Repairman

I spent eight of my most impressionable years attending a Catholic elementary school. I understand quite well what they were saying then, as I do now. That's all the reason I needed, when I declined the "holy sacrament" of Confirmation, and assumed the whole of all religions to be a waste of time.

The most important purpose a transcontinental border wall would serve is to meet the desires and expectations of the American electorate. Regardless of any conversation about the popular vote versus the legitimacy of President Trump, it has been my experience that the Americans who voted for Trump want that wall. It has nothing to do with economic or security benefits; it's a matter of democracy. Trump supporters were gleeful at the thought of the wall. Now, as the fog of campaign rhetoric is lifting, and these people are becoming slightly more aware of the fact that this wall will be one more expensive boondoggle for the taxpayers to bear, they continue to cling to the vision. Will the wall and Trump's other isolationist policies lead to economic and security disaster? They don't care: Build the wall. It will make them feel better. Here's a fantasy, although not so crazy: A fortification rivaling the Maginot Line and the Chinese Great Wall spans the roughly 1,954 miles of America's southern border. It does exactly that which it was designed to do. The cost of building, maintenance, and staffing it with troops exceeds anything our budgets could sustain. It would make a perfectly good tourist site; visitors from China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia could have their pictures taken while posing atop or in front of the wall brandishing the Trump logo. The heirs of the Trump dynasty would own and operate the hotels and casinos that punctuates the serpentine structure. As our descendants revert to savagery as a means of survival, they can sit around the campfires, and tell their children of the once powerful American Empire, and how the second coming of the Trump-King will once again make America Great!

Dustin86, The passage you've sited is an excellent choice for summarizing Ayn Rand's position on politics. Politics, however, is more of an outcome, a derivative, of the being point of Objectivism: Existence exists. Here's a quote from Galt's speech: "Do you think they are taking you back to dark ages? They are taking you back to darker ages than your history has known...Their purpose is to deprive you of the concept on which man's mind, his life and his culture depend: the concept of an objective reality." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 1040) Building on the foundation of an acceptance of reality, be it to your liking or not, the true nature of man is better understood. Viewed through the context of history, it was philosophy and/or theology that held human progress in check. The modern Attila's merely arrived at the same outcome of subjecting man to the duty of serving anyone other than one's self. In an age when "Might Makes Right," slave-masters maintained domination over illiterate brutes with greater ease than men of a more enlightened age. Even in Christian Europe, serfs were subjected to mind-control; their lives were at the disposal of the aristocracy, and the only reward for their suffering was the promise of an eternal after-life in God's Kingdom. In the 20th century, the populations of industrialized nations were told that they were a small part of a much bigger goal: The Collective, The State, The Proletariat Utopia. Men were truly convinced that, only through personal sacrifice, they could build a better world. Many willingly accepted the burden. The Nazi Third Reich consisted of highly intelligent, educated, and civilized people; many of the nations that came under Nazi rule did so without much opposition, and passively accepted their roles as collaborators. If you were to study the core of their beliefs, you would find the fatal flaw. It is for this reason that each individual must examine as much of the known facts as available, question those in power, and be as intellectually honest to themselves as is possible.

Dadmonson, Persuasion is not an easy task for many of us. In most cases, an individual must come to his/her own senses, and realize that they are an individual. To inform them about Objectivism may not be necessary; it may be best to let people be as they are. I know of people who would be quite naturally inclined to approve of Objectivism, but for the fact that they are weighed down with the conventional challenges of life, and won't take the time to read Ayn Rand. While there are only a few of these people that I know of personally, such people tend to take the necessary actions to achieving their goals and happiness. There is no reason to impress them with any details, when they already follow a rational code of behavior. Generally, I let them know that I support their lifestyle, and I might even ask some question to find out if they've any knowledge of Ayn Rand. Are you sure these things need to be dealt with? In what way? If a greater understanding of history is what you're looking for, there are many books you could read until you become an expert on the subjects. But my experiences with African-Americans is that their metaphysics are firmly rooted in their religious background. Selling Objectivism to such people would be nearly impossible. If you meet anyone openly atheist/agnostic, exudes confidence in their industriousness, and disapproves of the welfare state, you might find an ally regardless as to the person's complexion. Knowledge is power. I hope you find as much knowledge as will inform you about the history of the march to freedom that led to the Declaration of Independence, and the continuing complexity of achieving universal liberty, for your own sake. Don't be disappointed that people resist reason; it's their life. Freeing one's mind is only a start.

