294 replies to this topic

[IAmMetaphysical]

Diana, I just got done reading the above post on NoodleFood, and I would just like to tell you how great it is, a great Identification and argument for your position and defense of Dr. Peikoff. I wholeheartedly agree with all your points, and would like to thank you for making the issue more clear to me.

This election is not about the concrete issues facing our local elections, but about the fundamental issues underlying the two major parties. Every choice between every Republican, and every Democrat (regardless of their professed positions, since all candidates are merely tools for the party) is a choice between sterile socialism and fervent religious socialism. A choice between a horrible Misintegration, and a feeble Disintegration. The Democrats are not good, but they are not near as bad as the Republicans, based on each parties most fundamnetal premises.

[hunterrose]

Moose, on Oct 24 2006, 09:49 AM, said:

If, tomorrow, they outlawed homosexuality, abortion, smoking, pornography, and flag-burning, my life would not be affected one bit. I am against it, but it does not affect me. As such, I prefer economic freedom, since that does affect me.

Instead of what you're saying here, wouldn't the Objectivist position be to (in terms of voting) fight for one's economic and social rights???

ewv, on Oct 27 2006, 04:10 PM, said:

[Peikoff] is opposing a long term potential cultural trend of religion by telling people to vote Republicans out of power

His position on voting is opposing a political trend, not a cultural one. The problem isn't people who who observe religious commandments, but people who impose those irrational mandates, violently or democratically, on others.

Quote

[Peikoff]is correct to openly oppose religious trends, but has no idea of what form they are taking, particularly with regard to the highly committed progressive New Left environmentalism which has escalating, enormous power in all branches and levels of government right now. If there ever is a "theocracy" in this country, they will be a big part of it.

In this case, you can't equate environmentalism with religion. Environmentalism is argued on scientific data; at times it may be argued on distorted or outright fabricated data, but it is largely a scientific argument nonetheless.

Quote

The notion that he can derive political strategy from rationalistic speculation and political anecdotes, but no actual knowledge of how politics actually works and what it is in fact doing and planning on doing rights now is ludicrous.

What rationalistic speculation and political anecdotes are you referring to?

[DavidOdden]

Having studied and practiced Objectivism for 35 years, I find it appalling that contemporary Objectivists would advocate voting for the Democrats, but repulsive beyond description that this would not be an obvious repudiation of Objectivism. The fact of the matter is that, however much you may hate the agenda of the Democratic Party, they have moved away from the anti-values that Rand concretely and specifically reviled, with reference to the politics of the Vietnam War era. The few changes in the Democratic party -- and let me emphasize the word changes -- are, from what I can see, all for the better. At the same time, the Republican Party has not moved one micron in the right direction, and has moved kilometers in the wrong direction. We have to chose the lesser of two evils, and we should feel sick to our stomachs over having to change who we vote for because the so-called good guys have become the greater of two evils, not because the former evil has significantly improved.

Frankly, guys, get a grip. National security is a non-issue for party selection. Democrats oppose such-and-such expansion of the federal government’s right to do anything and everything in the name of national security solely because the Republican agenda is “call it a matter of national security and it’s okay”. There no longer is a difference between the “party of the left” and the “party of the right” -- both parties are fundamentally leftist in the 60’s sense of the term. Rand’s rejection of the Democrats, in her time, represents a rejection of particular concretes. There is no essential ideology behind the Democratic party: they do not represent any ideas. You must therefore judge whether the specific ideas set forth by contemporary Democratic or Republican candidates are better or worse. Look at the facts, not the slogans. The most significant fact that distinguishes the modern Republican party from the Democratic party is it's view of the role of religion in government. This is a wholly contingent fact -- nothing in the nature of the Democratic party prevents it from becoming the party of religious fascists. The fact is, though, that at present, the donkey party is not the party of the religious fascists. That “honor” falls to the neocons who, thanks to Karl Rove, have utterly perverted the last philosphically defensible ideas of the Republican Party.

