Strangelove

You are trying to get me to attribute the rise of Nazism to a single cause, a "philisophical" case. I don't see merit in that view for this situation. I do not believe that because, and only because of the weakness of the philosophies of the Weimar Cultural scene that Nazism was able to rise. I find that view incorrect, not out of denial of the weakness of nihilism as an idea. But because its a view which assumes that the Nazi party gained strength among the Weimar elite and intelligentsia, which is not true. Its also a view that attributes far too much power and influence to a group that lacked it. The Nazi parties core electoral strength was the agrarian component of society. Not a component of society that was heavily exposed to, or weakened by nihilism or existentialism. Support for Hitler came here less out of any command to pledge loyalty to the state, then for advocating the Romantic idea of the "Volk" and a return to a "simpler time". Additionally, Hitler did not have total electoral support in the ubran areas where people were reading on existentialism and watching metropolis, because the Nazis were not the majority party, and were a party that had the potential to go down the road of electoral decline. More importantly, Hitler's rise to Chancellor was not allowed by members of the Weimar cultural scene who held existential or nihilistic ideas, but by politicians such as Hindenburg who were generally interested in seeing some semblence of authoritarianism due to the German political "tradition" of authoritarianism, a tradition that argurably was carried over from Prussia and Bismarck, and so backed Hitler as the candidate to lead the authoritarian drive, believing him to be a chractecter who could be manipulated. (they were of course, incorrect). I doubt that Hindenburg was a large fan of the expresinist movement. He was of the old Prussian order and to attribute his appointing of Hitler as Chancellor to Weimar Cultural trends seems far fetched.

First off, I have not yet read the Ominious Parallels, so sorry if any point I make is already dealt with by that book. That being said, I am a bit suspicious of some of the historical reasoning that you use throughout the presentation. Here are some of my concerns: To simplify it down to simply "loosing WWI" denies that other factors which were present in Germany but not in Italy or Austria, and also denies aspects of Italy and Austria. Factors that Germany had which no other nation had: -War Guilt Clause from Treaty of Versailles -Loss of territory due to Treaty of Versialles -Reperation Payments, that initially resulted in hyper inflation. -Forced, if not outright hypocrticial disarmamanet. No other nation was pushed to disarm as Germany did. -Foreign Occupation (France in the Ruhr) -The immediate rise of a Parliamentian Government (Weimer) in the aftermath of a tradition of authoritarian (not Totalitarian) rule which had been established by Bismark, utilized by Kaiser Wilhelm I, and which was also utilized during WWI. Germany lacked the expirence and readiness to deal with the issues of a Democracy. Also remember: -Italy did not make any real gains at Verailles, despite being promised quite a bit. -The Austrian Government did infact have a strong Nazi movement, and was leaning twoards authoritarianism like most European countries. The next comment you make is this: First off, no other nation would immediatley turn to Nazism cause it was an explicitly German concept of "National Socialism" with racist and misguided overtones of Aryanism. Also keep in mind, that even if not all nations turned to Nazism, all nations did become protectionist, they all instituted some sort welfare program (not just FDR, France and the UK as well) and of course, The Great Depression did lead the Japanese to inavde Manchuria and the Italians to invade Abyssiniya even before Hitler's own expansionism began. The Great Depression did have a simialr effect on all nations it hit. I would however, understand your point that its interesting to see that a Right Wing Regime came to power when it would seem a Left Wing Regime would be the more "likely response" (such as Bernard Show's flirtations with Stalin) but I would only remind that the Nazis in the early years did play heavily the "Socialist" element of "National Socialism" and that some of their projects (building the Autobahn) do ring to the same tune of state public works projects. Now I do understand and largely agree with your point that Weimar culture allowed the Nazi's to gain a foothold, but I think that its a rather all encompassing answer you propose which ignores several important facts: -The German "Electorate" did not make Hitler the Chancellor. The Nazis were the largest party but never the majority party in the Reichstag. Infact, int eh last set of elections, the Nazis did loose some seats. -Hitler was selected to be Chancellor because of political agreements made with various other German politicians. Germany was already leaning twoards general authoritarisnism as far back as pre-great depression Stressman. The "People" never made Hitler Chancellor -The electorate which did help Hitler, was very agrarian, and they were not the kinds of people who would often go to the Berlin art gallery to see the latest expresionist painting, or read the latest nihilist literature. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I get the impression that you are trying to make philosophy fit the circumstances. In otherwords, you are trying to make anti-Objectivist ideas the cause of Nazism, when in my opinion, you seem to be giving them more credit then they are worth. I appologise if this critism is not something to wanted to hear, but I felt that there were some gaps in the logic of the presentation that needed to be filled.