Dustin86, Do you suppose the facts as known can be the only determinate of truth? If so, then a great deal of that which science holds as truth today will be regarded as flawed analysis at the point where more facts on the subject are made available. On the subject of homosexuality, very little was know about this condition a half century ago, its psychological facts and physiological facts. The same can be said of cigarette smoke as a carcinogen seventy years ago. Ayn Rand conceded to scientific knowledge after the facts were made indisputable. But finding some particular human anomaly "disgusting" does not necessarily make it immoral, and on that I get your point. Many people find smoking disgusting, but not immoral. The point I'd like to make is that known facts matter. For example, Aristotle claimed that the sun revolved around the earth. Based on that which was know at the time, his explanation was much more true than the explanation that Helios pulled the sun through the cosmos with his chariot, or whatever the Ancients believed. As more research is conducted, more facts are known, and more honest understanding of nature is possible, as with the nature of the human condition. I certainly wouldn't write off Aristotle entirely for a few flaws in his understanding of truth; his reasoning was based on the only known facts of his time. Columbus claimed he'd traveled to India; do we dismiss his actions, accomplishments, and reasoning, because of a few flaws in his facts? Ayn Rand was entitled to her opinions, subjective as they may have been, but in the search for the truth, she has done more to point the way than anyone else in modern times, by my opinion of course. So, I do not see your point. In the pursuit of the truth, the idea of questioning knowledge as currently accepted is the method humans have used down through the ages. And you are entitled to question accepted knowledge as well, but you need a reliable and compelling body of facts to win your argument. Simply because some facts remain disputable and open to amendment, does not necessarily mean that there are no absolutes. In time, perhaps all objective knowledge will be verified, cataloged, and made available. But until that day comes, we are limited to the known facts of our times.

I think it unlikely that Donald Trump has read many books of more than two hundred pages, books without pictures, that is. He may have watched a video of The Fountainhead, starring Gary Cooper. Critics of Ayn Rand are often trying to fit her words into some narrative taken out of context. I think this passage from Atlas Shrugged, covers it: "It is a conspiracy of all those who seek, not to live, but to get away with living, those who seek to cut just one small corner of reality and are drawn, by feeling, to all the others who are busy cutting corners--a conspiracy that unites by links of evasion all those who pursue a zero as a value:...(she lists a series of qualifying prototypes, including the Trump-like:) ...businessman who, to protect his stagnation, takes pleasure in chaining the ability of competitors..."--from, This is John Galt Speaking; p. 1047. Conspiracy, indeed, but not of one inspired out of Objectivism.

I would like to see more well recognized persons speak about the influence of Ayn Rand. Someone with celebrity status is more likely to draw attention among the younger audience. This would make it possible for a victory, whether major or minor, in the cultural battle. Off hand, I can only think of a few that have made mention of Ayn Rand in a positive light: Neil Peart, (drummer for Rush), and Penn Jillette, (Los Vegas illusionist, and media star.) Perhaps there are others, but these are the only ones of which I know. That being said, it would reinforce my optimism to see more people identifying themselves as atheist; I wish to see fewer people assuming that there must be some good in anyone who believes in any form of deity. I wish to see more people acknowledging the rights of the individual, and positively acknowledging their own status as a minority of one, rather than demanding rights for a collective, of which they are a mere percentage. I seek the day when identity politics is consider passe. I wish to see more people say with conviction: "You damn right I'm looking out for myself!" If, one day, more nations develop institutions allowing stability within their borders, it will likely be the result of reforming laws that stifle entrepreneurial activity. Greater economic stability would naturally lead to domestic and military stability. A true meritocracy would emerge, and more prosperity for those who've earned it. While this all seems a bit beyond the scope of my present-day vision, it doesn't do any harm to fantasize. But if this vision of the future does come about, I won't care it is called Objectivism, or merely a revision of good ole common sense. I can only suppose that some intelligent individuals will rediscover the 20th century writer who espoused the philosophy that respected the virtues of intellectual honesty and industrious action. And I hope they'll more than: "She was ahead of her times."