[The Wrath]

hunterrose, on Oct 29 2006, 03:42 PM, said:

Instead of what you're saying here, wouldn't the Objectivist position be to (in terms of voting) fight for one's economic and social rights???

Considering that the party that comes closest to this usually garners a whopping 1% of the vote, this isn't really an option.

For the record, I have made up my mind to vote Libertarian this election. It will send the message that I, at least, am sick of the big government of the 2 major parties. I recognize that the Libertarians are anti-war, but votes for the LP will not be seen as "anti-war " by the major parties. The anti-war votes go to the Democrats. Voting Libertarian sends the message that I am fed up with the 2 major parties and am ready for fundamental change in the system of American politics.

[Antonio]

Moose, on Oct 25 2006, 05:22 AM, said:

I'm gonna go ahead and end my participation in this debate. This isn't because I'm a wimp or anything, but I've had my say and this debate is going in circles, with neither side conceding any points to the other.

I hold nothing against anyone in this thread or against Dr. Peikoff. Let's just call it a difference of interpretation, brought about by the imperfections in the English language.

Ditto. Very well put. Enough said.

[MarkH]

Quote

... President Bush’s occasional vaguely free-market rhetoric means nothing. The guiding ideal of his administration is that of total government control over our lives, albeit with some nominal choices sanctioned and regulated by that government. That’s the kind of “freedom” that today’s Republicans support -- and that TIA Daily routinely praises.

That’s not quite fair to TIA Daily. Mr. Tracinski does praise the Republicans a lot, but if we asked him “Are you in favor of total government control over our lives?” he’d probably answer “Uh ... no. Just what are getting at?” or something like that. He is indeed eager to give up important civil rights in the name of war. But then so is Yaron Brook, and I gather you are comparing the two.

Another point. Bradley Thompson’s article explains how the Republicans are no better than the Democrats economically, even worse. But there are other considerations in comparing the two. Where does he say vote Democrat in the next election?

You refer to Yaron Brook’s lecture “The Morality of War” in support of voting Democrat in the coming election. It’s true that Dr. Brook castigates the Bush Administration, and by implication Republican’s in general. But his criticism amounts to: The Administration is not prosecuting the war ferociously enough. Given that the Democrats may well prosecute it even less ferociously, how does his talk support Dr. Peikoff’s recent statement?

Quote

The Bush Administration is not fighting a half-war against Islamic totalitarianism, as its Objectivist apologists claim.

Not sure which Objectivists you mean, but “apologists” sounds derogatory. Yet by your own statement they criticize the war as a “half-war.” Yaron Brook’s current position is that the Administration was right to invade Iraq but now they should exit and invade Iran, that to stay in Iraq setting up a democracy is what is altruistic.

Quote

... President Bush has embroiled the American military in years of fruitless war in Iraq -- with no end in sight.

What troubles me is that you ignore, even invert, recent Objectivist history. Look in the aynrand.org archives around the years 2002 and 2003. Yaron Brook and many others at the Ayn Rand Institute lobbied for that war, big time.

Quote

The Bush Administration’s foreign policy is influenced by Christianity in more than just this “love your enemies” plan for Islamists.

Setting up a democracy in Iraq is indeed something like “love your enemies,” but the Iraq War can hardly be called loving the enemy when it meant killing tens of thousands of them and maiming for life several times that many.

And why were they the enemy?

Quote

Dr. Peikoff deserves far better treatment from Objectivists than he’s received of late.

Regarding Dr. Peikoff’s recent statement, they trash the mind that taught them. Not that Dr. Peikoff is above criticism. He’s made mistakes and deserves reasoned criticism. Regarding Yaron Brook and Robert Tracinski (who is still a guest writer at ARI) even a fire lit under him, figuratively speaking.

[mweiss]

It seems that I may be wrong about the Republicans being any better than the Demoncrats when it comes to violence against citizens... there are an increasing number of incidents being reported, this, the latest:

A family is the victim of a 'chile porn' witch hunt gone wrong:
http://www.techdirt....23/123049.shtml

The family's response to the raid:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2006/10/19/c...n/opinion01.txt


There are an increasing number of incidents like this now, because of the guise of 'for the good of the children'. These laws are the result of Republican lawmakers, steeped in religious ideas.

