Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Socionomer

  1. I would caution against having a separate standard for those who identify themselves as libertarians. That implies that you are willing to accept dishonesty from others, including those who mistakenly consider themselves to be Objectivists. How about one standard for all, anything less would be hypocritical. Proselytizers of any color must be able to demonstrate the veracity of their claims, and in a manner consistent with the proper decorum intended by the originators of this site.
  2. Edward, Welcome to this forum. Understand that as a Libertarian and thus part of a small minority of members of this forum you must refer to yourself as a "little o" objectivist and not a big "O". Only those who accept Ayn Rand's philosophy in full are entitled to big "O" status. You are aware of this by now I see. In order to get along in this forum it may help if you don't advertise your Libertarianism too much for it will be assumed that you agree with every item of the party's platform and every crackpot comment or idea espoused by the most radical outspoken members of the party. Perhaps refering to yourself as a "little L" libertarian will make your affiliation appear less egregious. Since the LP does not derive the principle human rights from Objectivist philosophy it is considered incompatible with Objectivism. Proclaiming such truths to be self-evident as our founding fathers believed is insufficient. Therefore in the U.S. Objectivists prefer to side with the dominant political parties that base their policies on something a bit more concrete I suppose. It's best just to focus on ideas and their consequences here and not get too hung up with labels. When it comes to politics we're all mostly big "C" Capitalists anyway. This is a great place to learn and for the most part everyone treats each other with dignity and respect. Welcome.
  3. neowhere, Aspects of the Capitalism Party may or may not be compatible with Objectivism. Just like the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties. I'm not familiar with Neo-Tech ideas so I can't compare them to what I know of Objectivism. My intent was not to criticize the Capitalism Party in any way. The purpose of my post was more of a challenge to Objectivists who currently find themselves politically add odds with one another based on the manner in which they support different political parties. Were Objectivists to ever form a party based on the philosophic premises contained in Objectivism, the logical name for it would be The Capitalism Party. If some other entity already possesses the legal right to use that name, then Objectivists would have to come up with another name for a party based on their political philosophy of Capitalism. I was merely observing that it's unfortunate they may not be able to use "Capitalism Party". The alternative to coming up with a different party name is joining the current Capitalism Party in sufficient numbers to effectively "take it over". Clearly this is all rather moot. It is apparent that Objectivists will remain as politically divided as the rest of the country (not philosphically mind you, but worse - IN PRACTICE).
  4. I loved the sign someone was holding up for the cameras after the historic flight: "Space Ship One" "Government Zero"
  5. I would have them fix that leaky faucet first.
  6. Not much worthwhile playing in the theatres lately. Regular movie goers must be disappointed, although occassionally it's fun to see a terrible movie because ripping it to shreds afterwards can be a real treat. The Forgotten was worth the price of admission though.
  7. Communism was also "working" in the USSR and East Germany. That is until it stopped working. The currency markets are dynamic. When the EU first adopted the Euro it traded below the US dollar for quite a while. There are many reasons for currency fluctuations. A strong currency does not always accurately reflect economic strength in the nation that issues it.
  8. A new article on Greenspan: http://www.fiendbear.com/TEXAS%20HEDGE%20-...20GREENSPAN.htm The Dark Side of Alan Greenspan
  9. I felt sorry for the poor little brick. Such a wasted life. It could have found a more meaningful life as part of a wall or a building. Instead the only existing evidence that it ever served a purpose is the dent in the man's car. Well, at least I can go to sleep knowing that he had the decency not to repair it. Oh wait! Maybe a construction worker walks by later on and sees this poor little brick lying alongside the road, and he picks it up, and then...........
  10. I turned on the radio while driving this morning and caught the tail end of an interview with a guy whose last name was Taylor. He had been abducted in Iraq but was obviously now free. I didn't catch the details of how he regained his freedom. I also don't know his nationality but he spoke with an american accent. The disturbing part I did listen to was the tale of his abduction by armed, masked men. He refered to them as mujahadeen. He and a partner were stopped by Iraqi police at a checkpoint. The masked gunmen were at the checkpoint waiting in another car and conducted the abduction at the checkpoint in full view of the police. As they were being transported to their ultimate dectination they stopped at numerous Iraqi police checkpoints along the way. Each time their captors were met with jubilation and hand-shakes by the Iraqi police personnel. The Iraqi police laughed derisively at Taylor and his friend, displaying their brand new arms, uniforms, and equipment that came compliments of Uncle Sam. They also bragged about all of the money that they were getting from the USA for the purpose of training and equipping the new Iraqi security forces and which was being shared with groups fighting against U.S. forces; men like their captors. He emphasised that what he was seeing was not an isolated incident of local police corruption because they had travelled through more than one district and many towns. Information like this does not bode well for a positive resolution to our involvement in that "country" or the war on terror.