I see a number of problems with Dr Hurd's argument. For starts, Trump claimed we could have all of the benefits of the social welfare state, including a revised national healthcare program. Of course, it is all speculation at this point. But Trump's promises to have all of the entitlements of SSI, education, and tax-cuts all at the same time is pie in the sky. If Obamacare is repealed, good riddance. But the problem of paying for everyone's medical expenses will still fall mostly onto wage earning Americans. Or we could always expand the national debt once again, throwing many more future generations under the proverbial bus. Trump made it all sound as if we could all have our cake and eat it too. I would agree with Dr Hurd's assessment that the number one priority of national leadership should be the protection of rights and the empowerment of the individual. I heard nothing even close to that in Trump's rhetoric; it was largely claims that he was the indispensable man of our times, the ubermensch. The threat of a Trump dictatorship may be overstated, as it seems I've heard that accusation against nearly every US president since Richard Nixon. The threat is not with the celebrity/imperial president, but with a desperate citizenry unable to understand the value of their own personal liberty, and their demand for demagogues.

From one of my favorite episodes of the classic Star Trek series: Spock: Your world was on the verge of a dark ages. This piece of dialog from science fiction was an apt warning to the people of our time in this place in history. Having read the above mentioned article by Okhar Ghate, I am reminded of the significance of every single day in our lives, in which any event or combination of events may shape the future for better or worse. When the history books of the future are written, what will they say of us? Will they suggest that the original ideas of Revolutionary American liberty were too complex for the average individual? Was democracy such a bad idea that no rational society should ever consider entrusting their future to the whims of the common people? Will they write books in any form at all, or will our descendants return to being the illiterate savages from our ancestral past--a past ruled by symbiosis of the mystics of muscle and the mystics of the mind. The ascent of Donald Trump to the highest national public office is at this time a matter of concern and circumspect. His tenure in office will prove to be interest to say the least. But as Mister Ghate points out, the tragedy is not that of Trumps ambition, as formidable as it may be. The greatest danger exists in the fact that so many American voters came to the support of a candidate with little if any credibility in his rhetoric, and no record at all in public office. So many people supported him not for what he championed, but more for what he condemned in the most vulgar and unspecific terms. If the Founders of the United States intended that the people should choose their representatives, literally, what does it say for a generation of Americans that could not choose better a representative than Donald Trump, or for that matter, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I can understand the voting block that chose Barack Obama. He represents a collective coalition who had long considered themselves under-represented. Obama's legacy will be a deepening of the social divisions within the US. A divided society doesn't bother me; what does bother me is the violence resulting from a nation whose best days are history, and has lost the will and understanding to go anywhere but into chaos. If Trump does not transform the US into a Banana Republic, who in our future might have more success in further corrupting and crippling our nation? The stage is set. The people have spoken. We live in interesting times, times ruled, in the words of Mister Spock, "by dozens of petty dictatorships."

Eioul, If you've got a better way, that's just fine. I'll stick to mine. This is my answer to one more subjective critic.

