Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    80

Everything posted by MisterSwig

  1. He's not a conservative. In an interview with TAS Williams rejected the label "conservative" and called himself a "radical for individual liberty." What's interesting to me, however, is that both Rand and Williams were popular with conservatives. To this day many people think of them as conservatives. Williams died in December, and he had spent so much time with conservatives that his NY Times obituary called him a "conservative economist" in the headline. I think it's a credit to conservatives that they find value in the ideas of radicals like Rand and Williams. And it's a telling
  2. I see. Well, then, perhaps I can interest you in a bottle of my new perfume.
  3. If you accept the essence of Objectivism then you're an Objectivist in my view. Just like people who accept the essence of what Christ said are Christians.
  4. This doesn't eliminate the "interaction problem." You framed the problem in terms of how the material interacts with the immaterial, not in terms of how separate things interact. Compositing the material body and the immaterial mind into a whole human being doesn't explain how the material can now affect or be affected by the immaterial, nor how the two can be a composite in the first place. How are they connected or integrated?
  5. People interested in how a leading religious (Jewish) conservative thinks can watch Dennis Prager chat with Craig Biddle. They cover some hard topics and find common ground. I hope more Objectivists get on more conservative shows like this.
  6. No, I'm talking about the current Party and their current platform. Have you read their platform? It's actually the 2016 platform because they didn't update it for 2020.
  7. Sure, but I would argue that Republicans are better on the major issues of the day, like race, gender, climate, culture, energy, etc. Even where I think Republicans are mostly wrong, regarding abortion, their position is framed as "pro-life," and the reasonable faction allows for abortion to protect the health of the mother. Democrats like Catholic Biden are massive hypocrites on abortion. Biden believes that life begins at conception but refuses to "impose" that view on others. And during the campaign in 2019 he flipped his position on the Hyde Amendment, so now he supports federally fun
  8. Now? By your definition I've been a "liberal" for decades. I want to make big changes to the Constitution.
  9. I don't believe Rand's philosophy is mine to revise or expand upon. I have, however, criticized her position regarding public property. And so I think her definition of capitalism is mistaken and partly accounts for some of our rifts when it comes to politics.
  10. A timely article given recent discussions. Regarding the appeal of rhetorical closure, I think the truth of the statements is an important factor. If it's true that you would be evil for doing something, then it's not necessarily an attempt to stop communication by pointing that out. It could merely be an attempt to point to reality.
  11. So your hypothetical voters voted for a party/president that did not improve the lot, so now they have to vote the party/president out? Just because they vote out the party/president in power that doesn't mean their new choice has a chance of making good policy or law. The two things are separate. Not really. They want to legalize marijuana and criminalize fossil fuels. Which one do you think is more essential to our freedom and standard of living? Besides, this isn't a major issue anymore, as many Republicans are now on board with legalizing pot and other drugs. Again,
  12. One problem with Binswanger's position is that he mistakes religious conservatives for dead Catholics. He reads an old passage from a long-dead Pope, as if it represents the religious conservatives in America. Catholics are a religious minority in America. There are twice as many Protestants here.
  13. Absence, in this case, is just a synonym for nonexistence. Either there is a chance for good with the Democrats or there is no chance. It's not like a student being absent from school, where he's not where he should be but he is in fact somewhere else. It's like the saber-toothed tiger, which existed in the past but is now considered extinct because we can't find a living specimen.
  14. I won't attempt to prove a negative. If you want to indicate why there is a chance with the Democrats, I'm listening, but just claiming there is doesn't help me. My basic position doesn't rest on the existence of chances. I'm saying that the Republicans are more inclined toward Rand's ideas. But more importantly, they are more inclined toward objectivity and individualism, and that's why there is a chance for good with them. If you want to compare the Republicans and Democrats, that would interest me, but I'm not so keen on doing it in this thread. Ah, then we disagree at a fundam
  15. I think he told us why. He's trying to manipulate you into silence.
  16. A chance to have good policies is better than no chance.
  17. So the form-matter dichotomy sounds like an early attempt to reify concepts. Or, an attempt to integrate the evidence of imagination (form) and observation (matter).
  18. You could deal with the specific examples Andy gave. He named several religious conservatives, Noem, Haley, and Limbaugh. As for leftists, he named Sanders and AOC. I question whether religious conservatism versus leftism is a clear enough distinction for practical use. Let's say I agree that the Noems of the world are less evil than the AOCs, what do I do with that knowledge? I'm not going to join the religious conservatives. Such a distinction is too narrowly defined. I don't belong in either the religious conservative camp or the leftist camp. I therefore suggest the more basic and bro
  19. Andy won. But I sympathize with Harry's attempt to articulate a problem with juxtaposing religious conservatism against leftism/collectivism. The choice at this stage of the battle is simply between the Republican platform and the Democrat platform. Both sides have varying degrees of religion and atheism, conservatism and liberalism, capitalism and socialism. What separates them is how much each side listens to the evil within, and that's measured by the evil in their platforms, and by what each party attempts to do in practice.
  20. There are several points that are wrong or highly dubious in that video. I'm not surprised that Team Branden enjoys it though. It's certainly biased in his favor. True, it was an institutional boost with ARI purchasing millions of Rand books to give away for free. Between 2002 and 2018 they bought 4 million. In the last couple years they bought half a million. That's an average of roughly 237,000 books a year. So ARI has purchased about 25% or more of all Rand books sold in the last couple decades. And they account for about 10% of sales all-time.
  21. No, it's not. It was reasonably applied intolerance of evil.
  22. "An' ilka name baith great an' wee" And every name both great and wee "Syne sadly wags his pow to see" Time sadly wags his head to see That is a curious line. It seems to reference a famous Burns poem called "Auld Lang Syne" and depict Time's head moving side-to-side like an old clock's pendulum.
×
×
  • Create New...