So this is starting to become apparent that we are no safer under Republicans than Demoncrats. Dr. Peikoff is correct. I guess his terseness in his remarks was a result of overwork and lack of time to write a more explanatory remark. I do that often as well, which has made me a party to a number of less than friendly exchanges on internet forums.

[Antonio]

ewv, on Oct 27 2006, 05:47 PM, said:

Usually they don't bother with the trial. This is more than a movement; they are already entrenched in government where they rule by bureaucratic fiat. It is generally much worse where and when Democrats are in power in elective office because the Democrats are viros and let the agencies run wild. It is made worse by the fact that most people are too morally intimidated by quasi-poetic rhapsodies on behalf of "the environment" to oppose them. This is constantly used as a cover for the worst kinds of government abuse.

I know I said I'm off the discussion, but this topic is almost a different thread. So I'll comment only on the "rule by bureaucratic fiat."

The statement above is very true. I don't want to reveal where I work because of the work I do, other than California (need I say more?), but a situation that is an example of this is playing itself out in one of our communities.

There is a largely anonymous state agency that regulates water quality, overseen by a regional board appointed by the governor, that is forcing a small town to do a huge public works project that will cost everyone upwards of $250 a month there. Meanwhile, that agency has forced a building moratorium- no new homes, no remodels, no bedroom add-ons, no new business, etc. This debate has gone on for three decades, where if a private company had built that project way back then it would have been done by now.

This regional agency is oversen by a state board that again, is largely anonymous, with members appointed by the governor and the houses of the Legislature (mostly Democrat). Those positions are high-paying political plums where officials go to ride out term limits before they can find another office to run for.

Both of these agencies, the state board and the regional enforcement board, get to act as legislator, executive and hold roles as prosecutor, judge and jury - all of those rolled into one in a perverse violation of the principle of separation of the three powers of government. This is justified legally under the notion that it's regulatory, or administrative law - that all of these functions are part of delegated enforcement of a law by means of regulation, creating a sub-government of sorts. And if you disagree or question them, they wil try you. And it will cost you a lot of money because you'll need a lawyer. And if you are accused, you are not afforded a public defender of any kind because it's considered civil, not criminal.

All of this is justified for protecting the environment. It is fueled by Democrats.

Those few who have dared to, ironically mostly Democrats who don't have a lot of money and don't want to see low-income folks displaced by the cost of this project, are dismissed as fools and are subjected to costly lawsuits.

All of this put together is the use of the environment for a cover for the worst abuse from government. And it's all local, and very expensive.

Edited by Antonio, 29 October 2006 - 06:28 PM.

[ian]

dianahsieh, on Oct 30 2006, 04:35 AM, said:

In my judgment, that claim of immorality presumes that a person understands the choice in question basically as stated, i.e. between an ever-weaker killer and an ever-stronger killer.

That's right. It's possible there are Objectivists who believe the DIM hypothesis, and agree you should vote for a D1 over an M2, but who simply don't agree the Republican Party are M2. That's not immoral, and it's not a question of not understanding the practical role of philosophy, it's just a question of quantity of evidence.

[Antonio]

Capitalism Forever, on Oct 26 2006, 06:07 AM, said:

I am late to the party and am posting without having read most of the thread, but whatever happened to Dr. Peikoff's call to End States That Sponsor Terrorism ? The U.S. Democrat Party is the world's most influential political organization aiding and abetting terrorists.

That was an excellent essay. Unfortunately things have not panned out as Peikoff had called for. But that's to be expected. That's true about the Democrats. Their biggest problem is their promotion of moral equivalency among the cultures and values of the United States and those of other nations. These folks are aiding and abetting passively, out of naivete or ignorance. But the weakness eschewed by Peikoff in his essay can be blamed on both parties, with Republicans wanting to be "sensitive" about how the war is carried out.