How on Earth could that have happened? You spelled it out so brilliantly. And of course, Spooky Kitty, you never will see the difference between your satirical position and the truth. That's because there is no difference. You've enlightened me to the lameness of Objectivism! Let's see if I got it right: So, the poor, as you've identified them, have a right to an expensive service, for which someone else has the obligation to pay. That expensive service, an opportunity to earn college credits by being permitted to attend the most expensive schools is their entitlement. The underlying morality that makes this so is that the improvident, illiterate, and sometimes foul-smelling poor have needs just as the middle-class and the rich. And while the rich can always afford to pay a mere pittance of their vast and unlimited wealth, the lower middle-class kid, who parents make too much money to qualify for any state supported funding, can go pound sand up his/her ass. Working parents can afford to pay for both their kid's and the kids' of strangers through their tax contribution. Those "poor kids" are so much more deserving, especially if they don't have the time or resources -- the same time and resources made available to the lower middle-class kid, such as public libraries and elementary schools -- to study in preparation for higher education. In the meantime, the kid who did his/her diligence in public schools, scored sufficient grades, but has working parents with an income just above the threshold can be required to pay more for college, when the courses are inflated from the public policy of entitling all to higher education. Screw that lower middle-class kid; let him get a menial job. That kid's been bred to have the kind of work-ethic that makes him/her perfect for unskilled labor or the trades. Maybe he/she will be lucky enough to have offspring who will be poor enough to deserve my sacrifice and the sacrifice of greater society for the greater good. The social safety-net should rightfully be designed, not so much to empower those on the low-end of the economy, but rather to ensnare the taxpayers and keep them in their place! Oh, and of course it should catch some of those rich people; those parasites make for exquisite dining, yum yum. Eat the Rich!

Boystun, I might take issue with your first point: That ideology was the reason Americans rejected and feared the new Soviet Union. I would argue that it was largely a matter of the fact that Communism was foreign; Americans had a sudden and strong dislike of all things international after being drawn into the Great War. While it is true that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was established originally for the purpose for "rooting out" terrorists, usually ideologically Communists or anarchists, the average working man in the industrialized North to miners in the South were becoming increasingly drawn to unions, usually supported through the International Workers of the World, aka, the Wobblies. The Wobblies were an organization unmistakably inspired by Communist ideology. Many intellectuals of this period supported this movement; some even traveled to the newly established Union of Soviet Socialists Republic. Industrialists, such as Fred C. Koch, father to Charles and George Koch, saw opportunity there. It wasn't long before even the most sympathetic Americans were appalled to learn of the atrocities committed by the new regime. From an ideological point of view, what's not to like about a state that puts the needs of its people at the top of the priority list? A state that rations resources for the benefit of all? The unification of a brotherhood of man? (Other than the "Godless" aspect, as you well pointed out.) While the worst of the truth was withheld from the public, diplomat, George Kennan warned US officials of the horrors within the USSR, and later encouraged the isolation policy of the Cold War. The Red Scare of the 1920s was hardly noticed; ignorance and the Great Depression made the Soviet Union seem rational; the post-WW2 era witnessed the dawn of the Atomic Age, and the Red Scare was back in a way that was hard not to notice. But did the ordinary person actually understand the ideology? "Commie" and "pinko," were merely words without meaning to most, but they were derogatory words nonetheless. Trying to remove the ideological threat of socialism in a country that cherishes free-speech is neither easily done, nor even desired for those who see capitalism as the real threat. What can you expect from a nation that teaches its children that America's greatest industrialist were "robber-barrons"? Only in the past year, one politician won unexpected popularity in a major political party running as a socialist. It was only Ayn Rand who understood the threat as no one else could. Only Ayn Rand provided to ideological solution. The military invasion from Stalin and Khrushchev never happened. But Ayn Rand could see the direction of American policy and popular culture being eclipsed by the rise of the New Left--the same old Karl Marx in the emperor's new clothes.

klara, Welcome to the forum. Could you tell me what the distinctions are between cultural relativism and moral relativism? As you describe cultural relativism, the two appear to be indistinguishable. I've seen many discussions on this forum taking up a variety of moral conundrums, but of course, the standard of morality is based on Objectivist ethics, usually. If you are familiar with Objectivism, then you know that morality is based on objective reality. Subjective beliefs are common and are an important part of traditions in many cultures, but the common element is that the code of morality is based on subjectivity in one form or another. Usually, traditional beliefs hold that morality is revealed through divine revelation or, often in more modern societies, opinion by dominant majority. It is true that geographic conditions determine special needs of isolated societies, and may necessitate brutality, even infanticide, or other savage means of survival. But we are living in a modern age of industrialization; one-child policies and public dismemberment of criminals are not necessary for civilization. Rational self-interest and an objective sense of justice could one day influence remote global cultures, which are predominantly influenced by their past. Eskimos may create improvements in living conditions, and allow for families to plan for however many children they can support based on their abilities and access to resources, rather than tradition. Traditions are quaint, and the traditions that make us happy should be preserved for that purpose. But if the tradition is one in which violence and force are unnecessary, such traditions must be relegated to the past, to be studied in history, but not practiced as an institution. Slavery in the English colonies of North America was born out of necessity; abolishing that peculiar institution proved to be extremely difficult, because Southern slave-owners believed they had a natural, even a God-given right to own another man, woman, or child, to buy and sell, and in some cases abuse at their discretion. If one lived in the antebellum South, cultural relativism would dictate that slavery was acceptable. By definition of Objectivist ethics, slavery in any form is a most heinous crime. In matters of morality, the ideal code of human behavior is based on objectivity, definitely not traditions.

