"The Betrayal of Ayn Rand"

[FreeObjectivist]

I , for one, agree that the original article deserves careful attention. I found it sobering, thought-provoking and sincere. The author's affiliations, or reputation, or FCP's integrity, are not, surely, the primary point here. I agree with FreeObjectivist in all he's posted here.

Thank you.

Do we need arms-length allies, or don't we?

I think there is no reason to refuse alliances, providing they adhere to agreed on fundamental principles, so that we are actually fighting for the same thing. The question is, how fundamental is the disagreement over religion? Is it a fatal difference, or is there some other even more fundamental principle that can still be held despite religion? In the case of this particular religion, their flaw is not that they ascribe primacy to consciousness, but that they accept the arbitrary. As long as they confine the arbitrary to their concepts of religion, and as long as they do not ask us to live for them, I think we can form a safe alliance. I find Galt's Oath a good standard: I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

I think if we can make it clear to them that we differ on the point of arbitrary claims and agree on the rightness of living for your own sake, they will also feel more comfortable with the alliance. Perhaps then they will not feel the need to "prove" their religion to us.

I was disappointed to find that the comment I made on Rick's blog was not posted. http://www.rickkoerber.com/2009/06/18/the-...of-ayn-rand/307 It was respectful, so I have to wonder why. I am hoping to find that there is just a time lag for moderation, and that it will yet show up.

I sense the presence of sock puppets.

What do you mean?

[whYNOT]

Yeah, D'kian, don't be bashful, tell us all.

[2046]

Can we have a "just say no" policy towards sycophantic cultists, who are under investigation for fraud, that open multiple accounts and pretend to be other people so they troll these forums to spread mongolism and falseness like "Christian Objectivism" and act like they "oppose" collectivism?

[D'kian]

Yeah, D'kian, don't be bashful, tell us all.

I thought "sock puppet" was a current term among internet users.

[Space Patroller]

How can anyone be ANY kind of Christian with "GIVE us this day, our daily bread" as a major element of your belief system and be anything but antagonistic to Objectivism and the ideas, tone and spirt of AS and Capitalism? That's like being an atheist and affirming the Apostles' Creed

To quote Rand; "[what kind of world is it] ...where man proposes but a ghost disposes?". How rational is it to believe that you live after you die [Hey Abbo-o-ott!]? Religion is inherently flawed by the Epistemology of Mysticism and the Metaphysicis of Supernaturalism; read angels, devils and other assorted ghosts and goblins. Yes, some theologies can be very logical and make sense. The Thomists are at the top of the list but the context kind of invalidates them

Also that little phrase, aside from making man a metaphysical mendicant. MUST BE for the Christian, the blueprint for any or all of the incarnations of the Welfare State and therefore sets Christianity in direct opposition to Capitalism and by extension, Objectivism. And this is an absolute and necessary fact.

To be a true, honest and knowing Christian is to be, by the Law of Identity, both of the above.

As for being hard-assed, If you don't believe down to your bones that you have the right thing then don't bother; you're just a mushy moderate fit only to be a slave. I've been an Oist for 40 years, Why? Not because it looks cute. Because it's the right thing. I should know, I've seen it all and been some of it. It got me an A in Western Civ at Profidence College. It validated my sense of life, It boosted my IQ by 34 points. To me, that says it keeps its promise: in spades! I'm gonna ditch THAT? No way! I'd be an interstellar level, trans-dimensional dufus if I did.

Objectivism is more than just a philosophical system. When it seats properly in a person's psyche, it brings with it personality traits that enhonce being a human person: The Will to understand, the drive to excellence, self-responsibility, the universe as comprehensible and usable and the ability to know just what you can and cannot do by being able to sort it out with intelligence and then expanding one's frontiers further out, doing tomorrow what you could not do today.

And I had to get over the idea that capitlalism was backward-thinking and Scientific Socialism was the way to go. Scientific Socialism was somewhat egoistic in that it held that each benefited from the system by making it better for all. This was the Utilitarian contra-argument to the Utilitarian idea the Capitalism was the best system. This pre-dated Objectivism by decades and was the best thing going at the time. It placed an implicit positive value on the intellect and rationality. It was based on the idea that economics, like the natural sciences, was best implemented when Nam ran the show and that capitlalism left vital economic decisions to the whim of the irrational, unlearned or stupid.

