Repairman

I'm quite sure Milton Friedman once said that he identified himself as "a libertarian, with a small L rather than a capital L." I will agree that labels on political parties don't always explain their ideologies. Who knows, in one hundred years from now, maybe the Democrats will promote smaller government again, as they did when Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were associated with them. (Jefferson's friends and followers called themselves Republicans.)

What Libertarianism Is May I recommend this website: public.callutheran.edu/~chenxi/phil345_122.pdf‎ John Hospers had numerous conversations with Ayn Rand, some congenial, some not so. Overall, the Libertarian political movement is weak, but not without merit. Nor is it without potential as an alternative to business-as-usual in local, national, or for that matter, global policy-making. I will admit, anyone running for public office should be under the utmost suspicion. Nonetheless, an ideological movement has to start somewhere. So far, I have no genuine argument against the Libertarians, other than their "open-border" position regarding immigration.

Of what little I know of Nelson Mandela, it can be said that all members of South African society were permitted greater access to public expression after his work was completed, in contrast to before. While I agree with his critics that his philosophy was severely flawed, the element of communism was muted by the well-timed demise of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War. Wars rage on throughout Africa, with or without ideology. Mandela seemed to have had a mitigating effect over the potential for violence during the meteoric changes happening in South Africa in the 1990s. When a national government holds ethnic (or race, if you prefer) discrimination as an official policy, it is violating the natural rights of individuals of that ethnic group. Give Mandela credit where credit is due.

The challenge is: how does a rational person casually explain to a "welfare-statist" the economic hazards of a minimum wage, established by public policy, or the so-called, "living-wage." When that very subject came up at a recent family gathering, no one argued against the free-market principles opposing minimum wages, because they are self-evident. Not that I have an entirely rational family, but that the family now includes (in-law) members of a family, who are immigrants from Poland. The Polish brother-in-law expressed the principles so well that I didn't have to display my "uncle-know-it-all" attitude. These people came from a country that re-constructed their economy from socialism, to a thriving, albeit mixed, yet more free-market economy. Pose an example as such: If a minimum wage of $15 is better than $8, wouldn't it be better to raise it to $20, or why not $30, or keep going? With an inflated currency, the sky's the limit. And inflation is the tax everyone pays. Imagine buying your next taco or burger at a price of $15 or more, (cheese is extra). Now how does that help the poor, or low-income worker? How does that help to employ the young person willing to work, but with no prior work experience, when the employers can afford no more help at that dictated rate? Simply learn the basic principles of economics, and you will find a persuasive argument for any occasional encounter with a statist. Caution: argue responsibly, and with tact.

As with any collective of any national or ethnic group, I believe it its bit unfair to judge Japanese culture, for better or worse. A person of Japanese ancestry is still an individual, and should not be judged by the virtues or crimes of generations past or present. However, if there is one quality associated with Japan that strikes me as noteworthy, it is their industrious nature. Americans, for the most, have fading memories of the Bushido-Shinto, warrior-mysticism, related to Japan's past. But the collective attitude common in Japan has earned my admiration for having restored their island-nation to full industrial competitiveness.

Jeeziz, it's a cartoon! The image is standard. The humor is somewhere from acceptable to lame. If you spelled out any policy on the brass-knuckles, the message would be about the same: Obama is injuring Uncle Sam. I am a huge fan of editorial cartoons, however I find very few cartoons in print, except Scott Adams' Dilbert, that warrant much more attention than a momentary glance. There is nothing ethnically offensive in the image. The fact that President Obama identifies himself as an African-American means that he may be considered by many people as a representative (or THE representative) of some imaginary African-American collective. He has had to carry the burden of this controversy from the moment he announced his desire to become the highest-ranking politician in the United States. It is my most sincere hope for this nation, and for the future of mankind, that craftsmanship is returned to cartoons and political caricature illustration, and that political views are expressed with more clarity than the doodling that passes as "cute and funny," as that which is presented on most editorial pages of the nation's newspapers. As for Obama, sure, he's a mystic and a collectivist, but does anyone not get that?

