Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to utabintarbo in CNN Bans Gary Johnson from NH Debate   
    Even if elected, the probability of anybody being "forced to personally suffer the consequences of his stance" fade toward zero. Reagan was even more vehemently pro-life, yet abortion is still legal.

    You are taking your eye off the ball here: abortion (along with several others) is a wedge issue that really will have no REAL impact no matter who is elected. Politically, it is effectively meaningless.
  2. Downvote
    ropoctl2 reacted to SapereAude in CNN Bans Gary Johnson from NH Debate   
    I can't get behind Ron Paul.

    How can I seriously believe that a man who doesn't believe I have the right to my own body will stand up for my other rights?
    Obama doesn't believe I own the fruits of my labor, therefore doesn't believe I own my body.
    Ron Paul doesn't believe I own the functions of my body, at least as they pertain to how a woman may experience them, so again, I am left with no right to my own being.

    They can both go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
  3. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to Steve D'Ippolito in Christians Must Choose: Ayn Rand or Jesus   
    This is very clever, and very dangerous. It looks like an attack on Republican politicians and pundits for praising Ayn Rand. I think it's really intended to intimidate them into renouncing her and her views completely.

    I've got nothing against the politicians and pundits' agreeing with Ayn Rand as vocally as they do. They have an unresolved contradiction to deal with. to be sure, but I'd rather see them resolve it in our direction than by dropping Ayn Rand and leaning further towards socialism, which is what this ad is trying to prod them into doing. If they completely reject Ayn Rand they have no leg to stand on whatsoever in arguing against further socialism in the US, so I'd rather not see them do so.
  4. Downvote
    ropoctl2 reacted to Ninth Doctor in CNN Bans Gary Johnson from NH Debate   
    Gary Johnson made a good impression on me here:

    Ron Paul is too old to be elected President, whatever your evaluation of him is.
  5. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to TheEgoist in CNN Bans Gary Johnson from NH Debate   
    This isn't some grand anti-libertarian action, guys. Gary Johnson just doesn't have the name recognition. They have Ron Paul on this debate, I'm assuming?

    He wasn't going to win anyway and he was a pretty awful public speaker IMO.
  6. Downvote
    ropoctl2 reacted to Jennifer in Silent Dancers Violently Arrested Jefferson Memorial   
    Yes I do. There is NO ACTUAL LAW. It was an arbitrary judge ruling extended arbitrarily. Why is the judge being appointed god-like authority in this instance when we are well aware of, and can point to numerous, numerous instances of where they have made grossly unethical or unlawful rulings?

    From an earlier post:

    To answer the earlier question, I am upset becaues it seems like Objectivists sometimes care about the constitution as much as the liberals do. Regardless of whatever else happened, they were required by law to state which law they were violating that justified the action that was about the be taken, and they refused to do this multiple times.

    I would also like to see a proper refutation of what Louie said, of which CapitalistSwine quoted in his last post. I think this is a key element of this and I won't be satisfied with the position of the others here until a good answer is given on that point. It graetly disturbs me how often Objectivists seem to want to justify the governments actions whenever crack downs happen, or with the New York Mosque (when clearly, according to our laws, nothing could be done at that time) because it fits their own little wishes, but then they condemn to the highest order almost everything else the government does, it's almost like some Objectivists have an inner power-trip that gets set off when these things happen. I just don't get it, and it is frustrating.
  7. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to aequalsa in Silent Dancers Violently Arrested Jefferson Memorial   
    I'd agree, but I didn't see them do anything to make that case. They seemed to walk onto government property just to say, "your not the boss of me." If he uses it as a platform to make a real philosophical case I'll give him more credit for that.

    It is a kind of property though. It is government owned property which would exist, at least in the form of courtrooms, military bases and police stations even in an Objectivist utopia. There is no right to dance in a courtroom, or a police station if those who manage it ask you not to. It is the same case here. You could make a case that the government should not own any memorials but they seem to be implying that because it's "public property" and they are members of the public, they have some sort of right to it.
  8. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to aequalsa in Silent Dancers Violently Arrested Jefferson Memorial   
    I have no idea why you are so heated and insist on attacking my character, which, I'd like to add, you know almost nothing about. I brought up my personal achievements because you accused me(for no reason at all) of watching sponge bob and being apathetic from my arm chair. That you insist that the only way someone can effect change is through direct political contact tells me that you in no way understand my position.