Now there can be, and have been alliances with Christians. This is possible because most Christians don't get the above. From The OBJECTIVIST NEWSLEETER: One can join with others on an ad hoc basis.

As to activism Ayn Rand said that while she was an activist, it was not necessary or even good, for everyone to be (I think it was in the PLAYBOY interview with Alvin Toffler).

EDITIED: I almost forgot. I do believe that Rick is correct when he says that some persons who claim to be Objectivists are simply latching on to it, consciously or unconsciously, to vent their anger at religion. Whin I see things here like "I'm against whatever relgion is for" or the like. I get that. Remember, religion supports the doctrine of absolutism in truth and morality: Are you against those? And I've seen it here as well as elsewhere That anger is usually an "illness" of the young; been there done that, and comes from the feeling of having been cheated or is just part of the process of "leaving the house" i.e. growing up, psychologically, most such do "make their peace with God". What is wrong with that simmering anger is that it's an unecessary waste of time, thought and feeling. Just salvage whatever is true, leave the false behind and be glad of the chance to have better. Otherwise, whatever will you do when you come across things that Objectivism has in common with religion and you don't have the right context to see the differences; like moral absolutism (which is probably why you fled religion), being quite doctrinnaire (which is probably why you fled religion) and the requirement of honesty (which is probably why you fled religion because it "cramped your style") and, of course Capitalism (I had to get over that one, too: Like I said "been there, done that")?

Edited June 20, 2009 by Space Patroller

[kainscalia]

Thank you. I think there is no reason to refuse alliances, providing they adhere to agreed on fundamental principles

Which fundamental principles are we talking about? Jesus Christ being our Lord and Savior from our inherent original sin and that we must be our brother's keepers?

[FreeObjectivist]

Now there can be, and have been alliances with Christians. . . . From The OBJECTIVIST NEWSLEETER: One can join with others on an ad hoc basis.

As to activism Ayn Rand said that while she was an activist, it was not necessary or even good, for everyone to be (I think it was in the PLAYBOY interview with Alvin Toffler).

Thank you, that is what I was looking for. It just didn't feel right to me to be told "you have to advocate." It feels too much like being told I have to live for someone else.

Which fundamental principles are we talking about? Jesus Christ being our Lord and Savior from our inherent original sin and that we must be our brother's keepers?

No, despite confusion to the contrary, I am not trolling or being sarcastic. I meant commitment to individual rights.

As for being hard-assed, If you don't believe down to your bones that you have the right thing then don't bother; you're just a mushy moderate fit only to be a slave.

I just read Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value," and now I understand what you mean.

Objectivism is more than just a philosophical system. When it seats properly in a person's psyche, it brings with it personality traits that enhonce being a human person

I thought this more or less coming in to this discussion, but after reading "Fact and Value," I was struck by it much more deeply. I was reluctant beforehand to be firm about the things I disagreed with; as soon as I read Peikoff's argument, I understood immediately that I need to make a moral judgment about some of the ideas that claim to ally themselves with Objectivism. As soon as I recognized this, I felt a great calm come over me, the calm of knowing that a contradiction in myself was finally in accordance with reality.

I am very grateful to Ayn Rand for the time she spent diligently thinking through this philosophy, and for all those who have taken her seriously enough to propagate it.

And Rick, if you read this, you are attempting to resolve a contradiction by redefining the terms. You can equate faith with confidence in principle, but to do so robs the word of any useful meaning. Reality will go on not conforming to those definitions, no matter how neat a resolution they appear to produce. Faith is acceptance of an assertion without any objective evidence; it inherently means the acceptance of emotion as cognition. Atheism is essential to Objectivism. Do you call yourself an Objectivist? If so, you are wrong to do so. It is not merely a silly dispute between camps that could be good allies, it is as distinct as the difference between life and death. The moral revolution you champion (yes, I did recognize where the language comes from) depends first and foremost on the inviolability of the individual mind. As soon as you claim that self-interest leads to faith (Principle 2 of your credo--I recognize that language too), you disconnect the mind from its only source of knowledge: reality. The claim that a rational god is part of reality is arbitrary, and the assertion that god authors prosperity (Principle 1) or governs in the affairs of men (the FCP Pledge) destroys a man's confidence in his own mind. I applaud the energy of your efforts, but I must speak up against the contradiction I see in your words.