StrictlyLogic and whyNOT have offered sufficient responses. Collectively, I thank them. Nicky, while I (think I ) understand your distinction between "language" and "choice of words," I believe that at some point the English language will need to shift more toward a common idiom that places a higher value on individualism and reason. This includes common platitudes.

To be sure, I agree with those pointing out the collectivist-language often used in the media. It is annoying to be in the presence of people referring to their favorite sports team as "we," as if that person were on the team, performing great athletic acts. I also find it slightly annoying to be addressed in the collect, such as, "how are we doing," especially when the person speaking is serving a table, or some such action. The server is not the individual at the table, obviously, and neither are they a member of the group sitting at the table. When a co-worker greets you, "how are we doing," what are "we" supposed to say? After generations of misuse of the pronoun "we," will our species become the sub-human cattle depicted in "Anthem"?

Certainly, Rand was expressing, through Dominique, the pessimism all of us often feel when people precipitate to our lowest expectations. Humanity has a great deal of improvement to make before it even comes close to the ideals set forth in Objectivist philosophy. Dominique would rather smash the heroic image of her souvenir Greek god, before falling in love with it. Rand held out the hope that our temporary moments of bitterness will not create a permanent conscious revulsion against those of higher ideals, as well as our own aspirations of our own personal higher ideals.

It has been six years since I read the Sparksnotes of Atlas Shrugged. I was born in 1959. I am a late in becoming aware of Ayn Rand, and her works, but quite enthusiastic to realize that there actually is a specific philosophy suitable not only for me, but for anyone who questions conventional beliefs. You might say that I had come to my own "objective" outlook at life early in childhood, while attending Catholic grade school. From a large working-class family, I was the only child in my class to opt out of the sacrament of Confirmation. My father was non-religious, but nonetheless, an overbearing control-freak. It was the 1960s-70s. The only references to Rand I had come across were seeing Book-of-the-Month Club advertisements with Atlas Shrugged, and, in 1975, friends exposed me to the rock album, "2112" by Rush. The rock opera was inspired by Anthem. I failed to seek out the novel, and got on with life. I was independent, working factory jobs at age 18. I put myself through a two-year associate program years later. It was my unplanned experience with fatherhood that set me back to working industrial, union-wage, occupations. As a middle-aged man, I purchased properties, rentals, and had been a voracious reader throughout my life. But it was only in the 2000s that I continued to encounter references to Rand. I began with the Sparksnotes of her novels, and delved right into the non-fiction first. I have read the novels as well, only now reading We the Living. Now I realize why so many people, myself included, fail to fully grasp the magnitude of pure reason.

This piece in Forbes is nicely stated, however, I don't exactly see how it helps to define much of the public perception of the Tea Party. From my impression, the Tea Party has a vague approach to reality. My claim is based on a recent debate in Wisconsin over the expansion of a gambling operation, a former dog track, now in mothballs due to poor profitability. The Hard Rock hotels corporation seeks this expansion with the governor's approval and customary bribes, i.e. licensing fees. A spokes person for the Tea Party, Robert McGuigan, protests this expansion, which is estimated to create 3,300 jobs, for the stated reason that these jobs will be UNION jobs, and that union dues will automatically be used to support opponents of our controversial Governor Scott Walker, the arch-enemy of public workers' unions. Among the other Tea Party representatives is one Scottie Hughes of Tennessee, quoted in the Kenosha News, November 6, 2013, saying that the casino expansion will only benefit "union bosses (from) out of state." While I will be the first point out that casinos do not generate wealth, and that gambling operations of any sort usually invite corruption and benefit the usual suspects, nonetheless, casinos are businesses. This gaggle of out-of-state Tea Partiers are opposed to the expansion of a business, on the grounds that they pose a threat to a politician. Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of these charlatans? Incidentally, I have no stake in public or private gambling concerns. I support Walker's initiative to restrict the bargaining power of public unions. I voted for him twice. I simply do not understand what this so-called Tea Party is trying to accomplish, and I have the impression that they do not know the difference between private companies bargaining for contracts with their employees, and politicians bargaining for public workers contracts on behalf of the tax payers. I'm sorry if it seems as if I have changed up the subject a little, but the Tea Party is a bit of theater that merits some reviews from this forum. I don't think they are extreme; I think they are inconsistent, unspecific, and as long as they are they remain inconsequential.