Influence-peddling is a mainstay for some, an unfortunate "reality" for some others in government administration. Rather than list the many ways to destroy the incentive of small businesses through bureaucracy, I acknowledge it as an artificial reality. No doubt, some politicians believe their own nonsense. Nonetheless, the actions taken by office-holders is back up with police force, a judicial system, and if need be, and army. If money is the primary goal of a high-level official, he/she is a fool. Money is merely the means to power for the true modern-day Machiavellian player. The money is only as good as it is used to maintain the seat of power upon which they sit. It is what it is, for now. I don't believe it has to be that way. When the proper role of government, as defined by Objectivist standards, is made popular, then the United States may not have to mirror the social orders of Turkey, China, Russia, or any other nation so admired by the Leftist intelligentsia. Until then, abuse of power in federal, state, and local government will become so institutionalized that it will be too late to make the change.

Eioul, My response was to this comment: "The buying and selling of political favors, on the other hand, is (most people believe) that is protected under free speech."--Spooky Kitty (my parenthesis). To begin with, premise that this claim is a matter of popular opinion undermines it as a fact. However, if we address it as an accepted generality, then it is equally acceptable to point out that leftist office-holders stay in power because, 1) they receive more votes than their opponents, obviously, and 2) they hold to policies of "generosity" toward the poor and middle-class using federal and states' budgets. You are right to point out that fear (of fiscal conservatives, I assume) is useful for the purpose of holding or gaining office. This is not to say that our Machiavellian prince is not receiving favors from moneyed interests as well as increasing the expenditures on social welfare programs. If it were necessary, I'm sure I could pull up plenty of articles exposing the corruption among left-leaning politicians. To be sure, their are legions of Chicago politicians who cater to their campaign contributors, while keeping the faith with their constituents. So, let's address the last part of your rebuttal: Let's say you're right, bad politicians buy votes from the poor. Clarify to me what the politician gets? Votes, yes, but what else? Secondly, votes are also going to be bought from the richest as well in this case. What does the politician get from them? Votes, yes. That's the obvious key to power. Votes are going to be bought from the richest; what does the politician get? Usually it comes in the form of campaign support (money mostly) and other perks. When someone holds the power to grant licenses, permits, and enforce the law at their discrimination, crony-capitalists get in line to help their friends. To all concerned, I have less sympathy for those abusing the social welfare programs than the those business owners buying favors from their "special friends." Without digressing into a discussion about how to resolve the whole balled up mess, I would make a short and oversimplifies recommendation. That is, lawmakers ought to focus of deregulating laws prohibitive to entrepreneurs, perhaps a sort of reverse engineering of the existing laws allowing more freedom for low-budget enterprises. I know "crony-capitalism" is a term that irritates some people, but I use it as a general term covering the selective enforcement of government policies on "uncooperative" entrepreneurs. The capitalist, whether involved in high, low, or no level of corruption, is only one vote, compared to the masses of those who feel "cheated" by a system they don't even bother to understand.