    In short, I believe in regards to this issue that
    1)without the rule of law, freedom cannot exist.
    2)That political change is impossible and never permanent if not accompanied and further, proceeded by a change in the philosophical outlook of the people.
    3) That no political system, enacted, could be perfect in its application of the law.
    4)That redundancy is and ought to be built into our legal system to minimize harm when mistakes are made by human authorities.
    5)The US is not yet at the point where violent resistance is appropriate. That is to say, peaceful alterations of our government are still possible.
    6)There has been a consistent and gradual slide towards statism since the civil war that has not been halted by decades of demonstrations.
    7)That this was a planned political demonstration by Adam which he chose to do on government property without a permit.
    8)That government property has to be treated like private property or it becomes a floating abstraction with all kinds of "commons" problems.

    Those are my premises. If you would like to discuss why they are wrong, I'd be happy to, but if you just want to call me an enemy of freedom and a cartoon watcher then I don't care to continue.

  9. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to aequalsa in Silent Dancers Violently Arrested Jefferson Memorial   
    I'm not clear what it was they were protesting. If they were protesting against the requirement of getting a permit to protest on government owned property then they're either anarchists or poor at picking important battles. Either way, it seems a little immature and undeserving of pity. Was their a real cause that I missed?
  10. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to aequalsa in Silent Dancers Violently Arrested Jefferson Memorial   
    You should honestly look before you leap. In the last year I built a Montessori School from scratch which I expect to have open this coming fall; I worked part time; went to school part time; Made a significant positive return on my stock investments which I manage myself; this all was while I was emotionally embroiled in a terrible personal tragedy in which I assisted in removing my sister, physically and emotionally, from a white slavery circumstance which finally, 6 months ago landed all 5 of the perpetrators in federal prison with multiple life sentences. So...now am I entitled to an opinion or would you care to pointlessly insult me some more for disagreeing with this fellow's approach?

    My hope is that through Montessori, teaching children how to think critically and in essentials will help them realize the futility of this decidedly anarchist approach to change. Government owned property is privately owned property. There is no right to dance there, or sing there, or protest there. It is all privilege granted by the owner or in this case, the owners appointed caretakers. If they demanded that people in their facility wear only orange socks on Tuesday it would be totally within their rights to do so.

    The only legitimate argument is that government should not be allowed to own that particular property which is not an argument which they made.

    It's the same thing on public roads. Some speeds limits may strike you as utterly ridiculous, but intentionally breaking the law and going to jail as a form of protest is valueless and wrong headed.

    Think about it like this...there is one stretch of road where the speed limit really bothers you, so in addition to getting arrested and spending tons of money on fines you write letters, make phone calls, hire attorneys, and finally you get the civil engineers to recalculate and they grant you a change to the one spot. Hurray. Nothing has fundamentally changed! The government still owns the roads and while you were busy eliminating that one speed trap they built 47 others. It's not a winnable fight in this way and doing nothing would be more helpful to the cause then trying to take them down from the bottom up. Ideas matter. You have to change the way people think or you're just spitting into the wind and getting angry that the wind blew it back in your face.

    Writing, educating, or if you want more direct interaction, pursuing constitutional law and running for office are all legitimate. (And to be clear, most of what he does seems to qualify as appropriate. This one doesn't.
  11. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to Zip in Silent Dancers Violently Arrested Jefferson Memorial   
    Yes I watched the entire thing. If the people doing it have no right (have not been granted permission to demonstrate - it does not matter what sort of demonstration) to do it in the first place then the possibility or not of someone getting hurt is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. As it was, the idea was for there to be a flash mob. You know what that entails, a bunch of people performing a dance or what have you. With a number of people dancing like that there certainly is a possibility of someone being hurt and therefore there is a responsibility on the part of the security guards to prevent it.

    Wrong. The security officer approached the people and told them that if they demonstrated without a permit they would be arrested. There is warning # 1, and any violation from that point onward is a direct violation of the orders they were given by those responsible to ensure the safety and security of EVERYONE visiting that memorial that day. The police were obviously informed that something was going to go on, probably because the person who had the idea to do this announced it on the internet or on his radio program or something.

    At the 1 minute mark the two people who were later arrested for slow dancing walk into the frame from the direction where the police officer was explaining the repercussions -the girl was close enough to touch the person standing on the right side of the frame as she walked out. They look directly at the police officer and the camera smiling and begin to dance that is called provocation, and again is in direct opposition to the orders they were just given by those responsible for the safety and security of everyone in the memorial.