[Space Patroller]

I don't know if the title of this thread is really accurate. though I can understand the sentiment. ONce you get the Objectivist bug. you kind of feel that any incorrect use of it is a personal infringement.

From what I gather, Rick is a Mormon who has read AS and grew to like the characters. Did he make a commitment to the philosophy? none that I saw. He's like a lot of persons who read ATLAS SHRUGGED or THE FOUNTAINHEAD and doesn't get it all. Matt Allen WPRO 630 AM, Providence RI, 6-9 PM weeknights drives me up a wall He's constantly quoting from AS but says "We have to get back to a situation of a basic belief in God and family" a month after saying "We need a John Galt solution [to welfare; 'moochers and looters', and taxes]". Along with peddling some really loopy stuff like "mass consciousness" the crap that at room temperature Nutri-Sweet (aspertame) becomes formaldahyde and the Electormagnetic pulse (EMP) alarmism that Petr Beckmann disposed of two decades ago. Matt Allen IS a betrayal of Ayn Rand; trying to expropriate her ideas and mix them up with maudlin crapola. why the RI Objectivist organization hasn't told him to take a flying frak at a rolling donut, I don't know.

Now we find that George Norry, successor to Art Bell, of Coast to Coast supports the free market. Just listen to that for a few nights and thatl'll make you wonder if the Democrats aren't right This program supports stuff that is mentally ill and ought be prohibited. He claems to have cured cancer by psychic menas which is an outright fraud. The presence of this kind of lunacy in major media markets lends a certain amount of popular credibility, of the sort that "it must be either true or substantially true or it wouldn't be on the air", to it and this stuff, if it takes, is dangerous. This deals not in just mis-information, but disinformation. Judging by Norry's tone of voice, he doens't believe hafl of it. It's like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

[Maximus]

I wouldn't get too torn up over Norry. It's entertainment. I've listened to Coast to Coast AM for years. Ian Punnit (weekends) is a much better host, and Norry doesn't hold a candle to Art Bell.

And, no, I don't fall for 99% of the BS on the show, but I work at night and it's good entertainment.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Why is it that such a large number of so-called Objectivists like to write or speak, but few can demonstrate that they’ve devoted any significant thought whatsoever or any meaningful, sustained action to bringing about a veritable, tangible movement as described by Ms. Rand? ...

...What are your thoughts?

Hold your horses. Rearden Metal took ten years to produce.

[2046]

Why is it that such a large number of so-called Objectivists like to write or speak, but few can demonstrate that they’ve devoted any significant thought whatsoever or any meaningful, sustained action to bringing about a veritable, tangible movement as described by Ms. Rand? ...

...What are your thoughts?

"I want, therefore, to make it emphatically clear that Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone." -AR

[Space Patroller]

"I want, therefore, to make it emphatically clear that Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone." -AR

One almost has to wonder about this. Consider: Objectivism is a strong philosophy which means it is vividly defined and is doctrinnaire (All good systems are). This make it an integrated (organized and systematized) whole:means a "complete system", This makes it exclusionary; You either is or you isn't, anything that uses some of it is none of it. and is a distortion, misuse or betrayal of it and is said to be a betrayal or Ayn Rand, which mkes her somewhat of a revered figure (rightfully so, in the sense of Aristotle, Washington, Jefferson, Newton, Einstein, Heinlein or Moog). in The OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, she said that there was an "intllectual division of labor" and "We are the theoreticians". Multiple witnesses say that when someone was given the heave ho it was in front of the the assembly which kind of backs up Branden's statements in JUDGEMENT DAY about being "the enforcer" (Reason's review of that publication). Also the non-theoreticians were not allowed to call themselves "Objectiivsits" rather they were "Students of Objectivism". These point to the "medical minimum" for an organization or certainly of being "organic"