I am neither proud nor embarrassed to be an American. I am lucky to be an American. I am proud to be a capitalist, rationalist, and an individualist. Being an American allows me to exercise my preferences, (well, most of them), without (much) interference from the American government or societal pressures. As for what people of other countries believe about Americans, who cares?

I've only allowed myself the time to watch through episodes 1-11. This series is truly as inspirational as it is disturbing. Each section comes across with the full force of its intended impact. The visual collage and music are ideal. The inclusion of contemporary celebrities and politicians is chilling, given the context of Galt's message juxtaposed with the popular advocates of a global brotherhood of man. As time permitted, I will watch the remaining episodes, and most likely, watch it again. I recommend this series to anyone, for any reason.

To Mister Boydstun, I want to thank you for your response. It is insightful and holds true to what little I have studied about some of the facts and myths of the "conquest" of the Americas. It should be pointed out also that the Cherokee of Texas were cooperative with the government of the Republic of Texas. So much so that they owned African-American slaves, and, years later, fought for the Southern Confederacy. To be sure, racism, and/or ethic identities, were determining factors as to ones rights as a citizen, (or tribal member for that matter), throughout the known world of the 19th Century. We have the advantage of living in an age when people and their ethnic identity are viewed much differently. I recognized the challenge of dealing with the legacy of our collective past, and caution against those who would make claims of collective guilt. As for the quote from Ms Rand in 1974, she clearly favored constructive progress, in both ideas and industry, if the only other choice was the false security of mysticism and stagnation.

On the subject of the Constitution, the 1787-88 convention was closed from the public, and quite likely was nothing as depicted in the famous painting, with dignified gentlemen posing in orderly debate. More likely they were arguing in a heated passion. It is important to point out that many delegates had come to Philadelphia that summer of 1787 with specific orders NOT to agree to any new "innovation." The new federal government was one such innovation. Thomas Jefferson, serving as America's representative in Paris as the time, was sternly opposed to it. While there were numerous issues debated, the three major points I often identify as the most contentious are 1) the slave issue. It was agreed that slavery, while being evil, was necessary for economic recovery, especially as the southern states were carrying the debts of less capable northern states. Much more can be said of this subject, and it is worth saying the southerns at that time understood the contradiction of liberty as a doctrine, and holding slave as a practical means to a greater end. That end being the expansion of a continental empire. The slave issue was to be a "closed" matter for no less than 20 years. 2) The preamble of the Constitution includes as a list of objectives, among them, "(to) Promote the General Welfare." This clause is not found in the constitution drafted for the Confederacy, in 1860. This particular clause has provide a loophole for a great deal of nonsense, and there were those who understood its implications in 1787-88. 3) You will note that there is no mention of God in the preamble, and in Article 6, section 3, no test of religion as a qualification for public office. This outraged religious leaders, and contributed to the backlash of religiosity, known as the Second Awakening. The Confederate Constitution of 1860 includes a distinct claim to God, as their source of legitimacy. When I have the opportunity, I point out these facts as an argument for a secular government, with no specific objective to the "welfare' of any specific group or persons, other than the individual citizen.

For a young person, choosing the path to your happiness is the most personal quest you will ever take. I would be cautious of asking for directions from any group, even a group of Objectivists. You must have an idea of the things or experiences that have brought you the most joy in life, that is, somethings that has market value. If you are a deep thinker, take a stab at writing. If haircuts fascinate you, perhaps you might take up hair styling. If health is your highest value, you may pursue a future in fitness, or a medical profession. Psychiatry, economics, acting, if you're young, you have time to develop and master skills in the field of your choice. However, always remember it is your choice, allow no one to dissuade you, and avoid those who are not encouraging you in your effort. Good luck, and good premises.

