Marc K.

Hi DonAthos:

This is not the question that the open/closed debate turns on. The debate turns on the definition of what "Objectivism" is. Once defined as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand", which is proper, then once Ayn Rand is done then Objectivism cannot be added to or subtracted from. My earlier analogy to Newtonian Mechanics is quite apt. Newtonian Mechanics is one thing and it is one thing in particular, it would be changed if someone decided to add a few pages from Einstein to the Principia, it wouldn't be Newtonian Mechanics.

Many books and articles have been written which I would call elaborations or applications of Objectivism and that is good. But it is up to each of us to decide which of these actually comport with Objectivism and which don't. But even if they do comport with it they still wouldn't be part of The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

The funny thing is that in my estimation, the ones who promote the closed system principle (ARI) are the ones who produce the best books that do comport with Objectivism while the ones who promote the open system are the sycophants, posers and detractors of Ayn Rand who wish to change Objectivism while they ride Ayn Rand's coat tails and whose work and lives do not comport with Objectivism. Makes sense right: the ones who wish to change Objectivism are the ones who don't agree with it.

If you don't believe these people exist, they do. And if you want to see the real life consequences of holding this view, then go visit OL which Ninth Doctor has linked to several times in this thread and whose web address is in his signature. If you are a fair and rational person, it won't take very long before you start to feel dirty over there, it is like trying to have a conversation in a sewer, where nobody has any manners.

As for the person you posit above, Ayn Rand identified what she called "philosophy for Rearden", which is just the basics of Objectivism for the person who is productive and not really interested in the scholarly study of philosophy, he doesn't have time. This is what you describe above since the things you mention barely scratch the surface of Objectivism.

If you want to posit a person who is interested in technical philosophy, while not impossible, I would find it highly unlikely that he could arrive at all of the philosophical innovations that Ayn Rand did, after all, she was a genius the likes of which only three or four (in the field of philosophy) have been seen in all of human history. But if he did he would be well advised to give credit to Miss Rand for discovering it first, much as she did with Aristotle.

It establishes that she is dishonest. Are you telling me that if in court you discover a liar on the stand you are then going to parse what she is lying about and what she isn't? Not a good policy.



If, IF, it isn't part of Objectivism, then it isn't part of Objectivism. "Objectivism does not exhaust the field of rational philosophic identifications." -- HBL



No thank you. I'll let you summarize in your own words what you meant by your vague and passing insult.



Actually, we know; God does not exist. Agnosticism in Objectivist parlance means unwilling to know or take a stand. Your words indicate that you want to have it both ways depending on what one means by "Objectivism". But Objectivism is one thing, it is what it is, it is Ayn Rand's Philosophy.



"Positions", in the way you use it here -- meaning "opinions", on philosophic issues are not part of Objectivism. Not even Ayn Rand's opinion is part of Objectivism; only what she could prove.



Your usage of the the word "seemingly" means that you don't know what their purpose was. Beyond that, who cares if you were invited? I wasn't invited, does that mean that you can ignore the rules while I can't? Maybe you need to speak to the owner instead of the moderators if you have a problem with the rules.



Fortunate for me, unfortunate for you. Which of Ayn Rand's enemies do you support or sanction?



No, sir, it will be you pounding sand if you continue to flout the rules.


Furthermore, what is your signature meant to imply? Is it an insult aimed at the owner of this site who so kindly allows you to post here? Reprehensible.

No. As in, she misrepresented the ideas of Ayn Rand, so nothing she says about Ayn Rand can be trusted. Context indeed.



No, you used the word "positions", which means "opinions". Please reread what you said.



So you know, you just don't want to say. I suppose that would be a problem on this site too.



Do you? I guess if you said what it means you'd be breaking another rule wouldn't you.




Here is Ninth Doctor's signature: "Available, uncensored, on Objectivistliving.com"

So the answer to my second question is: Yes, you are intentionally insulting the owner of this site.