Now, whether there ought be an organized Objectivism. There is what I call "institutional Objectivism" that consists of the doctine, the people who practice and promulgate it and such groups, which are organized at some level, though which it is done and the means by which it is done. It might be proper for us to develop the social networks to integrate things. I do some of it at my domain by putting all things Objectivist that pass muster with me. I use the domain to both introduce Oism in what I judge to be its purest form, and also as a "military" entity. In fact my major websites are Objectivist-related. You will see how if you use the link in my sig.

This state of affairs points to, at some point in time. an organized Objectivism, However, I'm in no hurry as this will be beyond my lifetime. I use, as my template, Church history. That is what I meant when I said elsewhere "...We could still shatter [does 'herding cats' do it for you]. We have yet to have our council of Nicea". Some of that seems to be done here and for the most part, we have it right.

What we are missing are presence, a path from there to here and outreach. We have to do three things: Stop acting like we're sui generis, et people know we're here and participate in the society at large.

[whYNOT]

It appears clear that Ayn Rand's teaching often deals with hierarchical differences. As such, she was not so much against altruism, mysticism, statism, as much as she was FOR Individualism and Reason. [ I would be interested if anyone can refute this, since I have always taken it as self-evident in her writing].

The arguments I have heard against religion are mainly completely true, but on one occasion a little puzzling. Now I'm a far off observer of U.S. politics, and can't claim to be au fait with the specifics, as you are, but I cannot quite grasp how and why it was (slightly) more important to vote in a liberal, statist government, than- as I read it- one that has backing of the religious 'right'. The explanation given was that one can at least debate with the former, but that the religious will never respond to Reason. [Hope I got that right].

Coming from the O'ist intellectuals supporting this stance, was as I say, puzzling: what about the possibility that, with the Statists in power, they then decide to enforce religion in schools, society etc.?

Then you have two evils for the price of one, surely? Or is this much too simplistic?

So that leads me back to my original post here; the question of allowing some access of those 'self-proclaimed religious Capitalists' to an arms- length, totally practical, alliance with Objectivism. This is still only hypothetical in my mind, and I welcome any opinions on the inherent flaws.

But, well, the moderate Christians do have the numbers. Capitalism needs a boost, all over the world.

With Capitalism forcing a check on spreading Statism, our liberty again has a chance.

I have heard many opinions on the threat of Mysticism, but does this [my theory] mean we are 'selling our souls'?

I stand by my previous statement that O'ism must stay pure to itself,and in itself, so if there is the faintest whiff of compromise and contradiction and moral pragmatism, I won't hesitate to withdraw the argument. Please consider it though.

BTW, What's a 'sock puppet'?

[Maximus]

BTW, What's a 'sock puppet'?

[softwareNerd]

BTW, What's a 'sock puppet'?

Maximus's picture shows what it is "in real life". Also, on the Internet, a metaphor for a person using multiple identities, usually in order to carry on a conversation with himself.

[D'kian]

Maximus's picture shows what it is "in real life". Also, on the Internet, a metaphor for a person using multiple identities, usually in order to carry on a conversation with himself.

I thought it was well-known internet terminology, like BRB or PEBKAC.

Anyway, there are three main uses for sock puppets. One is to take up both sides of an issue in a board such as this one or a blog's comment section. Another is to create the impression of agreement with a controversial position in baords such as ths one or a blog's comment section (this may require a larger quantity of sock puppets). Finally some bloggers use a sock puppet or two to post incendiary comments to their own articles. Of course the roles can mix in any number of ways.

Regardless of intent or utility, the use of sock puppets is fraudulent, as the puppet claims to be somethign he's not. A long time ago, before the internet took off among the masses, I helped mod a BBS (something along the lines of this board). The owner and I created a sock puppet to make incendiary statements (back then he was known as a phantom user). I realized it was a mistake and ahve never done it since (well, once as a joke, but it was only a joke).