    No, not doing anything would be an abdication of their responsibility to ensure the peaceful use of a national monument to EVERYONE and not let a bunch of people disrupt others use and enjoyment of that public facility.

    At 2:35 one person was complying when his friend comes in and starts pulling him away the officer is then forced to take the original man down to the ground to control the situation and he then begins telling the other man to "Sir, back of, back off"

    At 2:48 the man with the brown shirt who had been pulling on the other one is on the ground and the police officer is trying to handcuff him. You can see him resisting putting his hands behind his back in spite of being ordered to do so. The police then escalate as they are trained and have every right to do in the completion of their duties.

    At 3:03 the guy in the white shirt walking away from and pulling away from the officer is resisting.

    Actually in my opinion the police were doing exactly what they have been trained to do. I'm not a cop but I have had to deal with similar situations and the police handled themselves well in the most part.

    As much as you may believe that being arrested for dancing is stupid you should realize that they were not arrested for dancing but for demonstrating without permission. The rest is emotional sensationalism.

    I bet that if they had planned to do this flash mob in the middle of a field on the national mall then they would not have been stopped but they planned to do it in an enclosed space in a public memorial without permission.

    It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is there is a correct way and an incorrect way of changing the law.

    If I decided that drug laws were stupid (which they are) and I planned to get 100 of my best dope-fiend friends to do lines of coke on the white house lawn would you still claim that we were arrested for no reason and that it was just stupid?
  12. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to Zip in Silent Dancers Violently Arrested Jefferson Memorial   
    Ok. There currently are laws regarding public performances and demonstrations on public property and if the people in question did not have those permissions then they were in violation of the law.

    Picture this, these people start their dance. A small kid who doesn't know what is going on wanders out into the performance and one of the dancers spins around and knocks the kid into the corner of one of those stone benches or the statues platform. The kid is badly hurt in the accident. The parents of the child now have legal recourse not only against the dancer but against the park police (the government) for allowing the unapproved dance to happen.

    As for the arrests. The police were actually quite restrained. You see when you are being informed that you are being arrested then non-compliance with a police officer when he says things like "hands behind your back", "stop moving" and "do not resist" are reason and invitation for escalation of force. The people walking away hands up or not, or struggling against the police who are attempting to handcuff them are in fact resisting arrest and should count themselves lucky that these police did not resort to some of the other weapons at their disposal.

    The stupidest act one of the police did was to tell the one guy to shut up. He just should have removed the demonstrator from the site in the first place.

    Just as you do not have the right to do whatever you want on private property without the owners consent you do not, under today's laws have the right to do whatever you want on 'public property' without the consent of government.
  13. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to 2046 in Fudai's Seawall   
    Profit is not simply a monetary phenomenon, but a mental and personal one. Whether or not someone receives a positive revenue from undertaking any project depends on their personal values. There is therefore no profit issue preventing this from being a private project.

    There is also no funding issue preventing this from being a private project. Quoting from Henry Hazlitt's “Public Works Mean Taxes” (Chapter 4 in Economics In One Lesson):

    It does not follow from the fact that the government built the seawall that it could not have been built in the absence of government intervention. The decision of what gets built and what doesn't get built is decided by the value judgments of the people involved, namely the mass of the sovereign consumers on the market. Now certainly, if people are short-sighted and do not see the long-range value in building any defenses from natural disasters, then they may suffer the consequences. But what you are suggesting is substituting Grames' judgment for their judgment, Grames' plans for their plans, by force. Grames might think that his judgment is better, and he may be right. He might also think that because of that, he is called upon to impose his set of values on the masses of people living in this village or area by the initiation of physical force, but then he should be plain enough to say so. There are plenty of other Grameses out there who think the same thing, with regard to their visions and plans for everybody else.
  14. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to aequalsa in Free State Initiative   
    In defense of dark-minded grumpy faces everywhere, I thought I should suggest a different approach to you.

    First, you have chosen to share an idea on a website populated by supporters of a philosophy that attracts a disproportionate amount of INTJ's and other heavy critical thinkers. The usual approach with new ideas for us sorts, is to attack it from all possible angles and find the weaknesses. That's what's occurring here. If you wanted a pat on the back then you should probably have put it in the productivity section with a disclaimer about not wanting criticism.

