Mike82ARP

Ron Paul should have answered that first question by saying, "I'm an advocate of libertarianism in politics, capitalism in economics -- and liberty in general. Paul Krugman is an advocate of slavery in politics, socialism in economics -- and tyranny in general. I like Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek, while Krugman likes Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. I want everyone to be free, rich, and happy; Krugman wants Big Brother to enslave and impoverish us all, and make our lives an infinite hell."

It's sad that Congressman Paul immediately starts off with trivia -- and doesn't focus on essentials, as I did above. I think he lacks both the ability and the desire to stick to the central political/economic/sociological issues. Paul is psychologically and spiritually weak, in my opinion. This whole debate could have been a magnificent and truly enjoyable Clash of the Titans. Instead, it's merely boring and annoying. And it's INFINITELY frustrating.

Paul needs to study philosophy more -- starting with Rand. But also Locke, Smith, Voltaire, and Jefferson. And certainly the economic giants Von Mises and Hayek.

Marx, Lenin, Mao, Keynes, Galbraith, Stiglitz, and Krugman are the anti-human, pro-slavery, economic scum of he earth -- but you wouldn't know it to witness this lame, useless, hopeless debate!

You assume that "benevolent" = "altruistic". Perhaps God is an Egoist and allows evil to exist as an instrumental means to satisfy a more ultimate purpose of enjoying and displaying Himself-- His benevolence being that He shares the good with whom He chooses... rather than Him having some sort of altruistic obligation to give good to everyone equally.


"can an omnipotent being create a rock He, Himself cannot lift?"
"Can an omnipotent being be incapable of something?"
"Can an all-powerful being lack a power?"
"Can A = ~A?"
All you've done is throw together a meaningless combination of words (a convoluted contradiction), slapped a question mark at the end, and considered yourself profound. As C.S. Lewis once said (this is a rough paraphrase): A meaningless combination of words does not gain meaning because you slap the words "can God" in front of it.
You either don't understand basic logic, or you don't understand the meaning of the terms you are using. Omnipotent/all-powerful means "able to do all THINGS". A contradiction is not a "thing" and contradicting one's self is not a power/ability-- it is a weakness.
So, no, God is not "capable" of contradictions -- but that "incapability" is not a weakness, but a strength. Likewise, God is not capable of weakness, and that "incapability" is NOT a weakness. lol.

Ayn Rand said herself.

“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”

And



"Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives."

The truth is we can not force people to be rational beings. I believe female circumcision is a horrific thing done to girls and I abhor that it happens. However, I can not force the people who practice it to understand that it is "bad" when they believe it is "good". And to say we should declare war on countries who allow it to be practiced is just begging for exploitation and marked with imperialism.
Maybe one day I will travel to countries and try to educate people and maybe I will have some luck in getting the practice stopped.. but, war would not change anything.

Forcing our ideals and values on other people will not work.

For all of these reasons.. I firmly believe the Iraqi citizens will not be any better off after the U.S. invasion.

The truth is, even with Saddam gone, they will still cling to what many of us consider backwards ways of life. It is so easy to point to dictators and place the blame squarely there.... but, we quickly over look cultural differences which shouldn't be so quickly swept under the rug. It bothers me that there are a lot of horrible things going on in the world, but the reality of the situation is there is nothing we can do to stop all infringements on human rights.

I agree with Long's analysis, that both terms are at least popularly used as packaged deals, but it seems to me the suggestion to abandon it doesn't entirely follow, but that leaves the question of when to abandon an anti-concept and when to reject the negative conflation part of it. If it does happen to be that the term "capitalism" is conflated with (1) the free market, and (2) government favoritism toward business, then if we reject it on the grounds of opposing (2), we could be just as misunderstood as rejecting (1) (going around saying "smash capitalism," or trying to promote "free market anti-capitalism" will confuse the hell out of people.) The most important thing is I think the necessity to clarify and define your terms, hopefully to disassociate the latter meaning, in the same way Rand attempted to do with "selfishness." That being said, a part of that means that it's also imperative to recognize the second meaning is often present when we may not realize or intend it. Perhaps in contexts where it could be confused, one might consider using a qualifier like "free market capitalism" or "laissez-faire capitalism" whilst not assuming that everyone means the same thing.

The interesting thing to note, and the problem that needs further looking into, is why for Rand certain terms were anti-concepts and/or packaged deals and that this constitutes a reason for rejecting the term, whilst some others are the same, and we should hang on to the terms. For example, Rand claims that "extremism" is an anti-concept, since it lumps "extreme" defenders of evil and "extreme" defenders of good together as though they were equivalent (CUI 176.) Hence one should not say either "yes, I am an extremist" (which would commit you to acknowledging a relationship with extreme defenders of evil) or "no, I am not an extremist" (which would commit you to being a moderate defender of the good.) Instead one should reject the very notion of "extremism" and decline to use the term at all. The same goes for "isolationism," "McCarthyism," "ethnicity," "meritocracy," "duty," "an open mind," etc.

