Devil's Advocate

The principle of life being the 1st property of the bearer presumes the liberty to contract with others. Otherwise, as Melania asks, "What does my body my choice really mean?" The disposal of one individual's property allows for custodial agreements with others to participate in decision making according to the terms of the life bearer. More importantly, it prohibits others from coercion to determine the use of the life bearer's property. Suicides and abortions are disposals of personal property, presuming the owner of that property is an autonomous individual or that individual's custodian. Biological markers prior to birth (separation) and matryoshkas do not an Individual make.

Unnecessarily so, I think. Presuming Rights of the unborn follows the Biology over the definition of the Right, which requires the autonomous actions of an Individual to apply. In the context of Natural Individual Rights, I consider the separation from ones Natural Custodian (Mother) to be prerequisite, and not some biological development prior to that event. Abortion is the disposal of Property that only exists by the actions of the Individual who created it. Attempts to force an Individual Right prematurely upon the Mother's Property in order to separate her from it is lowest form of theft in the form of slavery.

Melania appears to be the only member of the Donald's party who gets the distinction between inherent individual rights and government's obligation to secure them: "What does my body my choice really mean?" Abortions and suicides, tragic as they are, are not murder and therefore not legitimate for the government intervention of an individual's inherent liberty to dispose of their property (including a fetus) as they will. A person, in the context of an individual, does not exist by definition until capable of exercising its own inherent rights separately from the bearer of its life. In the context of this forum, an actual right bearer (the mother) has autonomy over a potential right bearer (her fetus). Glad to see you're still here, Harrison!

In Spielberg's Taken, Owen Crawford states (paraphrasing from memory), "The war was won by keeping secrets, knowing theirs and keeping ours". Deception, in the context of war, is a tactic, and history tends to be written by the victors. Taken together, the ethical value of deception depends upon surviving the application.

I'm not convinced that Sun Tzu's work is reflected by Dagny killing a guard for following orders, but I can appreciate parallels between The Art of War and Objectivism. Sun Tzu was a rational warrior, and I think Napoleon's escape from Elba to march on Paris with troops he turned from his enemies may be a better example of The Art of War, and one that is better reflected by John Galt's actions, than Dagny's.

The issue of whether or not The Statue of Liberty ought to shrug, meaning to allow (for a time) "the Blessings of Liberty" to go unsecured, is presented in the context of what "Atlas Shrugged" by examining whether or not Looters can be defeated by removing their freedom to loot, in a manner similar (and for similar reasons) to that taken by the Producers. I believe our current President's political opinion that, "Healthcare is not a privilege, it's a right", along with our Former President's actions to overturn the election that unseated him, makes this a relevant discussion of political philosophy. If, for example, Lady Liberty ought not to shrug due to the collateral damage for multitude of America's Eddie Willers (a character I personally identify with), then I think your conviction to the political philosophy expressed in Atlas Shrugged is compromised. For similar reasons, a belief that I am comparing a work of fiction to real political events compromises your conviction by dismissing without addressing the underlying political philosophy involved. Are we there yet? I think not, but we are certainly already engaged in a showdown between those who favor the redistribution of wealth and those who don't. And I believe that John Galt was essentially offering the same remedy against the very real prospect of wealth (property) redistribution we are facing today.

I believe the truth of that is belied by the removal of Liz Cheney's conference chair. The Republican Purge is real, and certainly isn't the action of a party that tolerates dissent and open disclosure.

-- Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --" Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/ -- There's an obvious contradiction in the claim that "very fine people" protest non-violently with "neo-Nazis" in any circumstance. It's the same kind of argument being used to rationalize the January 6th insurrection as some odd mixture of political adversaries cooperatively breaking into the Capitol, with the ensuing violence only being attributed to "some very bad people" who weren't Trump supporters.

In Neil Gaiman's, "American Gods", a god's strength is generated by its users, which is likely a more accurate account of the relationship between those who worship, and the object of their fancy. And Pankaj Mishra's, "Age of Anger", examines the power of political divisiveness in a historical context to account for today's headlines. Both works go a long way towards accounting for the rise and sustainability of the Former President's political influence.

The Donald remains the most influential political figure of the 21st Century, and probably only lost his second term to a pandemic disrupting the economy he ran on. Given his continuing influence over the Republican Party in the wake of January 6th, he probably doesn't need a second term to maintain his political relevance. Lady Liberty, on the other hand...

"Darker" in contrast to, "that vision of a shining city on a hill." "Lower" in contrast to, "A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles." Yes, the shadows were already there, but January 6th happened because of Trump. Called out by a standard of, "very fine people, on both sides" of violent political protests? Called out by a standard of, "alternate facts" and "fake news"?

Unfortunately for us, "You can't fix stupid." (Ron White), and from Bumper Sticker Philosophy, "My kid beat up your honor roll student". If evil were a rating, it would draw a greater audience than Jesus. The Former President (whose name must not be spoken) excels at one thing, shock value. The seamless transition from TV reality personality (Your fired!) to "leader of the ""free"" world" (shithole countries), to Dark Lord of the Republican Empire (OK, that might be a bit much (is Mike Pence out of hiding yet?)), is notable because of the absence of a protagonist, which in a political context means chaos. I stand by my earlier comment that America has become a darker place. To borrow from Stephen King, America has hit the gutter and bounced lower... ... which is why I ask should the Statue of Liberty shrug? Or perhaps she already has??

Given the Former President used his political authority to promote insurrection, given congressional leaders used their political authority to promote sedition, and given the current President is using his political authority to proclaim a right to healthcare, the Judiciary in its existing role as the final arbiter of constitutional law, is better suited to command (by court order) the appropriate use of government's monopoly on force. It would essentially be a check on the capricious nature of a political call to arms.

It's all about the headlines that generate the ratings, that create and sustain a following that wins elections. The Republican Purge is real, and the midterms will determine its success as political strategy in American politics. An extended family member of mine recently noted, "Impeachment is just street cred for him," and that pretty much sums up my opinion of The Donald and his Dark Wing. The Donald's 1st term election was unimaginable, until it happened. Former republican opposition candidates undermining the election in Congress on his behalf was unimaginable, until it happened. January 6th was unimaginable, until it happened... and the Dumbercrats continue to campaign as though if only everyone understood what a bastard the Former President is, no one would vote for him, while those who vote for him don't care because, "He's our Bastard!" The Former President will be restored to office as the party default if the current political trend doesn't produce someone who can beat his political base. Do you see that coming? Last go round I gave him and his following 50/50 odds, and this time I think if the Republicans make gains over the Democrats in the midterms, it's their presidential election to lose, if narrowly. Lady Liberty was raped on January 6th. That's what I think.

Agreed, and there is no benevolent form of a military dictatorship. However, a charismatic general with popular support might act well as a caretaker monopoly on the government's use of force until a voluntary force of Peacekeepers (military, police, 1st responders) could be formed, effectively becoming an un-elected or appointed 4th branch of government in charge of securing America's "blessings of liberty". The actual "blessings" would be narrowly defined and limited to an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the social context of America. The President and Congress maintain political authority over "the general welfare" of Americans. The Supreme Court has legal authority over the Constitution AND the Peacekeepers, and there's a provision to disobey orders that are contrary to the security of American Individuals, A.I.s, perhaps not unlike the first law Asimov applied to his A.I.s. Private security is allowed to operate within accordance to "the blessings of liberty", and held accountable when it does not... ... and please bear in mind, this is a discussion of political philosophy involving the objective use of force, not a call to arms.