To RebirthOfReason: I am extremely grateful that you shared your story. I have not, as of yet, read through the many volumes of other postings on this thread, but yours strikes me as, so far, the most critical to this topic. My story is so closely parallel to yours that the only differences worth noting is the context of time and available technology. My story began exactly 30 years ago, when I decided to become involved with a woman strikingly similar to your "Jamie." There was no morning-after pill at the time. Today, I have a son with whom I maintain contact and good relations. My son is a strong and reasonably intelligent young man, capable of handling the truth. In the context of this discussion, I made the sacrifice as I perceived it to be the morally correct choice, to forfeit 17 percent of my earnings for 18+ years, as the state demanded. It was a decision made with naivety, ambiguity and animosity. My years as an absentee father were at time driving me to the edge of insanity. Thus, my alias: Repairman. I do not wish to make this a discussion about me. This is an argument about law and ethics. After reading only some of the postings on this thread, I thought my head was about to explode. How can anyone not see the moral injustice of a legal system that subjects a man to 18 of his most important years to mandatory payments, Machiavellian motherhood manipulators, and an option to spend time in prison? I am also very grateful to JMeganSnow and RationalBiker for their persistent defense of reason. For anyone who might not understand my statements, please refer to the first posting submitted by RebirthOfReason. He and I cannot be the only two Americans that have this experience in common. I promise to read through all of the postings soon.

qpwoeiru, where do I begin? This is a favorite subject of mine, so I'll try to avoid any oversights or mistakes. I shall attempt to address the subject with the lesser-known facts. The colonial period must be understood for what it was: colonial governments administrated by men interpreting English law to a population of undesirables and opportunists from the British island and northern Europe. Disregarding import duties and trade restrictions was a common practice for those engaged in commerce. Tax officials were easily bribed. After the Seven Years War, (the French-Indian War to Americans), the English demanded their taxes be collected and the war debt be paid. In addition to this, the Crown restricted the creation of new settlements in the lands once claimed by the French and their Indian allies. And as resistance to these new demands required muscle, British troops were poring into the colonies, quartering their soldiers anywhere they bloody well chose. Many of the other facts leading up to the Boston Massacre, and the shoot-out at Lexington and Concord are famous. But to the critical thinker, understanding the general attitudes of colonial communities allows one to understand the difficulty in breaking from the king that had protected their interests, their "father protector," their monarch, their sovereign, and being entirely independent under an unknown ruler, or untested form of government. The question of what sort of government ultimately was the question, but to answer that, one must seek and study the mind of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and an array of philosophers both contemporary to the Founders, and from the distant past. That's all for now. Ask me any time.

Clearly, the facts of "sam c b's brother-in-law" are unclear. (ex-brother-in-law? Or maybe simply, Brother-X?) It would be interesting to explore the realities of government transfer programs in action, regarding Brother-X, with more facts to work with. Could I have consensus that once one has paid into a government program, voluntarily or coerces, one then has a legal, if not completely moral right to the contractual share of monies transferred. Example: Social Security Insurance; upon full qualification, should not the recipient collect their legal payment, after years of being forced to pay into it? Child support is a matter I am familiar with, and one of which I have arrived at my own conclusions. As for our dubious Objectivist Brother-X, if what sam c b says stands as the only known facts, I have my doubts. Facts matter.

