stansfield123

Of course it does. But this isn't a radical idea. This is just the age-old definition of a (true) intellectual. I'm suggesting that this is what Ayn Rand was, and what she urges us to be as well: a true intellectual. She was a great one, and greatness is certainly unusual ... but it doesn't mean radical. Radical doesn't mean great, radical means different. Usually, in a bad way. Radical usually means someone who isn't willing to learn from the lessons of history. I think Objectivism is great, but not that different. I think it's mostly the result of a 10K year long process of incremental improvement. It's not a radical kind of greatness, it's a traditional kind of greatness. You say "imitate". But is it possible to produce good outcomes through mere imitation? Without the core ideas being present on some level, within that person living a good life? People who never read Rand do have good lives, all around us, do they not? Are those lives not the product of good ideas? The same kinds of good ideas that we hold? If let's say a Mormon or (religious) Jewish neighbor lives a life similar to yours, doesn't that mean his life is based on similar ideas to yours? Perhaps less clearly, but those ideas are still a part of him, and are still the cause of his way of life, are they not? It's not just imitation: surely there are degrees of clarity and understanding, not just "imitation vs. understanding"?

When I said "rule", I meant that YOU have a rule which you consciously set up, for yourself, to go against a cultural trend. Not that you go against a cultural rule. Frankly, I don't think popular rules mean much, because most people are neither rule followers, nor rule makers. Most people just follow their culture by default (by virtue of an absence of thinking about rules). Just to give a simple example of a rule I have: I noticed, in my youth, that many of my peers got into debt by spending on consumer goods. So I set up a rule for myself: never buy consumer goods on credit. Note that these other people, who got into debt, weren't following any societal rule. They were in fact not thinking about rules at all. They just sensed, intuitively, that it's culturally permitted to buy a big TV on credit, and they wanted to have a big TV. That was the extent of it. There's no societal rule for or against buying consumer goods on credit. I'm the only one with a rule, in this story. No one else has one. The reason why I ask is because Objectivism is considered, I would say by most, to be a counter-cultural movement. A "radical" belief system, which implies that it's radically different from other belief systems. Even Rand herself embraced the "radical" label. And I'm not as convinced that it is, in fact, that different. In fact, I think Objectivism is, first and foremost, a coherent synthesis of ~10K years of accumulated human knowledge. So, about as traditional as it gets. I think one of the ways to determine just how radical Oism is is precisely by asking Objectivists the above question. To see if people who live by Objectivism do actually live in a way that's radically different from the way everyone else lives. Because truly radical ideologies do produce a radically different life style. If I walked into an Amish community and asked this, they would have a long list of rules they live by, that make their lives fundamentally different from the lives of everyone else. Same if it was a radical marxist, a radical environmentalist, a neo-nazi, a radical whatever the Unabomber was, etc. Radical means different. And I'm struggling to see how Objectivists are different...myself included. We're (hopefully) a bit more deliberate in our actions and decision making, but does that actually produce a DIFFERENT LIFE? Doesn't seem like it does. Rand's life wasn't really different, was it? She lived like a typical successfully self employed woman of her time would live ...