If I understand correctly, most Americans are opposed to "tests" to determine the worth of a voter since historically they were used to restrict the voting rights of African Americans with racist intent. With regards to the proposed approval rating system, it would be a good thing should any Objectivist wish to run as a third party candidate since this would allow for more people to be open with voting for that third party since thye dont believe that it threatens the status quo of the two party system.

The answer is, because people don't see any problem with their understanding of the world. I know I can talk, I have recently read Ayn Rand, and it has forced me to think about my life differently. Maybe I will never be able to fully call myself an Objectivist because there are some things that I will probably never agree entirely with her on, (then again, in time, maybe not) but I can say that slowly, but surely, the objectivist perspective has had an overall positive impact on my life. People need time, people will not instantly understand the Objectivist paradigm because so many people have been able to adapt to living irrationaly by making "Safety nets" which they can fall in to stop them from confronting the fact that they are simply wrong. I personally believe its an evolutionary trait designed to try to stop our species from committing suicide.

Appologies if my grammer was unclear, I mean what would be some good examples of services which typically the Goverment recieves payment for at gunpoint, instead being funded without the need to use force? Are there any privately owned roads in the United States for instance?

The Democrats started the Draft Bill in order to force the Republicans not to sign it, a sort of weird reverse psychology thing, where by the Republicans would have the most to loose from a bill written by Democrats to humiliate REpublicans and frighten college students. I dont believe that there will be a draft because the military brass know that the strength of the American Army is based on its volunteer nature, and that we get better soldiers from people who are willing to fight, then those who are not.

What would be some good examples of services which typically the Goverment recieves payment for at gunpoint, being funded without the need to use force? Thats a very good response and partly what I was looking for, thankyou! I was intitially having trouble visualising how a system would work as you earlier described.

Though I see what you mean, I was thinking in my original post along the idea of States like Pakistan which can not adequately control their northern territories. I do not deny that State Sponsored Terrorism exists, I just believe that instability is just as much as cause as State Sponsorship.

I have not yet been able to procure a copy of "Capitalism, the unknown ideal" of "The Virture of Selfishness" and my appologies if the answer to this problem is in either book, or any other book by Ayn Rand. I understand that in order to fund services which would be impractical to put directly under private control such as the road outside my house, (I should not have a to pay a toll just to drive out of the garage to the street, before I even get on the highway) the solution is to put such things under private donations. Is there any historical example of when this has been applied? Ideally, successfully? The only example I can think of is NPR (Despite its liberal slant, it still is of a higher quality then then infotainment such as CNN or Fox) but even then, NPR still does depend slightly on taxes, so is not a complete success.

Thankfully I am a Democrat so I do try to take what I hear from Republicans with a pinch of salt. Iraq is not World War Two Japan, its events such as Abu Ghraib, where we do break the backs of the Iraqis, that they hate us even more. America has not been beaten down. Unlike 2004, we now have the foundations for a government from which we will build up in order to restore order, and win respect. Things can go wrong, but once again, unless anyone on this forum wishes to advocate raising taxes in order to pay for more military equipment, we do have the right idea with moving twoards making Iraq more self-reliant.