Every time people want government(s) to react to a crisis, they invoke: "We must save the children!" Public schools want more funding: "It's for the children!" Obamacare: "It's for the children!" food stamps, gun-control, ect. Do you suppose the Syrian rebels considered the dirty methods of modern warfare at the disposal of the Assads when they rebelled in 1982? They don't even know how many tens of thousands of children were murdered then. In the last several years, thousands more children have been slaughtered in numerous fronts, mostly civil wars, around the world. Where was the urgency then? Indeed, war is morally wrong, unless the combatants are men of free-will, fighting to maintain the freedom they hold as their highest value. As for the children of irrational parents living in tribal societies, such as Syria, I wouldn't waste my sympathy, until they demonstrate their desire to form a secular society that respects property rights, and a willingness to settle disputes in a court of just law, rather than tribal blood feuds. Their surviving children will most likely become the suicide bombers of tomorrow. This is regettable, but it's their way.

I'm glad you ask that question. I've consumed vast quantities of historical texts on the Revolution. And you are correct to note that historical writers often have an agenda of persuasion concealed between the pages. As for specific titles for the Objectivist agenda, may I recommend "Freethinkers-a History of American Secularism," by Susan Jacoby. While Jacoby's book covers only specific personalities and there philosophical influences, and she covers secularism up to the present day, the early chapters help to dispell the myth of America's "Judeo-Christian" foundation. To truly understand the times leading up to the Revolution, you will be reading many volumes. You may even find that reading about events in Britain explain America's unique outlook on liberty, such as the English Civil War in the mid-1600s. Review the economic theories of merchantilism, court decisions made in American colonies, biographies, and in general, understand that not everyone agreed on the need to break with Great Britain. I will try to remember some other titles that helped me to better grasp the full measure of the period, but off hand I packed away most of my library. What specific area of the Revolution interests you?

Protocol 2 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons places restrictions on the use of specific landmines. Who favors war against proven violators of this convention? I'm learning how to use these formats, thank for your patience.

In the court of world opinion, which could constitute everyone in Television Land, as well as any collective of government administrators, instrustrialists, militarists, ect, we could be getting the old run-around routine. Who is verifying this evidence, the same people who verified Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Who really knows what is going on over there. Go ahead and act out of an emotional response; punish whom ever you wish. What's likely to happen is the US will be blamed for everything that goes wrong in Syria from here on, including bad weather and crop failure. And who could blame them? We would be expanding the conflict, not ending it. The proverbial road to regret is paved with good intentions. Protocol 2 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons places restrictions on the use of specific landmines. Who favors war against proven violators of this convention? Selective enforcement is one of the oldest forms of corruption.

I agree that chemical weapons belong a short list of prohibitted tactical weapons. They destroy indiscriminately with horrific results, as do biological and nuclear weapons. However, the dilemma in enforcing this prohibition lies in the enforcement of any prohibition: who makes the judgement, and what is the appropriate response. We are all too aware of the stories of Saddam Hussein, and how he used chemical weapons on his Kurdish minorities. But the original story we heard in the midst of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War was that the Iranians were the ones launching chemical weapons. Remember how Colin Powell sunk his credibility selling the 2003 Iraq War to the UN. The BS that passes as fact presented before the world court in too many cases often comes as a package deal for some hidden agenda. Epistomologically, how do we know that which we THINK we know? There is a world-wide ban on landmines. Are we to attack every nation that hasn't removed them from their soil?

Well, at the risk of embarassment to the fact that I had nothing else better to do this evening, I put away just under 9 oz of Canadian Club, and watched that overextended video. To my deep commitment of the truth, I enjoyed it more than both of the Atlas Shrugged DVDs in my collect. The producer of this video looks more like Rob Zomby than Meatloaf, if that matters to anyone. But the video is tedious, yet redeeming if watched through to the end. The footage of the Tea Party harassment was needlessly lengthy. But the commentary was articulate, if not succinct. Criticize it only after you've committed the time to it, as I have. The producers of the Atlas Shrugged films must be called to the proverbial carpet. The creator of this video demonstrates the contrast between the actual novel, by Ayn Rand, and the wishful thinking of right-wing propagandists who created the films, as well as the ring-wing collectivists, for whom the film adaptations were intended. And he has a good eye (and ear) for art. Well, that's all I have to say; I'm pretty well wasted.