I disagree completely. Furthermore, I think this is the exact crux of the issue: I love the idea of individual rights, but if a thug refuses to respect my rights, I refuse to respect theirs. You think that makes me and the thug equally immoral. I do not. In fact, I think that my position is the ONLY MORAL ONE. I think it's you and the thug who are equally immoral. I think someone who rejects your individual rights is immoral, and, if you still insist on treating this person as an entity with full rights: you are just as immoral. You are acting to promote and reward the same exact immorality that he lives by. The only moral, selfish thing to do is to stand up to people who reject individual rights. To stand up to totalitarian Islam, and to stand up to all of its proponents. P.S. The IDF, and Israeli intelligence, are actively seeking to collaborate with people in Gaza. They are giving anyone willing to stand against totalitarian Islam a chance not just to live, but to be greatly rewarded for it. That help may include financial reward, positions in a future, non-Islamist government, and even help escaping to a western country, in some cases. That is ALL anyone should ever do for a hostile population which overwhelmingly supports a totalitarian ideology. Nothing more. Doing anything more would be sacrificing the good, for the evil. Pure altruism. The notion that people who subscribe to the ideology of totalitarian Islam (as most so-called "Palestinians" do, especially those in Gaza) have rights, is insane. You're not though. Because it's not necessary. The Feds can dismantle any criminal/domestic terror group in the US by applying 0.01% of the full force they have at their disposal. Israel can't dismantle Hamas by doing the same. Israel must apply a lot more force than that. The last time the US government brought its full force to bear was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or, if nukes are off the table for rational reasons (hopefully it's obvious to all that these rational reasons do exist) ... well then the last time the US brought its full force to a battle, excluding nukes: was in Dresden ... which was actually more destructive than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. None of those acts were war crimes, btw. And there's also virtually nothing Israel could do in Gaza, that's a war crime. Pretty much everything is a legal target. Hamas has its HQ under the biggest hospital in Gaza. So what could possibly be off limits? What could Israel possibly rule out as a Hamas stronghold?

By "counter-cultural", I mean that the vast majority of people in your society don't live by that rule. I don't mean that it's frowned upon, I just mean that most people don't follow it. No reason to restrict this just to stuff people openly disagree with. Anything people refuse to live by is "counter-cultural", whether they claim to agree with it or not.

Cool. But this thread is about war in Gaza. Not a lot of proper rational philosophy is being applied there. They're using their own babies as human shields ( the vid is in Japanese, sorry, it's what I happen to have in my news feed, but you don't need to understand the language to see the fucker with the RPG, walking into the hospital): So what's your point? How exactly are you going to build an ideal society in a world where these people are your neighbors? Individual rights are nonsense, in this context. Individual rights are the governing principle in a peaceful society, not when dealing with what you see in that video.

... you guys have very confusing buttons ... I keep pressing the wrong ones:)

True (sort of ... individual rights is the ideal basis on which to run a country ... the proper basis on which to run a country is whatever realistically allows its people to live as freely as possible). That aside: Israel is as close to that ideal as any country on Earth. Gaza, meanwhile, was as far from that ideal as any country on Earth. I say was, because Bibi just held a press conference in which he told us that Gaza's days of existing as a separate political entity are over.

Everything operates based on its identity. Surely, this is the one forum on the entire Internet where no one should deny that. Saying that "France doesn't operate based on an ethnic identity" is the exact same thing as saying that "France doesn't have an ethnic identity". France does have an ethnic identity, though. N'est pas?

Why? Do you think France would be a better place, if it didn't have an ethnic identity? There are about 80 countries, roughly speaking, in the world, which are okay to live in. By "okay", I mean they're better to live in than 99% of political entities in the history of the human race. Wouldn't you agree that the vast majority of these 80 countries have an ethnic identity? Or, to make it super simple, wouldn't you agree that France (which is on my top 5 list of countries I'd be happy to live in ... France is amazing, I lived there before, that's why I keep using it as an example, I can't imagine how anyone would realistically object to France, it's just uncontroversially amazing) has an ethnic identity? I guess this is what it boils down to: 1. Do you agree that modern France is amazing, in the context of overall recorded human history? 2. Do you agree that modern France has an ethnic identity? If you agree with those two things, the Jewish identity is the French identity, squared. They're like the French, who are amazing, but even more amazing, because they have several thousand extra years worth of written culture. Living culture. Culture which actually survived the test of time (and the test of nazi shitheads like some on this very forum), not long dead culture we admire from 2000+ years away.

Nonsense. Israeli Jews come from all over the world, and two random Jews have less DNA in common than you and Beyonce. Jewishness is based in the same exact thing as Frenchness: a shared cultural identity. Aka "ethnicity". Yep. Same as the vast majority of western countries. Not suggesting that's the ideal basis for a state. But, if you look at the world: when an "ethno-state" with an old culture is able to be individualistic (which it naturally tends to be ... they had many centuries to figure out that you have to be, to thrive) it produces pretty damn good outcomes. Of course, Jews have the oldest culture of them all. And it tends to produce the best outcomes of them all. That's why people like you hate them so much. You think an ethnicity which does well must be cheating somehow. But they're not. What they're doing is out in the open. You just need to ask any Jewish neighbor, and they'll be happy to tell you how they live, how they raise their children, and why they do it that way.