Do you even know what censorship is? It is something only the government has the power to do. I guess this means you don't believe in private property either. Or at least you don't think that a property owner has the right to establish the rules for the use of his property.

Your explanation above says that you were warned once already about the same behavior you are displaying here, had a post deleted and instead of following the rules, you have decided to continue to break the rules.

Moderators, come on, this anarcho-tolerationist is clearly violating the rules. In this thread alone he has insulted ARI, anyone who accepts the closed-system principle (which is ARI's position), and Harry Binswanger (member of the Board of ARI). He is doing it in a snide and underhanded way so as not to be too overt about it, but he is doing it nonetheless. In a previous thread he insulted Leonard Peikoff. And now with his signature he is insulting you and the owner of this site with every post he makes. He needs a banning bad.

No. As in, she misrepresented the ideas of Ayn Rand, so nothing she says about Ayn Rand can be trusted. Context indeed.



No, you used the word "positions", which means "opinions". Please reread what you said.



So you know, you just don't want to say. I suppose that would be a problem on this site too.



Do you? I guess if you said what it means you'd be breaking another rule wouldn't you.




Here is Ninth Doctor's signature: "Available, uncensored, on Objectivistliving.com"

So the answer to my second question is: Yes, you are intentionally insulting the owner of this site.

Do you even know what censorship is? It is something only the government has the power to do. I guess this means you don't believe in private property either. Or at least you don't think that a property owner has the right to establish the rules for the use of his property.

Your explanation above says that you were warned once already about the same behavior you are displaying here, had a post deleted and instead of following the rules, you have decided to continue to break the rules.

Moderators, come on, this anarcho-tolerationist is clearly violating the rules. In this thread alone he has insulted ARI, anyone who accepts the closed-system principle (which is ARI's position), and Harry Binswanger (member of the Board of ARI). He is doing it in a snide and underhanded way so as not to be too overt about it, but he is doing it nonetheless. In a previous thread he insulted Leonard Peikoff. And now with his signature he is insulting you and the owner of this site with every post he makes. He needs a banning bad.

Hi DonAthos:

This is not the question that the open/closed debate turns on. The debate turns on the definition of what "Objectivism" is. Once defined as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand", which is proper, then once Ayn Rand is done then Objectivism cannot be added to or subtracted from. My earlier analogy to Newtonian Mechanics is quite apt. Newtonian Mechanics is one thing and it is one thing in particular, it would be changed if someone decided to add a few pages from Einstein to the Principia, it wouldn't be Newtonian Mechanics.

Many books and articles have been written which I would call elaborations or applications of Objectivism and that is good. But it is up to each of us to decide which of these actually comport with Objectivism and which don't. But even if they do comport with it they still wouldn't be part of The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

The funny thing is that in my estimation, the ones who promote the closed system principle (ARI) are the ones who produce the best books that do comport with Objectivism while the ones who promote the open system are the sycophants, posers and detractors of Ayn Rand who wish to change Objectivism while they ride Ayn Rand's coat tails and whose work and lives do not comport with Objectivism. Makes sense right: the ones who wish to change Objectivism are the ones who don't agree with it.

If you don't believe these people exist, they do. And if you want to see the real life consequences of holding this view, then go visit OL which Ninth Doctor has linked to several times in this thread and whose web address is in his signature. If you are a fair and rational person, it won't take very long before you start to feel dirty over there, it is like trying to have a conversation in a sewer, where nobody has any manners.

As for the person you posit above, Ayn Rand identified what she called "philosophy for Rearden", which is just the basics of Objectivism for the person who is productive and not really interested in the scholarly study of philosophy, he doesn't have time. This is what you describe above since the things you mention barely scratch the surface of Objectivism.

If you want to posit a person who is interested in technical philosophy, while not impossible, I would find it highly unlikely that he could arrive at all of the philosophical innovations that Ayn Rand did, after all, she was a genius the likes of which only three or four (in the field of philosophy) have been seen in all of human history. But if he did he would be well advised to give credit to Miss Rand for discovering it first, much as she did with Aristotle.