[LaszloWalrus]

hunterrose, on Oct 29 2006, 02:42 PM, said:

In this case, you can't equate environmentalism with religion. Environmentalism is argued on scientific data; at times it may be argued on distorted or outright fabricated data, but it is largely a scientific argument nonetheless.

Couldn't one say the same thing about "Intelligent Design?" Calling Environmentalism a scientific argument robs the concept of a scientific argument of all meaning.

[ian]

I really think there needs to be more evidence for the position that the Republican party are M2. What has been provided would not get a verdict of guilty in a court of law.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I've just been asked not to post to the Forum for Ayn Rand fans after posting the following reply to a similar thread, which was promptly deleted. I don't like where their thread is going, which is why I posted the message. Judge for yourself.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

When I first started to read this thread, I was actually proud that there are enough students of Objectivism out there who would openly disagree with Dr.Peikoff and state their reasons why; because independence is a virtue -- and it is good that said students are not simply accepting something said by one of their best teachers (second only to Ayn Rand) without thinking it through.

But I have to draw the line at people here claiming that Dr. Peikoff is either being rationalistic or involved in a rationalization. Given the context, I'm not really sure which one was actually meant.

A rationalistic argument is one that is deduced from supposedly higher principles, though the conclusion does not conform to the facts. The higher principle may also not conform to the facts, but one can be rationalistic about conclusions drawn from proper principles. For example, let's say one has the principle that matter has color, and then concludes that because atoms don't have colors therefore they are not matter. That would be rationalism.

A rationalization is the attempt to justify an emotional response (or a conclusion) by using a sort of pseudo-reasoning. For example, let's say someone is a racist. He has no grounds for saying that all of a people of a certain race are less than human, it's just something he feels. He then goes around making up things about them -- i.e. all Jews are dirty by their nature, or they congregate together like rats, etc. The fact that these pseudo-facts are not true does not make it a rationalization, what makes it a rationalization is that one has an unjustified evaluation and tries to justify it on something that is made up.

And it does seem as if some of you are claiming that Dr. Peikoff is making it all up, perhaps to justify his DIM hypothesis.

Look, if you don't understand things the way Dr. Peikoff does, fine -- go by your best judgement; but don't go around claiming that because you don't understand something then Dr. Peikoff must be a rationalist or must be making a rationalization.

[Toolboxnj]

I honestly think that John Lewis' article is much more convicing than Peikoff's

[LaszloWalrus]

Thomas M. Miovas Jr., on Oct 30 2006, 07:33 AM, said:

Look, if you don't understand things the way Dr. Peikoff does, fine -- go by your best judgement; but don't go around claiming that because you don't understand something then Dr. Peikoff must be a rationalist or must be making a rationalization.

Calling someone's argument rationalistic is not equivalent to calling that person a rationalist. I think Dr. Lewis's article was far more persuasive, though Dr. Peikoff obviously could not go into detail in a Question-and-Answer period.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Thomas M. Miovas Jr., on Oct 30 2006, 10:33 AM, said:

I've just been asked not to post to the Forum for Ayn Rand fans after posting the following reply to a similar thread, which was promptly deleted. I don't like where their thread is going, which is why I posted the message. Judge for yourself.

Thomas, the deletion of your post on THE FORUM is VERY revealing. One of my posts in that thread was deleted also. I see no reason that the post you presented should be deleted. I don't believe I will post there anymore, either.

I suggest heading over the Diana Hsieh's blog, which has some excellent recent posts. If you do not see enough evidence from the actual post that the Republican party is M2, I suggest reading through the comments in those threads also, in which individuals have stepped up to the plate on that front.

Stephen Speicher dismissed Diana's entry "Why I'm Voting for Democrats" to be simply a bunch of information swept up into one pile, and not offering anything substantial to the debate. !?!!

'Nuff said! Decide for yourself.

[dianahsieh]

Liriodendron Tulipifera, on Nov 1 2006, 03:52 PM, said:

Thomas, the deletion of your post on THE FORUM is VERY revealing. One of my posts in that thread was deleted also. I see no reason that the post you presented should be deleted. I don't believe I will post there anymore, either.