  11. I should have capitalized the word rational instead of using quotes since my intent was merely to add emphasis. My mistake. I merely desired to illustrate that even our best efforts to exercise our rational faculties in order to obtain the logical and objective results we desire can lead to situations where Objectivists are pitted against each other if they limit their choices solely to what exists under the political system as it exists today. There may come a time when such decisions have life or death consequences in future circumstances of extreme social discord or civil strife, like during the Civil War. I hope such events do not occur during my lifetime. The ideal social construct may never be achievable even if Objectivists were to form their own party, and despite their most heroic efforts. But the ideal society IS impossible with the existing political parties. Objectivist votes and efforts divided between today's political parties are counterproductive, no matter how objectively such support was determined. Objectivists living under regimes that forbid opposition parties and free speech don't have much of a choice. Those living in countries like the USA can challenge the political status quo. Unfortunately the choice has been not to.
  12. It's too bad it took non-Objectivists to start the political party that SHOULD have been started by Objectivists. The only proper thing to do now is to hijack the Capitalism Party by taking over its leadership, changing the mission and platform to reflect Objectivist philosophical principles and commence trying to make positive changes to the government at all levels. It won't happen by continuing to support Democrats, Republicans and the others. Where's John Galt?
  13. Betsy mentioned it in post #88 in the "Peikof for Kerry" thread under the Current Events section. I also recall reading somewhere in "Letters of Ayn Rand" her mentioning the decision not to vote as a legitimate choice under certain circumstances. I do not assert that Ayn Rand never voted. I fully support your attempt to develop a more reliable rational method for Objectivists to use in making their ultimate decision on who to vote for. But, I believe that whatever method we come up with will lead us to make the only proper choice on who to vote for; an Objectivist candidate. The problem is that Objectivists do not have a political party of their own, founded on the proper philosophical principles and premises. Until Objectivists unite under a political party of their own, they will continue to remain politically divided as they grope around for "rational" reasons to choose between the poor choices we have available today. A frustrating state of affairs.
  14. The reality seems to be that whatever rational methods Objectivists and objectivists are using to decide how to vote are leading them to different ends of the political spectrum. I have yet to hear of any "big" or "little" Os coming out for green or socialist party candidates but I suspect that it is just a matter of time for that too. I get the sense that if Rand had lived earlier and made her philosophical contributions prior to the Civil War, we would have had Objectivist camps on the sides of both the North and the South. Both would have satisfied themselves that the methods used in making their choices were rational and both would have thus commenced to blowing each other's brains out (in a perfectly "rational" manner). I think Ayn Rand used the best method. I don't know what it was, but it led her to decide NOT to vote. I think I'll follow her example until a worthy candidate comes along that deserves the support of a rational vote. When we find Objectivists supporting candidates with such opposing views on almost ALL isues then how long will it be before such disparate results of supposed rational methodologies lead to more serious conflict between future Objectivists during more dire periods of great national upheaval (possibly even rivaling what occured during the Civil War)?
  15. I believe that if both Newton and Einstein were still around and we could ask them each who they considered to be the greater genius, they would both choose themselves. But then Einstein would likely say to Newton something like: "Oh yeah? Und vat genius lost hees untire fortune in der South Sea booble in 1720!?