Were that true it would be very unfortunate since Burns herself is guilty of much worse.

Please read "Comments on Jennifer Burns’s Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right" by Edwin A. Locke. Located here . Below is an excerpt:



You can't take Jennifer Burns' understanding of Ayn Rand as any understanding at all. Whereas the people who published those works you cite have shown themselves to be actual Ayn Rand scholars. So whose word do you want us to believe again?

I mean seriously, citing Jennifer Burns as a credible source of scholarship of Ayn Rand is like trying to denigrate the works of Leonard Peikoff using the musings of an anarcho-libertarian (oops) -- it doesn't pass the laugh test.

But really this just reaffirms the original point I was making. Let Burns and Britting and Harriman write what they want, it isn't part of the Philosophy of Objectivism. I mean some of these writings might be useful but we have all the material we need to understand Objectivism in the published works of Ayn Rand.



I'm not sure to whom you are referring but there is no hypocrisy by the closed system advocates. Their stance is that anything not written or specifically sanctioned by Ayn Rand is not part of her philosophy, which is Objectivism.



You don't think much of the debate and yet here you are taking a stand, though a kind of agnostic stand. Are you saying that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not a philosophy? I disagree, I consider Objectivism to be a philosophy and I consider it closed. Furthermore, I like museums and I would consider any museum that threw a few pages from Einstein into the Principia and called it Newtonian mechanics to be not a museum at all, but a total fraud.



If by "insularity" you mean "insulated" from the works of Branden and Kelly and the Libertarians, then I would take that to be a compliment. However, after reading some of your other comments bashing Leonard Peikoff and anyone else associated with ARI, I suspect this is meant as an insult (and shows that your aren't as agnostic as you pretend to be). Please read the rules, this behavior is unacceptable here. If you want have an uninformed, logically inconsistent, anarcho, America-blaming discussion, go to the cesspool that is OL, they'll be glad to have you there.



Do you think it is a good thing to ally yourself with Ellsworth Toohey?

Were that true it would be very unfortunate since Burns herself is guilty of much worse.

Please read "Comments on Jennifer Burns’s Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right" by Edwin A. Locke. Located here . Below is an excerpt:



You can't take Jennifer Burns' understanding of Ayn Rand as any understanding at all. Whereas the people who published those works you cite have shown themselves to be actual Ayn Rand scholars. So whose word do you want us to believe again?

I mean seriously, citing Jennifer Burns as a credible source of scholarship of Ayn Rand is like trying to denigrate the works of Leonard Peikoff using the musings of an anarcho-libertarian (oops) -- it doesn't pass the laugh test.

But really this just reaffirms the original point I was making. Let Burns and Britting and Harriman write what they want, it isn't part of the Philosophy of Objectivism. I mean some of these writings might be useful but we have all the material we need to understand Objectivism in the published works of Ayn Rand.



I'm not sure to whom you are referring but there is no hypocrisy by the closed system advocates. Their stance is that anything not written or specifically sanctioned by Ayn Rand is not part of her philosophy, which is Objectivism.



You don't think much of the debate and yet here you are taking a stand, though a kind of agnostic stand. Are you saying that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not a philosophy? I disagree, I consider Objectivism to be a philosophy and I consider it closed. Furthermore, I like museums and I would consider any museum that threw a few pages from Einstein into the Principia and called it Newtonian mechanics to be not a museum at all, but a total fraud.



If by "insularity" you mean "insulated" from the works of Branden and Kelly and the Libertarians, then I would take that to be a compliment. However, after reading some of your other comments bashing Leonard Peikoff and anyone else associated with ARI, I suspect this is meant as an insult (and shows that your aren't as agnostic as you pretend to be). Please read the rules, this behavior is unacceptable here. If you want have an uninformed, logically inconsistent, anarcho, America-blaming discussion, go to the cesspool that is OL, they'll be glad to have you there.



