blackdiamond

OK it seems we are speaking past each other. 1. I did not say they see or treat each other as slaves. And neither did the Soviets. Neither do the Iranians. I was specific. 2. It was not because of mass murder that the Soviet Union was called evil (at least by Ayn Rand). Same goes for Cuba, etc. 3. I did not say the Greeks were good because of capitalism and human rights. I simply said "ideas of the Greek enlightenment", the rest was your invention. I took YOUR standard of judging evil in all my questions and merely asked you to confirm its application in those different situations. If you want this discussion to be productive, you might want to start paying attention to my actual words.

I obviously did not use the word 'collectivist' in that general sense, but in the specific sense of seeing and treating an individual as a slave to society. But coming to your argument on supposedly amoral ignorant societies, let me understand exactly what you are saying. Are you saying the Soviets knew that capitalism was better for them but willfully chose the worse political system? Why? If not, are you saying they were also NOT evil? [Or perhaps you mean that they just needed to have a grasp of capitalism and socialism? So, every African government that is evil has properly understood capitalism and willfully rejected it? Or they are actually not evil too?] And are you also saying that those tribes that fought with the Greeks (in '300') were not actually evil? Or if they were, then they had exposure to (and understanding of) the ideas of the Greek enlightenment and "willfully" rejected them?

OK, firstly I'm not sure why you emphasize the "NOT" in your last sentences since I never suggested any such thing. Invading does not mean enslaving. As for your criteria question, those criteria are specifically for nations, not prenational tribal societies. But the essenctial point is that they are collectivists, and thus have not developed a system of respecting individual rights. Otherwise we would have to say that all African tribes were politically good (non-dictatorial) before they became dictatorships as states. They did not qualify on those specific (national) 'dictatorship' criteria as tribes, but they were certainly collectivistic and we know just how evil that was (and still is, in some parts of Africa/ the world).

A mixed economy is what the United States has "at best", and it was what it had at the time Ayn Rand wrote about its right to invade any slave pen. Do you think this "right" should only apply to a 100 percent laissez faire capitalist economy?

...I give up! Thread starts in 2009! Will just have to take your word for it.

OK. Will do.

Well then Cameron is trying to have his cake and eat it too, because he has to present this as a nice society. In rreality, any society with such a deeply collectivistic culture can only maintain adherence to their beliefs by strict punishment of "offenders" and heretics. Hence, dictatorship.

They recognized individual rights?

I wish to present a different angle to this discussion. Any collectivist society can rightfully be invaded by a capitalist society if it needs to. This is because such a society always exists as an evil slave pen, with no regard for individual rights. I don't see how the Na'vi in Avatar could be anything else. And now for an Ayn Rand quote: Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent “rights” of gang rulers.

I think one sure test to check if it is being used as a fallacy is to ask if there are no other people of your age who have accepted or "understood" his position. Or, even better, if there are no intelligent older people (of his age) who have rejected his position. Expect another fallacy to be unleashed on you at this stage! As a fallacy, it is a type of an argument from authority.

Well, at least some of the most distinguished visitors to the Hoover Institution (don't get it). Eg: BREAK UP THE WALL STREET BANKS. NOW by John Macey The whole article is worth reading, but here is the gist of it: ...In light of these assumptions, and given the massive contingent liability that this regulatory system poses for the U.S., in a forthcoming article in the Yale Law Journal, Jim Holdcroft and I argue that good public policy requires that the largest U.S. financial institutions be broken up into pieces that are sufficiently small that they can be allowed to fail. This proposed "Macey Rule," simply operationalizes the adage, once popular among regulators, but never implemented, that "any financial institution that is too big to fail is too big to survive." What this means, as a practical matter, seems obvious: we must determine what size constitutes "too big to fail" and we must dismantle those institutions into smaller sizes that can be wound up in a dissolution process if they become insolvent in a way that does not require government intervention. In short, he wants to avoid government intervention through government intervention! Ironically, the author, John Macey "is a law professor at Yale and a member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on Property Rights." [Emphasis mine.] Where does one even begin ... Why do (so many) intelligent academics fail to grasp simple principles?

How would this congressional candidate be for presidential office?

Actually, a psychologically normal person would find it extremely hard - almost impossible - to give up their own baby for adoption or (worse) to an orphanage. This is what makes the anti-abortion laws all the more evil.

Precisely. And not just that. B/C erects a missile shield in Europe to prevent any possibility of being surprised by an attack from a nuclear Iran (or the nuclear Russia); BO apologizes and takes it down. B/C sprinkles some water on evil terrorists at Guantanamo to make them talk, BO says terrorists "have a right to remain silent" and gets them lawyers instead. You have to totally evade reality to conclude that these two administrations are even in the same class.

I'm from Africa. Trust me: Your government has never turned any guns on you. When they do (God forbid), you will not start that statement with "I think."

Someone can only call a debate that he is participating in "extremely stupid" if he thinks of himself as extremely stupid.

In this context, the president is not your murderer, he is your defender against murderers. I would like to be defended by someone who is more "strong, fit and competent," yes.

Be realistic. Choices have to be made for survival. Some presidents are much stronger than others. You're not going to be led by John Galt any time soon. Bush/Cheney may hug/kiss a person who is evil, which is bad; but they won't bow to anyone - symbolically or literally - which is much worse.

Real men are not always right. But always men. Who would you like answering that 3 AM phone call - Cheney or Husseiney?

When real men ruled.

If we're going to argue from the precise wording of that definition, there is another key word that makes this problematic: the word 'necessary.' "an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification..." In other words, if this thing is not there (really there or fantasied), there is no sexual gratification. That doesn't seem psychologically healthy to me.

Well, if you google for the different kinds of fetishes, you will see that it is a class composed of many weird fixations. Even without focusing my mind for an exact definition, the integration of these sorts of desires does not present a very rational picture to me; it does not present me with a picture of someone in control of his mind. Or more precisely, it does not give me the impression of a man who understands the source of his emotions. He's more like a slave to his whims. But let's just google for a standard definition and see if from that we get a general sense of rationality. Fetish. noun 1 a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression 2 : a rite or cult of fetish worshipers 3 : fixation [From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary]. 1c is obviously the one most applicable here and it doesn't look good even by itself, but the other definitions do also give a more general sense of the irrationality involved in the concept.

Thanks, Sophia.

Thanks, Gags. I'm doing research on "human rights philosophy in public policy". Basically analysing how some modern Western political leaders rely on the new ideology of human rights (through their membership in the United Nations and other international bodies) to push through policies that are explicitly contradicted by the philosophical traditions produced by their own national histories (gosh, what a mouthful.) I'm also investigating some sociological issues with other fellows there. I'm in a particularly interesting discussion with Dr. Thomas Sowell on some cultural and historical issues. But I've said too much already . Thanks. Thanks, SNerd.

Sure. My fellowship year at Stanford ended and I went back to Africa. But just before that, I had received an invitation by a think tank in Stanford called the Hoover Institution to go back in residence as a 'Visiting Scholar'. So, after renewing my visa in Africa, I went back to California again. I'm there now. Hoover Institution is totally terrific! Visit ends next year. Then we'll see what happens after that - in hot pursuit of happiness! Thanks.