Why So Many Politicians Are Crooks? Because: "(That's) where the money was/is." Thank you, Willie Sutton. Spooky Kitty, 1) Indeed, political favors, in the form of votes are purchased from the poor and middle-class for policies that grant them favors in the form of funds from the public largess. Many of the unnecessary projects and their funding is slipped in between the lines of other non-related legislation. 2) Indeed, it would be inevitable to build roads, bridges, and a viable defense system with public funding. Presently, "normal" government expenses include everything from tobacco and sugar subsidies, to prescription drug programs, to Olympic and other sports stadiums. And the list of other expenses could on until the economy collapses again. The proper minimum services and infrastructure is normal and inevitable; that's why local government should handle as much as it realistically can. 3) Goddamn right free speech is protected. That is, until one more idiot proposes another brilliant pieces of legislation to limit monies donated and spent on political speech. 4) People and the press challenge it quite often; the very same people then help to elect the same megalomaniacs into power, generation after generation.

That's why I see it as a false alternative. And that's because we, the People, can appoint better candidates. On that we agree. I won't speculate anymore as to how it has come to this travesty; from here out, it's a matter of getting over it. Off hand, I recall that one of the Founders warned that democracy would be the ruin of the United States, when the people started expecting "free things" from their government. I don't remember exactly who or how that sentiment originated.

It's hard to add anything to this topic that hasn't been covered by softwareNerd, other than the fact that our notions of super-powerful beings and their influences over behavior of a given society. Mythology heavily influenced the common outlook of the ancients, and thus the actions of common people and their leaders. For example, the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, and many others believed the gods were real, and therefore influential in the outcome of major events, especially military contests. The gods were the deciding factor over good and bad fortune. And while it is common for people today to hold a disbelief in the influence of any form of god, many do hold to a belief in super-powerful extraterrestrial aliens, and in many ways, our comic book superheroes influence our childhood notions of heroism and morality well into adulthood. You might say that the Fantastic Four and Batman are some of our modern-day gods. Incidentally, I've only read parts of the Iliad, parts of the Odyssey, parts of Plato's Republic, the entire Old and Testament, and many articles on the subject of ancient mythology. There is definitely a benefit from reading these works for anyone who wishes to understand the common perspectives of both ancient and modern societies.

Luis Enrique Colon, I believe I gather the meaning of your intent with this post. However, would you consider using another term other than "reason" as a motive for senseless murder? As an Objectivism, I believe reason is a very important concept, and should not be used casually as an explanation for something as unreasonable as unjustified murder. If the question is: "Does it matter to me?," then, yes. The lone-wolf-psycho-killer, a mentally deranged, perhaps nihilistic fiend, such a murderer cannot be stopped. If he can't get his hands on a gun, he'll get a knife, a bomb, or poison, or by some other means, perhaps cause a mass transit vehicle or aircraft to become his weapon of choice. If it comes to trying the culprit, then it matters to the judge and jury. And it still matters to me, because I want to know that I can depend on the justice system. The reason what matters most is to determine whether such violence can or cannot be stopped at all. As for gun-control, I think most people are aware that anyone who wishes to get a gun will not be stopped from getting one. If the motivation was intended as an act of following a religious (or political) requirement, it should be determined how the religious (or political) connection is made to the murderer, and whether this is an organized sect (or criminal organization, such as the Mafia,) or the inspiration for isolated acts of murder. If it is the latter, such as in the case of Islam, where violence is proscribed, then religious intellectuals of that faith should be motivated to enacting a theological correction more in line with modern social norms. If the former is the case, an organized sect, lawful organized force must be used against it. This may take the form of undercover police investigations, military forces, and citizen participation. Both theological and military means are necessary against religious fanaticism. When religion is the motivation for murder, whether ISIS, KKK, or the IRA, isolating and arresting the "soldiers of God" is never easy, but always more costly than influencing the individual mind of an unreasonable person, and provide for them a path to reason.

Jon Southall, Things aren't always what they seem. We are not going to get both of them, only one or the other. Indeed, it is as it usually is: the lesser of two evils. That's reality in America's present political arena. I've been witnessing this terrible event as I would a train wreck in slow motion. It's a bit like one of those absurd false choices: Would you prefer to have a flaming stick in one eye, or to have your right hand smashed with a three-pound sledge hammer? But it is reality and not a false choice. I believe most people on this forum view Hillary Clinton as a status quo candidate, as opposed to the unpredictable wild-card (or perhaps wild-man.) For those who will vote for Clinton, the miserable outcome will be mitigated. Clinton may be more easily held in check by a hostile congress. And if in fact she is a criminal, then may they start selecting the Special Prosecutor on January 8th of next year. If only there were some way to inform the American voters as to how to avoid this deplorable situation.