Israel is a "Jewish state" the same way France is a "French state". Zionism isn't the imposition of Judaism, it's Jewish nationalism. It's EXACTLY THE SAME as French nationalism. If you asked Macron tomorrow whether he would like France to remain French, he would say "Absolutement." Exactly the same answer Bibi would give, if you asked him whether he wants Israel to stay Jewish. That's what a "national state" is. That's what "nationalism" means: it's the idea Europeans had, back in the 19th century, of replacing empires, kingdoms, dukedoms, and all the other aristocratic states, with states which draw their borders based on the ethnic identity of the inhabitants. And, once those borders are established, "nationalism" becomes the desire to preserve that ethnic identity. And the vast majority of relatively capitalist countries follow this nationalist model. Just. Like. Israel. And that's no coincidence. There's immense value in the 1000 year language, culture and history of the French, or in the many thousands year language, culture and history of the Jews. Immense value to the state as a whole (the stability and wisdom of state institutions which often follow a model that's been tested and perfected over the course of centuries), and to the individual lives of the people who live in that state. The Jewish identity (with those thousands of years of culture that implies) is the reason why Jews have better lives than most others, both in Israel and elsewhere. It's why so many Nobel winners are Jews, so many billionaires are Jews, etc. In short, French nationalism and Jewish nationalism (as I just described them) are both positive ideas, which contribute to positive outcomes both on the state and on the individual level. Obviously, ultra-nationalism goes beyond what I just described, and it doesn't lead to positive outcomes. But ultra-nationalism is atypical both in France and in Israel. Back to the point:the notion that Israel is a theocratic state is a blatant lie. It's not, it's a typical western, national state. Aside from Switzerland, I can't even think of a major western country that's not a nationalist state. This includes the "monarchies" ... because those are strictly symbolic, the government is nationalist, not aristocratic. Israel is also a democracy, of course, and, like all democracies with religious people in them, they have political representatives which push religion. These politicians represent minorities which identify by their religion, and vote accordingly. In Israel, there are two minorities which vote like that: people who vote based on their Judaism, and people who vote based on being Muslim. They are BOTH minorities (the orthodox Jewish vote is in fact smaller than the Muslim vote). They are both smaller minorities than Evangelicals in the US. Neither of them runs Israel to any significant degree. I'll edit in a tldr, in all caps, so it sinks in: ISRAEL IS LESS RELIGIOUS THAN THE US. Americans sniping at Israel over religion is ridiculous. And, of course, Muslims sniping at anyone over religion is just madness.

I thought I was clear, but I don't mind repeating myself: I'm neither "for war", nor "for peace". I'm not for war because no rational person would be. And I'm not for peace because no rational person would think peace with a totalitarian ideology is an option. Pursuing something that can't happen is the height of foolishness. I'm for acknowledging the basic reality that peace is not possible, and devising a strategy that keeps conflict to a minimum. That strategy, for Israel, involves keeping the Islamists away from its borders. Because Islamists will always attack Israel. It's what they do. The two main tactics for achieving that are: 1. Targeting any Islamist group which tries to establish a foothold in Israel's vicinity with deadly force. 2. Installing and supporting a non-Islamist regime wherever possible. Right now, there is one in place in Jordan, Egypt, and the West Bank. It's very important for this regime to be authoritarian, to the extent that's possible. A democratic government doesn't have the ability to stand up to the Islamists. That's why Hezbollah is the de facto government of Lebanon, that's why Hamas took over Gaza when the Americans foolishly supported democracy there, that's why Iraq is weak and under Iranian influence, etc. The US, Britain and France should adopt a similar policy, but spanning the entire Middle East. The US of course had this strategy in place for many decades, before Bush and Obama fucked everything up. They should return to this strategy, by unequivocally supporting autocratic regimes which fight the Islamists. Regimes like the House of Saud, Egypt's military government, etc. Also, the above mentioned three western countries should very strongly encourage all other western allies to stay out of Middle Eastern politics. In general, the policy should be to leave this stuff to countries which have the will and ability to actually project power. If you don't own an aircraft carrier, you should also not own an opinion on what to do with the Middle East.