    Second, similar(though admittedly different) schemes like this have been tried before with consistent failure, so our usual level of skepticism is even higher. What's more, you have a website requesting donations which is cause for even more skepticism and fact checking if someone were considering donating to your cause. Especially in a world where we get nine requests a day to let a citizen of Zimbabwe deposit 3.4 million dollars US into our accounts for our discreteion of which half we shall humbly keep. Both seem like great things for us...

    Attacking and avoiding people with different views and ignoring their dissension leaves you with yes men which is not what you need on this kind of endeavor, so I'd suggest that you not only tolerate but learn to appreciate this sort of grilling. Think of it as cheap, efficient market research and donations of mental processing time.

    Honestly, I like your idea, but am a bit put off by your seemingly thin skin. I imagine that if you see this through there'll be far more "grumpy" things said to you before the end. Just sayin. Anyway, good luck with it!
  15. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to Onar Åm in Free State Initiative   
    What's up with the extreme malevolence and paranoia? If you're wondering whether this is a scam then google my name and see what you find. I am actually quite well-known in Norwegian Objectivist circles. I have written several books, and I blog regularly to a quite large audience. Why on earth would I jeopardize my reputation by orchestrating a scam using my own real name? And why would you even accuse me of something like this with no evidence?

    As to your claim that I haven't done my research, do you really think I don't know that Australia is a first world country? I mean, seriously!? The reason I have included some sites in the first world country of Australia is that apart from being a first world country it otherwise perfectly fits the criteria that we are looking for. In addition Australia is divided into separate states/regions that compete for people and business like everyone else. All the regions in the north are fairly poor and undeveloped and they all are looking quite desperately for ways of attracting investors. Because of this we don't exclude Australia. I consider it a lower probability of success than most of our other potential sites, but IF we were to succeed in creating a Free State in Australia then many of the worries that have been raised in this forum disappear. Australia is not a dictatorship or an unstable democracy, and a Free State would therefore be as safe as one could expect. This is the only place on earth we would be willing to concede the requirement for security forces to protect the borders.

    Now, why you are so malevolent I don't understand. I have done nothing to hurt you, nor have I offended you in any way. I expect a basic form of benevolence as a common courtesy. If you have questions, ask them. Make your accusations after you have received answers you find wanting.

    I find it extremely disturbing that you prefer philosophical mind games to actual realization of those philosophical ideas in the real world. You know, moving the world, and all that. Also, if you want to discuss philosophical ideas then maybe you shouldn't have ventured into this sub-forum called "intellectual activism-->Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality." I can think of few projects which better fit the description of activism for reason, rights and reality than the Free State Initiative.
  16. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to Jackethan in Objectivism and circumcision?   
    I'm circumcised, or mutilated as some people here put it. I don't feel mutilated, I like the look of my penis. I'm not going to press charges on my mother and father for doing this to me. Maybe I'll do it to my son. Regardless of whether religious motives were -the first- reason why circumcision happened, I happen to like the aesthetic. Why is that your business? Shall I go through life downtrodden and angry that I was 'mutilated' as a child? Shall people I want to date ignore me or pity because I'm a victim of 'genital mutilation'?
  17. Downvote
    ropoctl2 reacted to VcatoV in would you rather: the wars as they are now or no wars?   
    Funny but full of conviction, so I respect it. But are you telling me that it's okay for my work to be stolen from me so that more people can die in wars not of my choosing than the terrorist act on 9/11?
  18. Downvote
    ropoctl2 reacted to TheWetNurse in would you rather: the wars as they are now or no wars?   
    I'm sorry but this is weasel talk.

    Madlibs version:

    Do you support _gangs and gang activity_ like _the libs_ or do you want _crime_ to disappear forever like _the conservatives_ do? Surely you and _whatever movement you're associated with_ are against _the continuing rape and murder of innocent civilians_, right?
  19. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to James Bond in would you rather: the wars as they are now or no wars?   
    Would you rather the wars as they are now, inimically endless, or no wars at all, as leftists would have?

    This is one area where I tend to disagree with many objectivists.

    I think the wars as they are being run now actually make the country less safe, as well as bankrupt the country, and the loss of our soldiers.

    It looks like we'll be in these wars for another 8 years, and unfortunately Neocons and hopefully (not objectivists) seem to be okay with that.