I prefer Thomas L. Friedman's assesment of Terrorism as opposed to those who believe that it is simply because of Islam or because of State Sponsorship. Both of which are factors, but not defining factors. I believe that terrorism is similar to Bolshevism. The 1917 Bolshevick Revolution was not a massed uprising, but a coup via the inteligentsia. You had a bunch of Ivory Tower socialists living in a weak, backward, and war torn country. Thus, Lenin and his small group of party comrades could take Petrograd, and then slowly but surely move on to secure the rest of the country. All the while, making use of the lower classes less as "motor" or the revolution, but more as an adjunct. The use of strikes, encourgaing workers to take over factories, etc, in other words, a very small minority pushing around uneducated and desperate poor people. Osama Bin Ladin is the modern day Lenin. He has the money and the brains, he hides out in weak and fragile states who dont so much "sponsor" him so much as they can't do anything about him. He recuits from nations which are socially, economically, and politically, backwards. He gets European Muslims to train and plan, while he uses Arab Muslims to fly the planes. Weak states that allow super-empowered individuals like Osama Bin Ladin to plan and direct, that is the cause of modern day terrorism.

Iraq as the nation is no longer "the enemy country", Iraq's new government is going to eventually become our ally and an example to the world and the Middle East as to why Tyranny is evil. I doubt there is any member of this forum who would actually agree to raising our taxes even though doing so would mean that it would be possible to provide more funds to our military, but assuming that we all think taxes are on the whole, inherently evil, then what Rumsfeld is actually saying makes sense. That being, Iraq should move twoards running its own security, not relying on the US. Let me give you an example of when American attempts to dominate militarily has been a burden that has come to back to haunt us. With the formation of the NATO and the subsequent formation of the Warsaw Pact as the counter-balance, the US had become Europe's guardian angel. At the time it made sense, the USSR was threatening Europe and only America could stand up to it, but then something went wrong. The Europeans never began to start building their own miliaries, they just depended on America for defense. So while European economies grew, their militaries never did. This meant that the Europeans found that they had a lot of extra money lying around, and rather then start to take some of burden for defending Europe from the Red Army, they decided instead to use that money to fund many many social programs, as well as susidise many many asepcts of their economies. Fast forward to 2005. Germany and France not only have ideologically confused governments, but economic systems that are so entrenched in protectionism, with unions who stand by the right of every French worker to work for two hours a week. Even if a reformer were to be elected in either country, that he would inherit an economic system that would require more purging and strong arm tactics then the public of most European nations could tolerate. Its why the EU is going to become an armed retirement community unless it accepts Free Trade to be truly Free of Subsidies. Let the Iraqi develop their own security, let Iraq fund for its own defense, let the Iraqi people do that and become a Democracy that will put the rest of the Arab world to shame. Let them privitize their oil economy and watch as the country takes a light speed trip to the 21st century. Let them do it by making them earn it, not by having America subsidise its security.

I agree 100% with that.

Let me re-phrase that, anything which defines itself by public opinion. Example, a politician who wants to win an election so takes several polls to decide which issues he can win on. Irrespective of his actual principles and convictions.

I found The Fountainhead on someones listmania on Amazon.com, and read it only a few months ago. I am currently going though Atlas Shrugged.

First off, I concede that the use of the term and concept of "meritocracy", was unwise and I will not attempt to defend it further. I would rather that Government was run like the Sony Corporation. As we should all be well aware, Sony's newely apointed CEO is the first non-Japanese one that they have ever had. He has been appointed because the current one, was not only failing to meet company targets, but also was convinced that the company literally needed someone who "spoke another language" in order to properly manage the company. (more on this can be read in a recent Fortune magazine). If the Sony was held hostage public opinion, and had to take a survey from its employes as to who the new CEO should be, I guarantee that the Japanese employes would not elect the westerner, even though he is more qualified for the job. Even though there was not any official "test" that was taken to determine if the westerner was more suited to the position, one test that did not have to be taken, was the test of public opinion. Now, although the Supreme Court is probably the most respected institution of the three branches of Government, it is not perfect and in my opinion, the guarantee of service untill death, prevents allowing more capable judges to replace inadequate ones, but that is a minor concern. To deal with your concern, I would not advocate for "Government" as a career choice to be held off from all people interested in holding office. If someone believes that they are capable of doing a better job of mayor/governor/etc then the man currently in office, then it makes sense to try and compete for the position, but not compete though votes. An evangelical Christian may be unhappy that his state does not ban abortions, so he has every right to seek Governorship, but instead of seeking it by rallying the faithfull and storming the ballot box, he would have to "apply" for a Government position, be given a smaller level job, and be evaluated as a company evaluates a manging director. If he bans abortions and gay marriage in his area of work, then the area under his auspice would suffer economically and as a result, would not be able to get a "promotion" to Governor. Thus, Reason triumphs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One lesson I took from first reading The Fountianhead, was the anything which falls into the court of public opinion, be it the media, or architechts, is ultimately withheld from being able to reach its full potential.