I sent the following in a PM to Stephen Speicher this morning, after some back-and-forth with him about a particular post attacking me on The Forum.

"I've been far too disturbed by your moderation of The Forum during this debate to wish to post again. From what I've seen, you've permitted grossly unjust moral attacks on Dr. Peikoff while silencing his reasonable and polite defenders. You've crushed your opposition -- not by good argument, but by insults, attacks, and unfair moderation.

"So please delete my account on The Forum. As I've said, my respect for Dr. Peikoff actually means something to me."

Since the debate has cooled down a bit here, let me mention that genuine debate continues to rage in multiple threads of the NoodleFood comments, as folks can see from the page of most recent.

Edited by dianahsieh, 01 November 2006 - 02:18 PM.

[Inspector]

Liriodendron Tulipifera, on Nov 1 2006, 01:52 PM, said:

I suggest heading over the Diana Hsieh's blog, which has some excellent recent posts. If you do not see enough evidence from the actual post that the Republican party is M2, I suggest reading through the comments in those threads also, in which individuals have stepped up to the plate on that front.

Now that I am about halfway through the DIM series, I have to say that I really didn't understand the divisions before and they were often not what I expected. I'd like to think the commentary is sparse here because everyone else is also busily listening to DIM...

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Thank you for your understanding.

I cannot comment specifically on whether the Republicans are M2 or not, since I haven't gotten to that part of the lecture series. And I have a difficult time logging in, presumably because so many people are listening in at the same time, though the course is very informative overall.

I plan on increasing my donations to ARI, since they have made this course available.

[MisterSwig]

I'm voting for Democrats in the upcoming election primarily because their leadership, from what I have read and heard, still believes in the separation of church and state. In my view, the separation of church and state may be the most important political issue of our time. It is far more important than the war, because currently the war does not seriously threaten our continued existence as a secular nation. For sure, the enemy is a substantial threat to our physical safety, having proven that they can kill a few thousand of us on 9/11. But given the Republican's self-sacrificial war policy, the only hope we now have of protecting our physical safety is to maintain what's left of our secular nation that respects human life on earth. If we let the religious Right disintegrate the principle of church and state, if we let them continue to inject religion into government, then we have given up on defending our lives at home. And if we do that, how can we be expected to defend our lives abroad?

To those who say that Islamic totalitarianism is a more immediate danger than the religious Right, consider the fact that we are horribly botching this war beyond all belief, yet we are still able to send our soldiers overseas to be sacrificed one-by-one to the enemy in his own land. Even if we retreat from the battlefield altogether, what is the likelihood of our enemy defeating us at home within a century or two? Observe how long Israel has held out against the enemy, and they are a sliver of land surrounded by enemy nations. The Islamic totalitarians are so pathetic that they can't even stop killing each other for a few years in order to unite against the "Great Satan." We are in their own backyard, yet they still fight amongst themselves and blow each other up at weddings.

Besides, isn't this war supposed to last a generation or two? So, what's the rush? I'm sure the terrorists will still be around to fight once we're done dealing with our internal Christian problem.

The war might be a more pressing concern if we were facing something like the Soviet Union with hundreds of nukes aimed at us, but that is hardly the case here. What we face immediately is 150,000 Christian churches in America, nearly a third of which are Southern Baptist churches, with an average of 500 members each. Consider the millions of politically concerned evangelicals who seriously and openly challenge the separation of church and state. Consider the religious conservatives in our Congress who ignore or badmouth the separation of church and state. And consider George W. Bush who has placed an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in at least 11 departments or agencies of the government--a government that brags about giving over $2.1 billion to faith-based organizations in FY05. Last March the government issued a press release in which it boasted that: "Faith-based organizations are consistently winning a larger share of competitive funding." Personally, this is 100 times more frightening to me than the threat of another 9/11.

There is also the idea out there that if we vote all Democratic, then the Democrats will impose their socialism/environmentalism/multiculturalism on us. To which I respond: so what? They have already imposed much of that on us. Anything more the Democrats could accomplish in today's culture would pale in comparison to allowing the evangelicals to further unite church and state. I would rather live in something like socialist England or Europe than watch the Dark Ages of Christianity return to the West. And they will indeed return if we don't maintain the separation of church and state long enough to counter the Christian revolution.