You misunderstand my goal with these proposals. You think I'm suggesting that these actions will lead to peace between Israel and all Muslims. I am most definitely not. I think the notion is absurd beyond belief. Anyone who talks about Israel achieving permanent peace with "the Palestinians", or any other Muslim population, is hopelessly deluded, and has not clue at all what the ideology driving entities like Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, or Iran, is. If you really are suggesting that the goal here is peace, I can't imagine that you ever even thought to consider the nature of totalitarian ideologies. My proposals aren't meant to achieve peace and harmony. They're meant to achieve the defeat of Iran backed Islamist forces in Gaza, and replace them with whatever non-Islamist entity happens to be most convenient. Anything that doesn't have the same totalitarian ideology as Hamas. Fatah, for instance, will work fine. So will some kind of proxy authority controlled by Egypt and the CIA. Doesn't matter. Creating an environment, in the Middle East, which would allow Israel to exist in peace with its neighbors, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISRAEL. It's an internal issue, in the Muslim world. There is a long term conflict going on, within the Muslim world itself, between Islamists and everyone else. The existence of that conflict, or the existence of Islamists, isn't caused by Israel. That's a silly notion. Why the hell would Israel cause Islamists to exist in central Africa? In Indonesia? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Turkey? Iran? Chechnya? You think Israel caused the Islamic Revolution in Iran, or the rise of the Taliban? Or Ergogan getting elected in Turkey? Israel can't solve the Muslim world's internal problem, and it would be foolish of them to try. Their goal isn't peace, it's to live in relative security, while surrounded by a Muslim world which is in a state of massive internal conflict. A Muslim world that isn't peaceful, and will not be peaceful, for many decades to come. None of the peace agreements Israel has are permanent. Israel doesn't have peace agreements with neighboring nations. It has peace agreements with neighboring regimes. Those regimes are temporary. The regime in Egypt can fall, the regime in Jordan can fall, etc. Even Turkey, which used to be best pals with Israel, fell to a semi-Islamist regime. The notion that the same thing can't happen in Jordan, or that things in Turkey can't get much worse, is wishful thinking. There is nothing Israel can do to stop any of that. Israel can only prepare, and be willing to act swiftly and decisively when (not if) it happens. Conversely, of course, a reasonable regime (like Egypt's), can be installed in Gaza. Then, Israel can enjoy temporary peace with Gaza, just as it enjoys temporary peace with Egypt and Jordan. That's the goal. Not this nonsensical "permanent peace" libertarian and liberal types like you go on about. You have no sense of history. No sense of what ideology is, and how it drives nations. This "tit for tat" view of conflict libertarians and liberals have, which thinks these totalitarian regimes and terror groups are a "reaction" to some kind of external aggression, is absurd. They're a consequence of internal failures. The Muslim world birthed a totalitarian ideology because it's rotten inside. Hamas is just the puss ball you see on the surface of the skin. The source of the puss is an infection deep within Islam. An overall rot, that produces similar puss balls all over the Muslim world. Boko Haram, Taliban, Iran's regime, Erdogan, etc. None of it has anything to do with Israel ... which, btw, is in no way driven by totalitarian ideology. There's nothing totalitarian about "Zionism". Zionism is nationalistic the same way every nation is nationalistic. That's the other thing this thread is yet to pick up on: the massive difference between totalitarian ideologies like Marxism, Nazism and Islamism, and nationalism (the political idea which is at the core of the post 19th century nation state).

If your neighbor came over and told you "I wanna live in peace with you, so long as you don't do anything to enrage me" ... would that help you sleep better or worse, at night?

So you don't care about the beheaded babies either? Why? Were those babies "Zionists"?