As the opening post suggests, World War 2 might have been justified as necessary for the survival of free (i.e. Western) nations, or it might have been a colossal waste of American lives and other resources. As the numbers of those who had first-hand experience of those times dwindles, it is for our own survival that we need to remember the conditions of the major (and minor) national forces involved in this conflict. It is for our own survival that we need to understand that ideological forces were motivating national leaders. And because we see in our times the face of extremely ambitious and unethical persons rising to power, we need to get it right. The term, "World War Two" did not come into use until after the war was near completely finished. I point this out, because the conflict was restricted to Europe mostly; it was not global until December 7th, 1941. The majority of the American public viewed it as "the war in Europe." That a war was likely to erupt in Asia seemed as remote as the Asian continent itself. Americans were more concerned with finding and holding steady employment, or Joe Dimaggio's batting average. Most of those who had experienced the Great War were sternly opposed to helping Britain or France in any way that might cost American lives. "The War," as it was often referred to up until 1938, was The Great War, 1914-1918. It is as important to study that event as it is to understand the War from 1939 to 1945. From Reidy's post, I gather that the Objectivist view, i.e. Ayn Rand's view, was in line with the popular notion that the warring nations would cause the destruction of their own despotic systems: President Roosevelt was planning to enter the war. As the above post points out, the United States had ambitions in Asia long before 1941. So, to say that "the US was not going to enter WWII," is certainly an oversimplification. Roosevelt intended to go to war in 1940, while telling the voters: "I hate war."; "No American boys will be sent to war"; and other platitudes necessary for his re-election. Herein lies one of the most valuable lessons so often overlooked in public school social studies classes: Politicians will say anything in order to win. In 1940, intervention was already underway in Burma supporting the British effort, as Reidy mentioned, the Flying Tigers were a clandestine operation. Putting aside the ambiguities of the American public, Roosevelt not only wanted the US involved in the conflict, he had already authorized it, while campaigning on a promise to the contrary. Which brings us back to this question: Was the war unnecessary? We'll never know that with any certainty. We do know that the American people had been traumatized by the Great Depression. We know that the average American thought very highly of FDR, in fact, many considered him to be the greatest president ever. Trust in the president was far higher than any of his policies could justify. Franklin Roosevelt may have been the "indispensable man" of his time. But then, that is exactly the same perception held by the German people of their leader, Adolph Hitler. Both leaders expanded the role of centralized governance over their citizens and the economy. (I will have to note that one exception is the fact that it was Roosevelt who repealed the Volstead Act, thus expanding personal liberty.) The German people had for generations accepted the ideology that made Nazism possible, an idealism of altruistic morality. In contrast, Americans had a history of only a few hundred years emphasizing the spirit of the individual. Our foundations were established in the understanding that government should always be subject to open discussion and criticism by its people. I have witnessed irrational exuberance for many American candidates, but I have never until recently seen politicians as unfit to lead as in own present times. In a democracy, the rise of such unfit leaders is only made possible by the will of the people. Fascism and Communism were easy to sell to a people with a tradition of willing subjugation to powerful leaders. If I had one overly-simplified lesson about politics to bestow upon a young person, it would be this: Be your own leader.

Quite the contrary, reason and reality are primary to defining the moral good. The notion that morality is subjective explains many historic tragedies. Rationalization is not to be confused with reason.

Spooky Kitty, I find no known definition of "paraiste". I will assume you invented the term, and you are pulling my leg. It'seems ok, just don't try to eat it.

They are. What is your point?

No, not at all. I am asserting that the act of applying reason to its best use, in coordination with man's physical ability allows him to achieve the wonders of the modern world, while mysticism was the dominant idea in man's earliest development. Man's nature is to consume other organisms; you are conflating this fact with parasitism: a contortion if ever I saw one. Good luck trying to defend your line of "reasoning."