    The whole situation is just terrible.
  20. Like
    ropoctl2 got a reaction from softwareNerd in Socratic dialogue: ethics of lying   
    It is not a categorical imperative to identify the consequence of the ethical standard that the objective morality for everyone is to cheat strangers when they can get away with. Saying "if everyone cheated, this would happen" is not in itself an imperative statement. It is only a categorical imperative if you use that naked principle to assert an arbitrary ought. Do you agree that an untrusting society would result from cheating being in everyone's self-interest? As you said before, this would make life difficult for you. If this difficulty costs you more than you gain from cheating people, then the principle that it is in everyone's self-interest to cheat strangers contradicts itself.
  21. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to Black Wolf in Let's get Yaron Brook on "Adam vs. The Man"   
    I do believe he once went on RussiaToday to talk to Thom Hartmann. He might get less hostility from Kokesh.
  22. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to West in How to teach Objectivism   
    I agree with the main point of the post, though I disagree with aspects of the proposed alternative approach (or maybe it's just the specific application?). While I agree that people don't ask enough questions, the alternative of asking too many can be just as bad. In other words, asking question after question of a person won't necessarily lead them in any kind of meaningful direction. Questions are a tool, like any other pedagogical instrument in your tool box. They don't necessarily fit every situation, just as one can't use a hammer on just any old task. Often, as I think is demonstrated in that post, a student* gets into the habit of just thinking of ways to shoot down the question without really thinking about it.

    Of course some judgment is necessary to know what questions to ask, but often there are premises that need to be nipped in the bud or exposed. For example, at one point in that post you asked T-1000 if deceiving someone makes it impossible for them to act in their self-interest. He replied that "It makes it more difficult for him to act in his self interest but does not make it metaphysically impossible." The proper response here could be in the form of a question, but it shouldn't be one that keeps things on this highly abstract level (because of course he can just reply with an equally abstract response that shoots it right down, viz. one about Kant's categorical imperative). The problem is, who knows what anyone is talking about there?

    There needs to be some kind of examination of the concepts used, and concretes that the concepts are scoping in on. What is 'self-interest'? Why should one care about the interests of others? These questions require a lot of thought in order to properly answer, and it's likely one can get stuck on them for quite a while. That's not a problem though; that's where things should be, especially if someone is new to these kinds of topics. But further, if the discussion seems like it's veering off into uncharted territories or if the answers to the questions appear to be too vague or unnecessarily polemical, then the blueprints need to be brought out to guide the discussion better. Sometimes questions won't work, and the person generally in the 'question-asking' role will have to state why they think a different direction should be taken, then ask if that makes sense to the person.

    Just to tie things back together, the Socratic method is situationally useful. It can be used to make discussions more concrete, but like any other tool, it can be used in such a way as to cause further unclarity.

    *Though the relationship doesn't necessarily have to be the student-teacher kind. It's a matter of communicating well in general.
  23. Like
    ropoctl2 reacted to Black Wolf in Osama bin Laden dead   
    I resent that someone has to have a "scholarly knowledge" of something, before making judgments. Especially if your standard of a proper evaluation of Islam, is that muslims clerics disagree. Muslim clerics are not trustworthy as an authority on Islam, because they will go out of their way to reconcile what it says in the Qu'ran, to what they want Islam to be portrayed as.
  24. Downvote
    ropoctl2 reacted to The Wrath in Osama bin Laden dead   
    Sorry it took so long to respond.

    Having said that, I don't think what I'm saying is that complicated. You said Islam was a total state ideology. I disputed that by pointing out that not all people who believe in Islam think it needs to rule every facet of civil life.

    What are the ideas that unite all Muslims, regardless of differing interpretations? I'm no Islamic scholar, but I would start with the belief that "there is no god but God and Mohammad is his prophet." As with Christianity, if you get much more specific than that, people will start to disagree. Whatever these unifying ideas are, the idea that Islam should control the government and every facet of civil life isn't one of them.
  25. Downvote
    ropoctl2 reacted to CapitalistSwine in Osama bin Laden dead   
    This is a very bold claim, and would require quite a bit a large amount of evidence to substantiate. You are correct on that the later verses are more intolerant and violent however.

    It has been mentioned before in this thread that this is not a hard and fast rule. Some Islamic groups completely reject this even.

    I think you will find that quite a large number of Muslims would be absolutely livid about this statement. There are 2 main sects and like 72 various denominations within the religion, their interpretations on all manner of things vary, just as is the case with Christianity, the difference between Christianity and Islam has already been elaborated on earlier in this thread, so I won't get into that.
  • Create New...