I go to a High School. I want to get accepted into a College. The College sets a SAT score that I have to get to get considered, this is their way of increasing the number of "good" applicants. Because all it shows, is that you got a large portion of the population to vote for you and is not indicitive of how well you will do your job. In fact, it is probably more indicitive of how well you can manipulate large groups of people. I would agree that Representitive Democracy is the most effectigve form of government that currently exists because it limits the rule of the masses and dilutes their voice. This however, does not change the fact that in the US, the Supreme Court is still seen at a higher standard to the White House and Congress, because its occupants have no need to fear getting voted out and so can makes 100% reason based decisions without having to deal with the court of "public opinion".

Well I would assume that merit would be decided by internal criteria, whether that criteria is actually good enough, would be another matter.

Except that as we see in the Netherlands, Europe is not growing to accept Islamic culture. This is also evident in the difficulty of accepting Turkey into the EU, In France's Anti-Religious Display law, and with the lobby in the EU arguing for a recognition of "Christian Culture". Europeans may have questionable Middle Eastern policies, but hardly "Eurabia".

We were initially fighting for territory in Korea, liberating Seoul from the Commies, before the mission evolved into removing the Commies from the penninsula. Once China entered, it became more important not to use nuclear weapons and to focus on trying to maintain the ROK as an entitiy. Vietnam, I don't want to touch right now since my understanding of the war is more limited then I would like.

While I am sure that Objectivists have no economic objections to allow for private conpanies to do Stem-Cell research, are there any moral or ethical elements of concern?

What about simply trying to explore a new means of expression, and to intentionally challenge the perceptions of the time? It was certainly a groundbreaking means by which to express oneself, and ir would undoubtedly have been a challenge. Once again, I am surprised and a bit uncomfortable by the view that seems to be like that of the Dean's in FH, that "All the best ways of doing architecture have already been discovered" (paraphrasing). I hear a lot of "The best way of doing art is in the Romantist style". However, I do have a greater understanding as to the reasoning behind this, so its no quite so shocking as it might had been earlier.

Maybe people are already familier with Cox and Forkum because the blog is run by two Objectivists, but I find the political cartoons to be top-notch and I highly recemend it, read it if you do not do so already!

I agree that there needs to be elitism and a peer review with art and that not "just anything" can be art. I am not 100% comfortable with Rand's definition of art as simply "selective recreation of reality" and that doing so implies that there is a metaphysical jusdgement. Art seems perfectly capable of expressing that which is not yet reality, and displaying the imaginative. I personally know that I would not want the only art work in my future home to be the artwork availabe at cordair.com, simply because I would probably find other pieces that would better job of decorating my home, even if the art at cordair.com does a better job of fullfilling Rand's own criteria.

Warrior Politics Robert Kaplan's "Warrior Politics", makes a very convincing case for political realism to be the driving force in foreign policy. A lot of it based on the idea that a "Virtuous" action is defined not by intention, but by result. So if a Leviathan Government does better to rule its people in the short term, it is better then hoping for a long term benefit with a Democracy. (The example given are the numerous African nations which are "Democracies" but lack the force to back their law and so often end up in civil war) I would imagine that the major problem that Objectivists have with Political Realism, is that its pessimistic view of the world means that there is no room left in the theory to make the world a better place by directly promoting Ojectivist values. What would Objectivists on this forum consider the strenghts and weaknesses of Political Realism?