Do you think it is a good thing to ally yourself with Ellsworth Toohey?

Were that true it would be very unfortunate since Burns herself is guilty of much worse.

Please read "Comments on Jennifer Burns’s Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right" by Edwin A. Locke. Located here . Below is an excerpt:



You can't take Jennifer Burns' understanding of Ayn Rand as any understanding at all. Whereas the people who published those works you cite have shown themselves to be actual Ayn Rand scholars. So whose word do you want us to believe again?

I mean seriously, citing Jennifer Burns as a credible source of scholarship of Ayn Rand is like trying to denigrate the works of Leonard Peikoff using the musings of an anarcho-libertarian (oops) -- it doesn't pass the laugh test.

But really this just reaffirms the original point I was making. Let Burns and Britting and Harriman write what they want, it isn't part of the Philosophy of Objectivism. I mean some of these writings might be useful but we have all the material we need to understand Objectivism in the published works of Ayn Rand.



I'm not sure to whom you are referring but there is no hypocrisy by the closed system advocates. Their stance is that anything not written or specifically sanctioned by Ayn Rand is not part of her philosophy, which is Objectivism.



You don't think much of the debate and yet here you are taking a stand, though a kind of agnostic stand. Are you saying that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not a philosophy? I disagree, I consider Objectivism to be a philosophy and I consider it closed. Furthermore, I like museums and I would consider any museum that threw a few pages from Einstein into the Principia and called it Newtonian mechanics to be not a museum at all, but a total fraud.



If by "insularity" you mean "insulated" from the works of Branden and Kelly and the Libertarians, then I would take that to be a compliment. However, after reading some of your other comments bashing Leonard Peikoff and anyone else associated with ARI, I suspect this is meant as an insult (and shows that your aren't as agnostic as you pretend to be). Please read the rules, this behavior is unacceptable here. If you want have an uninformed, logically inconsistent, anarcho, America-blaming discussion, go to the cesspool that is OL, they'll be glad to have you there.



Do you think it is a good thing to ally yourself with Ellsworth Toohey?

Wait, which point? That there are irrational people in the world? Or that we should overthrow the principle of private property because of it?



From reading your replies for years here I am quite certain that you don't have a malevolent view of the universe and though I am less familiar with Maximus I would be willing to bet he doesn't either and that's why I'd like you both to check your premises. I agree there are a few irrational property owners but QUITE a few? I don't think so and it does start to sound malevolent if you think they exist as any significant percentage of the population.

Further, I think the more property one owns, the less likely they are to be irrational. Thinking that a rich person is more likely to be irrational does not comport with reality or logic. In reality I find rich people to be more rational than poor people and this makes sense since rationality leads to the attainment of values while irrationality doesn't.

So someone who owns many roads and highways, who has made a business of making money from providing travelways, would not survive as a businessman very long if he made it hard for people to travel on his roads. That is the context I'm thinking of.

I suppose there are other contexts you and Maximus are thinking of: What about the neighborhood where houses are close together and an individual wants to own just the 20 feet of road directly in front of his house and wants to prevent everyone else in the neighborhood from using that stretch of road? A proper government tasked with figuring out rights of way and other such property rights would be able to figure this out. Certainly one couldn't encircle someone else's house entirely and not let them cross your road as I acknowledge earlier to Maximus.

But no one has a right to a road to their favorite destination. If someone builds a house high in the mountains, they should not be able to demand that the government build them a road to it and charge the rest of us for it.

The point I'm making is that the principle of rights and of private property are good ones, they promote value not its destruction. And there is no reason to think that respecting people's property leads to chaos.

Yes, that was a little smart-alecky of me and I apologize but the point is that I don't understand how someone with so many posts on an Objectivist Forum, at least some of which as I recall were good posts, could not know what is meant by "capitalism", or at least what Ayn Rand meant by it, and its benefits. This view is de rigueur for Objectivists.