[tommyedison]

I previously in this thread interpreted Dr. Peikoff's statement as implying that those who do not vote for Democrats are immoral. After thinking it through, and reading Dr. Peikoff's post again as well as Mrs. Hsieh's excellent post, I would apologize for my previous statements. Although I still think that Dr. Peikoff's statement could have been better worded, given the amount of work he has done in Objectivism and his understanding of it, I should have examined his statement more thoroughly and given him the benefit of doubt.

[tommyedison]

MisterSwig, on Nov 2 2006, 09:27 PM, said:

There is also the idea out there that if we vote all Democratic, then the Democrats will impose their socialism/environmentalism/multiculturalism on us. To which I respond: so what? They have already imposed much of that on us. Anything more the Democrats could accomplish in today's culture would pale in comparison to allowing the evangelicals to further unite church and state. I would rather live in something like socialist England or Europe than watch the Dark Ages of Christianity return to the West. And they will indeed return if we don't maintain the separation of church and state long enough to counter the Christian revolution.

True enough. In regard to the environmentalism of the Democrats, I would like to point out that their environmentalism has not been integrated into an explicit philosophy the way Christianity has been in regards to the Republicans. By this I mean that the Democrats don't have an explicit epistemological base for their environmentalism. The Republicans do propound an explicit epistemological base for their Christianity - faith. This is why the Republicans can do much more harm in the long run - because they are advocating a fundamental idea while the Democrats are quibbling over some concretes and in the long run it is the ideas which win.

And Islamic terrorism is not that big a danger to the United States as pro-Republican people (Objectivist or otherwise) are making of it nor will the Republicans do a better job of handling it because even in the worst case scenario of a nuke exploding in a major city, it would kill at most around 1 million. It will be horrible but having a Christian theocracy in the US will be infinitely worse. Secondly, the Republicans have not made us safer from terrorism. They have made us 100 times more vulnerable. Witness the surge of Islamic radicalism in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, etc. after Bush. The Republicans simply cannot fight Islam because they share with it their fundamental principles - faith, sacrifice, statism, etc.

[Inspector]

tommyedison, on Nov 2 2006, 11:11 PM, said:

I previously in this thread interpreted Dr. Peikoff's statement as implying that those who do not vote for Democrats are immoral. After thinking it through, and reading Dr. Peikoff's post again as well as Mrs. Hsieh's excellent post, I would apologize for my previous statements. Although I still think that Dr. Peikoff's statement could have been better worded, given the amount of work he has done in Objectivism and his understanding of it, I should have examined his statement more thoroughly and given him the benefit of doubt.

What, no mention of me? I said the same thing as Diana Hsieh about the meaning of Dr. Peikoff's statement, several days before. Well, wherever you heard it from, I am glad that someone was able to clear it up for you.

Oh, and it was good of you to say that.

Edited by Inspector, 03 November 2006 - 12:52 AM.

[mweiss]

tommyedison, on Nov 3 2006, 01:19 AM, said:

The Republicans simply cannot fight Islam because they share with it their fundamental principles - faith, sacrifice, statism, etc.

Brother, you have nailed it down perfectly! I'm saving that quote!

Edited by mweiss, 03 November 2006 - 01:27 AM.

[softwareNerd]

tommyedison, on Nov 3 2006, 01:11 AM, said:

Although I still think that Dr. Peikoff's statement could have been better worded, given the amount of work he has done in Objectivism and his understanding of it, I should have examined his statement more thoroughly and given him the benefit of doubt.

Just to be clear, what is your judgement now? Was Dr. Peikoff saying that those who do not vote for Democrats are not immoral, but do not understand philosophy?

Are you saying that anyone who abstains from voting or who votes for someone other than a Democrat is almost certainly making a philosophical error rather than some other type of error: e.g. an error in judging the composition of the two parties, or an error about the extent and speed of likely future change, and so on?