[Zip]

No, despite confusion to the contrary, I am not trolling or being sarcastic. I meant commitment to individual rights.

The collectivism espoused by Christianity (you are your brothers keeper, neither a borrower nor a lender be, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, Turn the other cheek, Pride is a deadly sin) is the antithesis of individual rights.

My first (and really the only) individual right is to Live my life as I see fit. EVERYTHING held within Christianity is about living my life in a manner concocted by some fairy tail boogeyman, his dead Jewish Zombie "son" or was it some monk copying imperfectly suffering in a hair shirt for King James? No matter really, the point is that if I should choose to be a glutton that is my individual right. If I choose to become filthy rich and never part with a cent of my hard earned money that too is my right. If when threatened with death I strike back and kill my assailant that too is my individual right. If I want to smoke and drink and fuck and dance and party and work too much and buy the best of everything that is my individual right.

So cut the crap about Christianity supporting individual rights it supports collective obedience nothing else nothing less.

Religion (all of them) is collectivism, collectivism is anti-individual, Anti-individual = anti-individual rights.

[Space Patroller]

It appears clear that Ayn Rand's teaching often deals with hierarchical differences. As such, she was not so much against altruism, mysticism, statism, as much as she was FOR Individualism and Reason. [ I would be interested if anyone can refute this, since I have always taken it as self-evident in her writing].

You are exactly right. For the same reason that I said there is no such "thing" as atheism or an atheist, since that states what you are NOT, not what you are. e,g. Communist, Objectivist, Existentialist, etc. Why this is crucial is that, to operate, the Law of Identiy needs something on which to get traction and it cann't do that on a "not".

The arguments I have heard against religion are mainly completely true, but on one occasion a little puzzling. Now I'm a far off observer of U.S. politics, and can't claim to be au fait with the specifics, as you are, but I cannot quite grasp how and why it was (slightly) more important to vote in a liberal, statist government, than- as I read it- one that has backing of the religious 'right'. The explanation given was that one can at least debate with the former, but that the religious will never respond to Reason. [Hope I got that right].

You have it right but the hypothesis is false. Watch Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi in action and the eco's are totally devoid of reason. The whole liberal gestalt is more like the termitary that they chose as their model 80 years ago. In fact it is now the religionists who are more amenable to reason at least in personal inclination if not doctrine.. Of the liberals Rand said in the middle 1970's "[with respect to those of the pre-1960 era] Though they were wrong, I envied them their methodology [logic and reason]: Today they are in no such danger" Now, let that brew ferment for 34 years and tell me what you have.

But there were still good reasons to prefer Obama to McCain.

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/08feb.html

I computed that a McCain victory would move the Republican party about 20 points to the left from 60% right to 40% and this would be irreversible, leaving no viable alternative to some form of liberalism being the permanent baseline and proceeding left from there. At leat now, the Republican brand is still salvageable and since we are locked by law, for all practical purposes, in a two-party system, that's important.

Also the Democrats would bring their schemes to fruition Prematurely and hurriedly so that by 2011, it would be plainly apparent just what liberalism is and what it does. Mine was sort of a rope-a-dope tactic. Let them win the political battles then let reality do my dirty work for me. To cheat fools, give them that for which they ask

Coming from the O'ist intellectuals supporting this stance, was as I say, puzzling: what about the possibility that, with the Statists in power, they then decide to enforce religion in schools, society etc.?

Then you have two evils for the price of one, surely? Or is this much too simplistic?

So that leads me back to my original post here; the question of allowing some access of those 'self-proclaimed religious Capitalists' to an arms- length, totally practical, alliance with Objectivism. This is still only hypothetical in my mind, and I welcome any opinions on the inherent flaws.

But, well, the moderate Christians do have the numbers. Capitalism needs a boost, all over the world.

With Capitalism forcing a check on spreading Statism, our liberty again has a chance.

I have heard many opinions on the threat of Mysticism, but does this [my theory] mean we are 'selling our souls'?