You must be thinking of another thread as I don't see any other posts by you. And the thread hasn't been off on this tangent.



Well I didn't think we were discussing a Constitutional Republic "such as we have", I thought we were talking about Capitalism. In fact you were the one who mentioned "a fully capitalist society" in your last post. Here is what that means:

and



Everything Rand wrote conflicts in principle with a Contitutional Republic, such as we have.

A Constitutional Republic can definitely be a proper government but the Constitutional Republic such as we have today infringes on our Rights (lawfully), has since its inception and is closer today to socialism than it is to capitalism.



Properly, the only power ceded to the government is the right to use force in retaliation, government has no other legitimate power. And there is no "give and take" on the issue of Rights, no individual has the right to initiate force against another.



Correct and so this would be taken into account under any system of private roads.



Whose to say that this would be the system? It certainly isn't my conception. There have been private roads in the past and there are some right now and in fact they work quite well. Don't let the free market scare you, socialists have no idea what they are talking about.

There is an assumption implicit in this argument that is mirrored by JeffS's argument, namely: That men who are successful and rational enough to own roads would then become irrational enough to destroy their own business. There is no rational reason why someone would own a road simply to make it difficult for you to travel it and there is no rational justification for believing it would happen.



Except that governments deal in force and private individuals may not. The use of force would be outlawed on private roads.



Sounds like you are justifying eminent domain . . . and private roads don't impede your ability to engage in trade either, in fact they facilitate it -- I'm sure that would be one of their purposes.



If you have to tax me to support your public road, then you are robbing me of the fruits of my labor.



Not only do you imply that "private property leads to chaos", you state it explicitly two sentences before this one as illustrated above. You say that a system of "privately owned roads" (which is private property) "would be [...] anarchistic" (which is chaotic).



Actually it is perfectly used.

Notice how I said your proposal is no different from Marxism "in principle". In practice there are huge, unmistakable differences between the US and the USSR and those differences are due to the continued recognition and respect of some of our Rights in this country.

But in principle, once you allow "public ownership" of some factors of production, (for whatever reason, be it: to facilitate commerce or because some people need it or because it would be more efficient or because of an oppression of the proletariat) there is no principle stopping the government from running everything, which is the direction we are headed today. Government healthcare, government social security, government schools, land, roads, utilities, government mandated light bulbs, internet service . . .

Have you have gleaned a proper answer from others here?

Hopefully you have justified and integrated the concept of Rights, particularly with help from the writings of Ayn Rand. If you have, then this is the only concept you need with respect to forming a proper government. The term "social contract" should be discarded as it is self-contradictory, a stolen concept and an anti-concept. There is no need for it once you understand Rights. The term "social contract" only serves to confuse.

Rights are an objective requirement of human life in society -- a proper government recognizes this fact. Once you understand Rights it doesn't matter whether anyone agrees with them or not, they may not by Right violate your Rights, even if they have the agreement of the rest of society to do so -- the worst they can do, by Right, is leave you alone.

Have you have gleaned a proper answer from others here?

Hopefully you have justified and integrated the concept of Rights, particularly with help from the writings of Ayn Rand. If you have, then this is the only concept you need with respect to forming a proper government. The term "social contract" should be discarded as it is self-contradictory, a stolen concept and an anti-concept. There is no need for it once you understand Rights. The term "social contract" only serves to confuse.

Rights are an objective requirement of human life in society -- a proper government recognizes this fact. Once you understand Rights it doesn't matter whether anyone agrees with them or not, they may not by Right violate your Rights, even if they have the agreement of the rest of society to do so -- the worst they can do, by Right, is leave you alone.

"sacrifice", also from Dictionary.com:

5. a loss incurred in selling something below its value.
8. to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else.
9. to dispose of (goods, property, etc.) regardless of profit.