  16. Dr. Hurd's objection to the Libertarian Party is directed only at what he believes to be a pacifistic foreign policy. He has a valid point if we are talking about how a Libertarian president would address the issue of terrorist threats under current circumstances, but I disagree with his accusation that the LP blames the victim here and is sympathetic to the terrorists is absurd. I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging foreign policy mistakes that the U.S. has made in the past half century. To what extent U.S. foreign policy has contributed to the current threat of terrorism is arguable, but should not be so politically incorrect as to become a taboo subject and those who take it up be branded as terrorist sympathizers. Our foreign policy has had consequences. Terrorism MAY be one of them. Wether or not it is an inevitable consequence of the world's largest free society just trying to prosper in accordance with its system of government is also arguable. Trying merely to understand is NOT 'blaming the victim". IF the terrorist threat is not an inevitable result of our mere existence then questioning our past foreign policies may be necessary in order to understand the reasons for today's threat. I don't accept Hurd's simplistic argument that they simply "hate' us. I would expect more from such a competent psychologist. People should be able to address the question "why" without fear of being labeled terrorist sympathizers. Better understanding of the reasons for today's terrorist threats may allow us to make changes to our policies in the future that don't involve the use of force and which might diminish such threats. The major mistake the LP is making is in not accepting the fact that regardless of the reasons for the terrorist attacks, THE U.S. IS UNDER ATTACK NOW, and that military force IS required NOW in order to diminish the threat before we start focusing on what foreign policy changes we should make in the future. It's too easy to say, "if only we had a more libertarian form of government and a more non-interventionist foreign policy we wouldn't be having all these problems over all these years" (as many libertarians seem to believe; mistakenly or not). Too bad. THIS is where we are today and THIS is the new starting point from which action must be taken. Until libertarians accept this fact, AND come up with a cohesive set of ideas to deal with today's threats (which DOES require military force) they will have trouble getting the average american to take them seriously as a legitimate entity and will fail to get anyone else to listen to their ideas on other issues as well.
  17. Objectivists can still stay clear of or see through the mish-mosh and focus instead on the original writings of Mises if they so choose. Someone seriously interested in economics should not miss out on Mises.
  18. Try www.mises.org The site is dedicated to the Austrian view of economics. It contains good articles and one can order books as well.
  19. Capleton, I think you owe it to yourself to go back and re-read RadCap's posts more carefully because I don't believe you fully understand the errors you made in your thinking. RadCap was actually doing you a favor by responding to your first post. Most people would probably not have the patience to address it in so detailed and thorough a manner. He is trying to be helpful and there is no reason to get so defensive about it. We can all learn from mistakes, but only if we're able to recognize and acknowledge them.
  20. I love watching Coulter go head to head with her political adversaries. She is one of the few people I see who consistently and effectively challenges the premises of their arguments and NEVER lets them get away with even the most minor factual inaccuracies. As they try to wriggle away, she reels them back to their error until they acknowledge it before she will allow the discussion to proceed to other points. She often refuses to continue arguing any further if her opponents persist in their dishonesty sometimes saying "what's the point of going on here?". My only problem with her is her inability to restrain herself from ad hominems.
  21. When one is 100% percent certain of something then one should be willing to be 100% wrong ( a parachutist who is 100% certain he packed his chute properly).
  22. I don't think Objectivists claim to "know" that God does not exist. That would entail first defining what or who "God" is, which Objectivism does not bother to do. Objectivists simply refuse to believe in things for which there is no evidence. "Knowing" and "not believing" imply different things.
  23. Should you require more female characters (harlot types?) then perhaps "Utopia", "Fate" and "Destiny" could fit in as well. (Your whole idea has become contagious).
  24. People who apply legally to immigrate to the United States have to wait years before being accepted (if ever). Is this long waiting period due to a deliberate policy of the U.S. Government to restrict the number of immigrants during any given year to a particular number for a reason, and not just arbitrarily determined? Or is the waiting period due to the inability of the bureaucracy to process applications in a more timely manner? I would be curious to know what the actual policy is. IF it is just a matter of an inefficient process, I'm sure just a small portion of all that money people are so eager to spend on border enforcement could be directed towards improving the process to the point where we could developed something like an "instant" immigration approval at all key border crossings, international airports, and ports. If something like that were possible, what do you suppose all those people who claim the "only" objection they have to illegal immigrants is that "they have no respect for our laws" would have to say if the waiting period disappeared? If the number of immigrants is indeed "fixed" by law, I wonder how that number was objectively determined?
  25. If I recall correctly, during his term as New York City's Police Commissioner Teddy Roosevelt caused tremendous heartburn amongst politicians, police and saloon operators by rigorously enforcing laws regulating the days and hours of operatrion of drinking establishments. Previous lack of enforcement had allowed bribery and corruption to flourish. I don't recall if the laws were repealed or changed, but it lends credence to the idea that a great way to prove a law is bad is to enforce it.
  • Create New...