I stand by my previous statement that O'ism must stay pure to itself,and in itself, so if there is the faintest whiff of compromise and contradiction and moral pragmatism, I won't hesitate to withdraw the argument. Please consider it though.

The fact is that we must deal in the world as it is. Principles and concepts are hierarchical and we live in a mixed system. To abandon a lesser principle in order to achieve a geater one is not a comprmise. To pass on a goal today makes no law that I will not come back for it tomorrow. A competent thief will often hide the treasure in the same room as it was in, and return for it when the hubbub has died away. Also things are done in two templates. Successive approximations. getting first to the ballpark, then the infield, then the pitchers' mound or home plate. Another template is incrementalism, taking what you can get at any givine time without trying for the home run all the time. Yet another characteristic of the mixed system is that the agressor is responsible for the results of his actions. as Rand said "The only thing you can do with a criminal os to crack his skull before he cracks yours". If there is a significant threat they doing whatever it takes to nullify it is no compromise since individual life is the standard of value. Therefore all bets are off. There are persons in this world to whom I regularly and gleefull "lie" for my own ends. Galt's Gulch has not yet been built. let alone become the world empire. In line with this, see also "The Question of Scholarships" in The OBJECTIVIST.

Also the libs have a religion: Environmentalism, which they enforce with the viciousness that the Iranian mulluhs and ayatollahs would be embarrassed to emulate as it's sooooooo over the top.

[Craig24]

It seems to me that many people choose to avoid alliances with people they disagree with on the fundamental issue of God/religion out of some concern that the religious believer will seek to violate the rights of the atheist. Perhaps a pledge of sorts is in order for the religious believer who wishes to make common cause with objectivists. Galt's pledge reads as follows: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine.

Can we come up with something along those lines that a relgious believer should pledge before he will be accepted as a legitimate ally of objectivists?

[Space Patroller]

It seems to me that many people choose to avoid alliances with people they disagree with on the fundamental issue of God/religion out of some concern that the religious believer will seek to violate the rights of the atheist. Perhaps a pledge of sorts is in order for the religious believer who wishes to make common cause with objectivists.

There's enough history for that belief to be true. Religious persecution is so old that it was collectiong Social Security 3 millenia before there was Social Security

Galt's pledge reads as follows: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine.

The religionist is, at heart, a puppet, living his life for the greater glory of God. How would he even understand Galt's oath, he hasn't the experience, worldview or mindset for it.

Can we come up with something along those lines that a relgious believer should pledge before he will be accepted as a legitimate ally of objectivists?

That was done for awhile between 1976 and 1988. Guess who broke the deal, as I knew they would.

How do you make a deal with someone for whom reality is malleable? What's to stop him from having a "revelation" that God told him that the deal was now annulled? Many Muslims think it clever to trick the Infidel and once's word given to an infidel is not binding.

That's why these are alliances and not oaths of eternal friendship. An alliance is only to meet a specific, common, critical threat. We have permanent interests and permanant principles, but we do not have permanant friends. I found that out the hard way with a so-called Objectivist of almost 22 years standing. In fact, it was the person who introduced me to Rand.

[whYNOT]

Thanks for the info on sock puppets, Gents- - [i'd half-way worked it out], now I can add it to my ever growing internet fund .

What a brilliant metaphor!! Who's the genius who dreams these up? sock puppets, sick puppies....

Hi Space Patroller, I enjoyed your 'rope-a-dope' analogy. A bit Machiavellian, and rather risky - it all depends on those stomach muscles, or else disaster!

[FreeObjectivist]

Well, I'm not a sock puppet, and I posted the article for honest intentions, because I wanted to discuss it. Love the metaphor, though!

I think there's truth that it may be impossible to make anything but temporary alliances. This whole "betrayal" concept illustrates the point nicely. Rick and company honestly do not see the contradiction between Galt's Oath and believing in a being who tells them to sacrifice their lives for a greater good. They believe that god is rational, and if we just understood how rational their faith is, we would be able to accept god too--or at least not be so intransigent in our atheism. (BTW, "theism" means "god belief," so a-theism means "the absence of god belief." FWIW. Maybe you know this already.)

