MC Hammer has the right idea.

[Mammon]

(link removed - RB)

(MTV link: http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?artist=19652&vid=151333 -GC)

His lyrics sort of echo what alot of Objectivists have been saying.

Edited June 17, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist

[RationalBiker]

Notwithstanding whatever value his message may have, we would rather you don't use a link to material that is probably violating copyright.

[The Guru Kid]

Notwithstanding whatever value his message may have, we would rather you don't use a link to material that is probably violating copyright.

Can we at least know what song is being discussed so that we can violate the copyrights individually?

[JASKN]

...or perhaps find a way to listen to the song without violating copyrights?

[RationalBiker]

The video was for the song "Bring 'em Home".

[Mammon]

I didn't know Youtube was not allowed to be linked...

The song is called "Bring Our Brothers Home"... you can look it up on Youtube or Google video.

[DavidOdden]

I didn't know Youtube was not allowed to be linked...

That's not exactly the principle. The essential principle is that we do not tolerate links to stolen material. In this kind of case, the burden of proof is on the contributor to establish that the material is not stolen. I personally consider this issue to be pretty fundamental in distinguishing Objectivists from pseudo-Objectivists. A pseudo-Objectivist would rely on unsupported rationalizations like "It's not my fault" or "They wouldn't allow... would they". An Objectivist would ask "By what right is this video publicly posted; whose property is it? Did the owner give permission?" Can you present your argument that this is not stolen property? I'm urging you to go the extra mile in this case, to concretize the "check your premises" credo of Objectivism. How do you know that it is not stolen property, if you conclude that it is not stolen?

[DavidV]

According to BBC, YouTube signed an agreement with EMI (MC Hammer signed with them) to allow users to upload their videos.

The video is freely available on "legit" sites such as MTV, so there's no need to link to youtube anyway.

[BinniLee]

That's not exactly the principle. The essential principle is that we do not tolerate links to stolen material. In this kind of case, the burden of proof is on the contributor to establish that the material is not stolen. I personally consider this issue to be pretty fundamental in distinguishing Objectivists from pseudo-Objectivists. A pseudo-Objectivist would rely on unsupported rationalizations like "It's not my fault" or "They wouldn't allow... would they". An Objectivist would ask "By what right is this video publicly posted; whose property is it? Did the owner give permission?" Can you present your argument that this is not stolen property? I'm urging you to go the extra mile in this case, to concretize the "check your premises" credo of Objectivism. How do you know that it is not stolen property, if you conclude that it is not stolen?

I'll take pseudo then... No questions asked.

It's not my fault the world is so hard to understand...

Edited June 17, 2007 by BinniLee

[Mammon]

According to BBC, YouTube signed an agreement with EMI (MC Hammer signed with them) to allow users to upload their videos.

The video is freely available on "legit" sites such as MTV, so there's no need to link to youtube anyway.

Yeah that's what I thought.

[fatdogs12]

MC Hammer is one of the most confused people I've ever seen. One minute he's a family man, then he's a preacher, then a thug, now he's like micheal jackson... no credibility in anything.

Also I don't think is the objectivist position (if you mean the ARI position) at all. Doesn't the ARI support staying there?

Edited June 17, 2007 by fatdogs12

[softwareNerd]

Here's the message of this song:

1. After 9/11, Bush did a good job by hitting Iraq hard. ("You did what we needed in our darkest hour"..."Job well done; now, pick up the phone and tell our brothers 'come home'".)
   
2. Now, the U.S. should pull out
   

Of course, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so I suspect that Hammer is simply happy that the U.S. killed some Arabs. As for being the Objectivist position, I don't remember any well-known Objectivist intellectual saying that Iraq should be a primary target.

That's about going in; how about coming out? As far as I'm aware, ARI's position is that the U.S. should get down to hitting the real target (e.g. Iran), and that a real war is required, not a half-hearted war.

There are some Objectivists who want the U.S. to pull out, thinking that if quitting is inevitable a few years from now, one might as well quit now. However that does not mean they agree with Hammer, because what really matters is the reasons. Here is what Hammer thinks:

• "Right or wrong, it's time to come home"
  
• "Too much dying"
  
• "Living in a glass house you don't throw stones."
  

In addition, the video has a shot of a protester carrying a "No blood for oil" poster.

I think we can safely conclude that Hammer is not an Objectivist.

[Mammon]

Well, I didn't really clarify, I was really refering to the part where he said they don't care about life so it's no use talking to them.

It's not the 100% pure Objectivist position, but would it kill me to agree with parts of it?

I think we need to get our troops out of Iraq. Even Peikoff said they are dying for no reason right now. The Objectivist position as I understood it was to get out of Iraq and later invade Iran as part of the war on Islamic Totalitarianism. There doesn't seem to be much point for our troops to be in Iraq right now.

Yeah I saw the protest sign and thought it was stupid but hell, if I boycotted everything I thought was stupid or had a problem with i'd live in a cardboard box in a closet somewhere. On this same subject, can we start a thread to discuss the whole "War is for oil" thing? I don't think it is and i've never seen this people show proof of it either.

[softwareNerd]

It's fine to want to pull out the troops. I agree that they should be brought home sooner rather than later. Yet, I would say that I disagree with Hammer's version, in the same sense as I disagree with a Christian who says (for instance): "Do not lie, even though it's in lowly human nature; or you'll burn in hell". The underlying reasoning are all important in knowing the extent to which one agrees with another person.

... if I boycotted everything I thought was stupid or had a problem with i'd live in a cardboard box in a closet somewhere.

To clarify, nobody mentioned boycotting Hammer. Indeed, one might love the song, and be perfectly moral. Also, focusing on some aspect of a work of art (like a song) and ignoring the rest (as being of less or no value to oneself) is fine too. I don't think any comments above addressed the aesthetics of the song at all. I thought it was pretty decent as far as that goes. Personally, I don't listen to Hammer, but some stuff I do listen to has far worse lyrics. (Here's a very recent thread on the topic of lyrics.)

[Mammon]

It's fine to want to pull out the troops. I agree that they should be brought home sooner rather than later. Yet, I would say that I disagree with Hammer's version, in the same sense as I disagree with a Christian who says (for instance): "Do not lie, even though it's in lowly human nature; or you'll burn in hell". The underlying reasoning are all important in knowing the extent to which one agrees with another person.

Yeah, I agree. The point is that MC Hammer's reasoning also is not far leftist. He's not saying "END THE WAR BECAUSE EVIL CORPORATAIONS ARE PROFITING FROM KILLING EVERYONE!!!!" so I find it kind of refresing, someone who voted and supported it when it was started and has changed his mind. I think the man is genuinely concerned about the troops.

To clarify, nobody mentioned boycotting Hammer. Indeed, one might love the song, and be perfectly moral. Also, focusing on some aspect of a work of art (like a song) and ignoring the rest (as being of less or no value to oneself) is fine too. I don't think any comments above addressed the aesthetics of the song at all. I thought it was pretty decent as far as that goes. Personally, I don't listen to Hammer, but some stuff I do listen to has far worse lyrics. (Here's a very recent thread on the topic of lyrics.)

I know, that was all me. I kind of misread what you guys were saying.