But yet, the same ("two meanings, with the proper meaning serving to cover and to smuggle the improper one into people's minds") obtains in the case of "selfishness" and "capitalism," but it seems odd to say we should reject these, since it might imply "I reject regard for my own interests," or "I reject the free market economy." So why not at the same time with the others, since it might imply "I reject extreme defense of the good," "I reject national self-interest," "I reject anti-communism," etc., but Rand doesn't seem to concerned that those misunderstandings could be made? When should one advocate for linguistic reform, and when should one throw out a term altogether?

Since you are still a student, I’d assume the “socialists” you are speaking about are other students. One of the best cures for socialism is getting a job. It’s easy to wax eloquent about the supposed virtues of socialism when your basic needs are being provided for by your parents, but when one has to start counting their own pennies the mind is often changed. I’ve observed this with my nieces and nephews and students I’ve had.

Another way to influence them is to simply ask, “what do you mean by socialism?” and then “how did you come to your conclusions?” Few will be able to give you any cogent answer to those questions. A reductio argument should be easy to construct.

As far as those who actually are supposedly mature adults but adhere to socialism, I’d simply challenge them to live in their own world by emigrating to a socialist country. I view these folks as mentally handicapped.

To clarify Rand's position on atheism, we have to keep in mind what atheism is. In the first place, it is strictly a negative belief, the non-belief in deity or religion. It does not contain any necessary positive commitment to any other content, whether for or against any given political system.

Secondly, we have to understand that Rand's rejection of religion or the concept of God had to do with her rejection of faith or mysticism as a means to knowledge (and correspondingly as a guide to values.) For this reason, she would not categorize Soviet Russia with her own view vis-a-vis atheism, because she identified the Marxist-Leninist ideology as a form of mysticism, its non-belief in God notwithstanding. The connection to mysticism is even more visible in the case of Nazi Germany and the philosophy of German idealism and nationalism that Nazism drew from. She would argue the same in the context of today's "New Atheists" who tend to be a part of the political left (and are skeptics or subjectivists) that it is every bit as mystical to substitute "society" or the state in place of God as the source of truth and goodness, and thus preach altruism and self-sacrifice in morality just the same. Thus, her view would consider Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and the regimes in the Middle East today as essentially similar in ideological causes and effects: All hold the good to be discoverable by some non-rational process (the Hegelian dialectic, Aryan instincts, revelation), all hold sacrifice to the collective and duty to obey authority as virtues (the class, the race, the leaders, the will of Allah), and all accordingly are particular instances of statist regimes.

Further, she would draw a line between her view on the proper values for man as discoverable by man's reason leading necessarily to reject the idea that the good can be forced on man, whilst the mystical view of morality tends to lead to the authoritarian idea that the good can be imposed on man from without. The only way a faith-based view of values could be compatible with freedom, benevolence, and good-will toward mankind would then involve you having to admit you have no rational argument for these things, and therefore would be to undercut their basis. Thus, she would reject the idea that reason and science somehow leads to belief totalitarianism, whilst only tradition and faith in the supernatural justifies freedom, and would consider that a strange reversal of the truth (this, also constituted a large part of her rejection of the conservative movement.)

Now that Ayn Rand has finally demonstrated the efficacy of Reason to man in the 20th century, a new speculation about God has emerged as a revision of Blaise Pascal's 17th c. thought that it is safer to "wager" that God does exist than that He doesn't, as follows:

The existence of God cannot be established through Reason. Though all men are free to "wager" as though God does exist, they should take into account that Reason would have to be God's crowning creation and gift to man. It endows man with the capacity to grasp everything that exists in the universe that God wants man to be able to know and the capacity to use that knowledge to perfect the life God gave him. They should consider also the distinct possibility that God would not want to be known by man, but rather would prefer to observe from afar what men can achieve on their own by means of the capacities with which He endowed them.

After all, God would not have given man Reason if he did not want man to use it in accordance with its designed function. Furthermore, any rejection of Reason, such as the arbitrary replacement of it by the Satanic anti-capacity of Mysticism to fabricate false ideas of God's universe, or worst of all, false ideas of the nature or will of God Himself, would most certainly constitute the most damnable sin.

Thus, in that case, man would be subject to only one commandment: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt falsify neither other gods before Me, nor the nature of Me Myself nor the nature of My creations.

Thus, in that case, there would be only one mortal sin: the rejection of God's Reason in favor of Satan's Mysticism.

Thus, in that case, in the end, Heaven would necessarily be occupied only by God and around Him all of the rational atheists who ever existed.

Thus, in that case, all who abused the rational minds God gave them and stubbornly clung with nothing more than Faith to religions that worshiped some allegedly revealed God would necessarily go to reside with Satan in the fires of Hell for eternity.

Thus, in that case, it would perhaps be better not to "wager" on the existence of God after all.