I have heard some of the FCP people cite Galt's Oath for themselves. They take the principle of non-sacrifice, of living your own life, surprisingly far considering their allegiences. Some of them even come to question their premises. . .

I think if the ally can accept the premise, and the premise is stated clearly, they can be worked with, but the premises must be checked regularly for concurrance. You can't assume that all members of an organization will agree or that the same members will maintain their agreement over time. You have to actually check what they mean on a regular basis. There is definitely short term value in working with others. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." But you can never forget that he is still fundamentally your enemy--as is demonstrated by having a so called friend call Objectivists betrayers because they are anti-religion!

I like the comment that the law of identity needs something positive to get traction on. That's precisely why Rick's attack on people who are too opposed to religion to work FOR reason is so telling. I claim that he is missing the point about what they are doing; they are not just distracted, they are working to pull down a fundamental obstacle to the positive one they hope to instill. He's acting as if they're just being silly and should focus on the REAL issue. He wants them to put aside what they perceive as the importance of atheism and work with him. (He still has not posted my comment on his blog....) But Ojbectivism is fundamentally a-theist, because all "evidence" for god is arbitrary and emotional. So to give the law of identity some traction, you can call yourself an Objectivist (or student of Objectivism!) and that is FOR something. It's like he's telling people not to be what they are because he isn't.

Oh, and I don't think the "american people' were rational in their choice about which presidential candidate to vote for. They vote by how they feel, not by a rational process. If they gave even a little rational thought to it, the whole system would be stronger and we would have a lot more to work with.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think this is a curious thread in that if one wants to uphold Man's Rights then welcome aboard. However, from a philosophical perspective, man's rights are only derivable all the way down from reason and reality, rather than faith and the other world of God and heaven. In the long run, this contradiction will have to be faced by the religionists, and I think they will see that so long as they hold onto the ideals of God and mysticism, then they really can't be for individual rights. Freedom of religion is not the same thing as capitalism; capitalism will have the freedom of religion, but your religion is incompatible with living life on earth to the most rationally fullest.

Now, if you wanted to say that not everyone has to be an Objectivist before we can re-assert individual rights, I would agree with that; though I'm not really sure there can be a general advocacy for individual rights without at least an implicit agreement of reason and life on earth. In other words, if you accept as an ideal that God demands that man lives in freedom -- that God gave us free will and that capitalism is the political implementation of free will -- that will only get you so far; and I doubt if you would be on-board for the right to abortion, the right to be a prostitute, and the right to do illicit drugs, the right to pornography, and the right to be free from religion, and the right to do those things that a religionist considers to be immoral; and a whole host of other rights incompatible with religion. However, if you can do that, then maybe you can come on-board for the push for individual rights.

I completely agree with Dr. Peikoff that a religious stance as the supposed basis for rights is incompatible with capitalism and that the ideology of religion is far more dangerous than socialism. But, if you can be religious and still fight for individual rights, then do so. The contradiction is yours, not ours.

[whYNOT]

"The contradiction is yours, not ours."

Elegantly put, Mr Miovas.

[Space Patroller]

Hi Space Patroller, I enjoyed your 'rope-a-dope' analogy. A bit Machiavellian, and rather risky

More D'Anconian than Mechiavellian and not that risky since, barring an intervening variable, the danger in in force already. This is a tactic. you're looking for an opening. Since the liberal statist is at war with reality, i.e. the universe at large, he cannot succeed. The Law of Identity guarantees that opening. However, it does not guarantee that you will notice it.

There is another approach that is a strategem more than a tactic. Let the religionist and the socialist fight it out with a little judicious action here and ther, then take on the winner who will be pretty much out of recources and an easy win. Even if you had allied yourself with the religionist, he will break the deal.

- it all depends on those stomach muscles, or else disaster!

Well, that's what it means to be a warrior. Actually if you relax the stomach muscles you can take more of a pounding than you thihk. Just let every blow be the promise of 5 in return. It's called "eyes on the prize"; aka being a stubborn bastard!

Edited June 23, 2009 by Space Patroller