocer or their teachers or their neighbors. No, you hunt him down and deliver justice, by either killing him or by throwing him in jail. And that is the way these anti-war individualists think about fighting a war. So, why not fight a war that way? Why not just live and let live for the rest of their country, and kill only their soldiers? I think the issue here is one of context – the facts governing how one is to think about a particular moral issue. In the case of a lone gunman who kills your loved one, there is no implication that he is attacking a whole neighborhood, let alone a whole country; no, he kills that one person (or maybe several in the immediate vicinity) and doesn’t declare war on the neighborhood or the whole country. So, it is rational to treat that lone individual as a lone individual, and not take it further, unless it can be shown that he had accomplices helping him to carry out his evil act. For example, if a bank robber uses a car as a getaway, and killed the teller in the process of robbing the bank, not only is the robber guilty of murder, but the getaway driver is also held as an accomplice to murder – even if he didn’t go into the bank. In a similar manner, one could defend oneself against a cadre of bank robbers and their support system, say if a group of them got together to plan a heist and lived together and encouraged each other to go rob banks; teaching each other how to use a Tommy gun and how to avoid the police and how to control bank customers at the point of a gun, etc. In other words, everyone involved in the bank heist cadre would be guilty of being accomplices. Nonetheless, it is still only individuals attacking individuals, and has to be handled by the police rather than the armed forces. In the case of a foreign armed forces attacking a peaceful nation, the implication is entirely different – instead of just attacking those particular people who they bomb, their intent is to destroy the entire peaceful country. Hitler sought to overthrow Poland, for example, and burst through their border to do so; killing many Polish people along the way. But his intent was to get all of Poland to surrender to Germany. He attacked a country, and not just a few individuals. In that sense, he was not like a gang leader who attacks a neighborhood, his plans were much more grandiose – he wanted all of Poland. And so all of Poland – qua country – had the moral right to fight back in self-defense. And let’s say Poland did this, they fought back and destroyed that particular army. Would it be over? Would justice have been served? For the immediate moment, perhaps. But, Germany is still there, and Hitler still wants Poland, and so he puts together another army, and they attack Poland again. And let’s say this goes back and forth a few times. How long is Poland supposed to put up with these continuous attacks? The source is coming from Germany, who is out to destroy Poland, and their factory workers continue to make tanks and fighter planes and war ships and guns and ammunition, etc. There is a whole support system there. And there is encouragement from the German people to take over Poland. They cheer on their armed forces; they agree with Hitler that Poland ought to be taken over with force. So, who is Poland supposed to kill in their pursuit of self-defense? In a manner similar to the cadre of bank robbers, there are many accomplices involved. Is Poland supposed to go into Germany and arrest all the military factory workers, the munitions plant workers, the people cheering them on, or what? And how are they to do this anyhow? I think Germany would have something to say about that, and seek to prevent it. So, more Polish people get killed. And they weren’t doing anything except minding their own business and trying to institute justice. So, when you come right down to it, such attacks on peaceful countries can only be repelled by all out war against the aggressor nation. And by implication of the people of that aggressor nation supporting their troops in various ways, as mentioned above, they are all a fair target. Justice will only be served in the Germany / Poland case if Germany is made to stand down their attacks on Poland. And the only way to do this is to take away the German people’s moral fortitude to attack Poland, to let them know in no uncertain terms, that what they are doing is morally wrong and that it will not be tolerated. And maybe it is unfortunate that many of them will have to be killed for them to realize they have done something wrong, but they supported Hitler’s reign, and they will have to pay a heavy price for it. Similarly for our current War on Terror. Americans, by and large, have been minding their own business around the world, and being attacked time and time again by Muslim Fundamentalists. The height of these attack were the mass terror attacks of September 11, 2001; where over 3,000 Americans were killed for doing nothing but taking care of business in a peaceful manner. And like the Poland example, it was an attack on America qua country, rather than qua individuals, and there is a whole support system there to train them and to encourage them to make such attacks. In fact, one could almost make a case that the entire Middle East stood behind the attacks, with the exception of Israel, as they cheered in their streets as those towers fell. How long was America to put up with it? And since these particular Islamicist soldiers died in the attacks, is justice served by the fact that the terrorists are dead? In a way, like the Poland example, perhaps. But there will be more of them, and there already have been many of them, and there is a whole ideology behind them, and entire countries are giving them moral and material support. Are these people innocent bystanders? I think not. Not by a long shot. And they need to be taught that we will not put up with these continuous attacks against Americans; and they will have to be taught by force, along whoever are their accomplices. One final note about the truly innocent who had absolutely nothing to do with the whole mess, such as the children and the babies. If the terrorists and their accomplices grouped together, leaving the children out of it, then we could kill only them and only them. But that is not the way war operates. Like I’ve said, in a sense, their whole country attacked us or encouraged others to do so and idolized their suicide bombers and their following of Islam and the killing of the infidel. We don’t have a method of aiming only at the bad guys and their accomplices – we have to bomb buildings and villages and cities to get them to stand down. And it is not our fault that they carry their women and children with them. It is the terrorists who put such people in harm’s way, not us. Now are we to stand down until no one can possibly get hurt except for the terrorists and their immediate accomplices? How many Americas are supposed to die before that type of event will happen? Realistically, it can’t be done. When it is kill or be killed – for an entire nation, one way or the other -- it’s all of them as targets or all of us as targets. And personally, I don’t like being a target just because I live in a semi-free country that the enemy literally hates with religious passion. They can lay down their arms – and the truly innocent can encourage the terrorists to lay down their arms – or they are dead. It’s as simple as that. It’s either the USA survives as a nation, or some hell-hole in the Middle East survives as a nation. And I know what side I’m on. So, I fully support our troops in their efforts to defend America by fighting abroad. If you want to save the babies over there, then be against the terrorists, not the American Soldier who is killing the terrorists and their support system. Besides, I really think such baby defenders ought to be more concerned with American babies than Islamicist babies. http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/morality_and_war.htm
What is the single root, meaning absolutely fundamental reason why force is not permissible in prevention of logically inevitable greater harm? As I am basically still an Objectivist in many ways, although I must say in lieu of your (and my own) terms and conditions (which I read yours) I am not anymore completely able to call myself one. This is my disclaimer. However, I think and therefore feel that it is appropriate as it is necessary to challenge each other through devil's advocacy wherever we can so that we never get 'soft.' Therefore, a polemics exercise must be declared, but can be such a great way of argumentative brain-storming and imaginative deductions as well as inductions. That is why I propose the above question as if I were an advocate of Fascism. Dig? Anyone interested in rounds of mental sword play, please comment! BTW: My next eBook is very much in line with this kind of devil's advocacy, both in intent as well marketing and production. I'd like to therefore, share it: MY STRUGGLE (new Philosophical Treatise - eBook Im writing) http://www.vesperhel...per-heliotropic