-----------------

2. a ritual killing of a person or animal with the intention of propitiating or pleasing a deity
3. a symbolic offering of something to a deity
4. the person, animal, or object surrendered, destroyed, killed, or offered
5. a religious ceremony involving one or more sacrifices

6. loss entailed by giving up or selling something at less than its value

-----------------

Essentially all the other definitions contradict the one you cited.

Ayn Rand's definition is the conventional definition that corresponds to how it is thought of by religionists, which is where it originated. It just isn't Dictionary.com's first definition.

Are you allowing Leonard Peikoff the same benefit of the doubt that you espouse in the part I've emphasized?



I believe Harriman considered McCaskey's criticisms for seven years and found them wanting.


A sample of 3 emails from only one side of the conversation is not "most", nor is it "baseless" to speculate that there is another side to the story.


I agree with him: "The Logical Leap", McCaskey's criticisms, Objectivist material and the historical record provide all the evidence needed to reach a judgement about who is right.



You're kidding right? ARI's mission is to spread Objectivist ideas and principles throughout the culture. If judging whether something is consistent with Objectivism isn't ARI's business, then they have NO business whatsoever.


And speculation it is: can you think of no more rational reason why ARI would side with Peikoff? How about: that Peikoff is right? Is that a good reason?

Furthermore, if Peikoff judges something at ARI to be contra Objectivism, then should he refrain from "flexing his muscles"?


Because McCaskey made it public.



Why? If Leonard Peikoff believes that he understands Objectivism better than anybody else, why would he relinquish control over his creation and that which makes it possible? I can think of no reason. Some day he will have to and I'm sure he is contemplating that now.



softwareNerd:

Of all the people on this forum I have found you to be the most even tempered and one of the most rational; moderators should emulate your behavior -- so I found your remarks to be the most disturbing to me and completely out of character for you.


As evidenced by what we are talking about and its subject clearly LP is involved, is not absentee and is in touch with ARI. I think LP's actions show tremendous concern for ARI and its donors.

McCaskey had seven years to make his case along with the rest of the board. He traded emails with Harriman. He had the chance to make his case in front of a forum of other scientists. After all this he was unable to convince Harriman or Peikoff. If LP thinks he's right (and I'm sure he does), then he has saved the donors from a board divided about the direction of the Institute.



Let's remember the facts: LP wanted McCaskey out; as a condition of leaving McCaskey wanted permission to release the letter; McCaskey released the letter. So who is the one showing concern here, McCaskey?



The way I have heard LP express it is that he didn't think it would be successful. Now perhaps that does lead to one being less motivated than others, but I think his actions in actually creating ARI belie that assertion in his case. And since that time LP has said that he was completely wrong, that ARI has been an unmitigated success and that he is proud of its achievements.



I don't see this at all and I don't know what you are basing this opinion on -- is it this one incident? Have you taken into consideration everything else he has done?

In my opinion Leonard Peikoff is ARI's greatest champion. The man who has done more than any other person to present Ayn Rand's ideas to the world. The man who understands Ayn Rand's ideas more than any other. A man who continues to work assiduously to apply Ayn Rand's philosophy to varied fields. Is he infallible? No, and I've heard him acknowledge such. But I've never heard or read him making a serious mistake, certainly not on a philosophical issue.

This is the most dishonest thing I've encountered on this forum. You're lucky I'm not a Moderator as this is a banable offense in my opinion. Here you accused me of changing the text of a quote I attributed to you:

I replied that you were wrong and you never addressed the issue again. Here you imply that I either mischaracterized what you said or I made it up altogether:

I replied that you were wrong and you never addressed the issue again.

So now not only do you have no argument, but your credibility, integrity and honesty are shot.



As art does -- it is a symbol. Read "The Romantic Manifesto" by Ayn Rand.



No it doesn't, ideas are the result of free will also. Read "Philosophy: Who Needs It" by Ayn Rand.



Well, if they choose war, then I can kill them. So certainly I do have the right to use force in retaliation. Read The Roots of War in "CUI", and "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand.



He is acting to encourage the people who are actively killing us, he has no right to do that. There is no secret about this, the Imam himself has said it is the case that not building the Mosque would cause violence amongst those killers.

Listen to Global Balkanization by Ayn Rand.



At least you admit that it is a symbol of the people who are attacking us. I guess it's impossible to be completely irrational.



I can think of something more monstrous: the self sacrificial impulse of those who think rights are a suicide pact; the self loathing of those who would tolerate a cheerleader espousing his right to cheerlead on his property the principles of a killer while the killer has got a knife at the throat of a loved one.



What it actually is is a place of worship, you don't know if it is peaceful or not and you have allowed for this possibility previously in this thread. As to its symbolism: is there anything unique about its location at Ground Zero that might provide spiritual support to those engaged in killing us right now? Blank out.



You correctly identified its symbolism three paragraphs above this sentence Mr. Contradiction.

This is the most dishonest thing I've encountered on this forum. You're lucky I'm not a Moderator as this is a banable offense in my opinion. Here you accused me of changing the text of a quote I attributed to you:

I replied that you were wrong and you never addressed the issue again. Here you imply that I either mischaracterized what you said or I made it up altogether:

I replied that you were wrong and you never addressed the issue again.

So now not only do you have no argument, but your credibility, integrity and honesty are shot.



As art does -- it is a symbol. Read "The Romantic Manifesto" by Ayn Rand.



No it doesn't, ideas are the result of free will also. Read "Philosophy: Who Needs It" by Ayn Rand.



Well, if they choose war, then I can kill them. So certainly I do have the right to use force in retaliation. Read The Roots of War in "CUI", and "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand.



He is acting to encourage the people who are actively killing us, he has no right to do that. There is no secret about this, the Imam himself has said it is the case that not building the Mosque would cause violence amongst those killers.

Listen to Global Balkanization by Ayn Rand.



At least you admit that it is a symbol of the people who are attacking us. I guess it's impossible to be completely irrational.



I can think of something more monstrous: the self sacrificial impulse of those who think rights are a suicide pact; the self loathing of those who would tolerate a cheerleader espousing his right to cheerlead on his property the principles of a killer while the killer has got a knife at the throat of a loved one.



What it actually is is a place of worship, you don't know if it is peaceful or not and you have allowed for this possibility previously in this thread. As to its symbolism: is there anything unique about its location at Ground Zero that might provide spiritual support to those engaged in killing us right now? Blank out.



You correctly identified its symbolism three paragraphs above this sentence Mr. Contradiction.

I already did but I'll do it again:

And here is what I said about the comparison:



Now you've accused me twice of some form of intellectual dishonesty and since you are unable to demonstrate that such is the case, then I think in all justice you owe me an apology.



That doesn't speak very well for the Imam does it but I don't propose to initiate force at all. Instead I propose that we retaliate against those who threaten us.



This is a statement of fact not a principle, do you doubt that it is true? To give a couple examples of similar facts: building a Nazi temple or Imperial Japanese temple during WWII would have provided support to our enemies at the time.



Beliefs, most certainly, are not assailable by the government. Speech, like property, if it objectively threatens the basis of Rights, life, is a violation of Rights. So yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater is not allowed and nor would credible threats backed-up by the use of force be allowed -- and this would be true even if we weren't at war.

But no need to get so academic since we aren't talking about beliefs or statements, we are talking about building a building that supports an enemy who is killing us right now.



It is clear from my posts that I advocate killing the people who are attacking us and that if the only thing our enemies are hurling at us are ideas, then we can not retaliate with force. However, your insistence on belaboring this line of attack in which we must tolerate the ideas of those who are actually attacking us is self-sacrificial. Do you not understand that ideas cause action and that the roots of war are ideological in nature?