Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Galileo Blogs

Regulars
  • Posts

    400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Galileo Blogs

  1. How true. I actually enjoyed a number of the Greek myths when I read them as a child. In contrast, the Bible stories are not just mind-bogglingly evil, but also insipid. Mr. Swig, do you have any sermons to preach us from the New Testament?? Your humble acolyte, GB
  2. Well, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were the Bill of Rights. I can go along with that one. Slavery was also outlawed through an amendment. The problem isn't whether the Constitution can be amended, but it is in how it is interpreted. With the wrong philosophical base, our Constitution has been interpreted as if there are no individual rights and unlimited governmental powers. That interpretation is made despite clear language in our Constitution to the contrary. If people accept the right philosophy, a Constitution will serve us well. But, no matter how well written a Constitution might be, if the dominant philosophy is irrational, it will offer no protection.
  3. There are two Revolutionary era quotes that capture my thoughts on the inherent risk of any government becoming dictatorial. I may have it wrong, in terms of who said what [i welcome corrections!], but what I remember is this: Benjamin Franklin, after leaving the Constitutional Convention, was asked by a bystander, "So, what kind of government do we have, a monarchy?" He answered, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Thomas Jefferson: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." There is no "iron-clad" governmental structure or constitutional document that can prevent with 100% certainty a future abuse of power by a government official. That is why all free or semi-free peoples everywhere, in whatever historical period, must heed Jefferson's advice as the only way to remain free. Furthermore, the only way to be truly vigilant is if we are armed with the correct philosophy. That way we can correctly identify when government is exceeding its limits. In any case, it is incumbent to devise the best possible governmental structure, which will make it less likely for future abuses to occur. I do think that the American system got most, but not all, of the details right, with the particular form of its Constitutional Republic.
  4. I'll have to try that one next time I'm pulled over for speeding.
  5. I like the Gold quote as it is. Many people understand the quantity theory of money. This is a simple statement of the essential virtue of gold.
  6. The issue of Western settlers appropriating portions of tribal lands in order to make them productive raises an interesting comparison. What is the proper way to convert a Communist society into a capitalist one? I am thinking specifically here of the former Soviet Union and the so-called "oligarchs" who "stole" the "people's property" in a variety of shady schemes in the 1990s. My contention is that "the people" cannot own anything. Ownership is a function of individuals or their delegated entities, such as corporations (thank you, David Odden, for making that clarification above). Essentially, all of the land, factories, equipment, etc., that were operated by the Communist government, is the equivalent of the open prairie of the American West. It is "found goods" for anyone who desires to find them, possess them and make them productive, much like a farmer who tills virgin prairie and makes it productive gains ownership of it. My observation is that many of these oligarchs, once they acquired the property, used it to produce values. They became capitalists (albeit with lots of corruption surrounding them). In particular, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is one of those oligarch-capitalists. He formed the Russian oil company Yukos from a base of former "state property" and made into a very productive enterprise. For that, he was put into a Siberian jail. Now, it turns out Putin is adding more trumped-up charges against him, so that it is likely he will stay in jail many more years. It is interesting and sad to see a former KGB officer (Putin) put someone in jail on charges that he "stole" from the "people". I can only imagine what actual crimes Putin is guilty of. In any case, apart from the specific case of Khodorkovsky, I am interested in what everyone thinks on this issue, of how Communist "property" should be converted into capitalist property. I am also interested in the case of Khodorkovsky, in case anyone wants to comment.
  7. I agree with the reasons cited for having elections. I would go a little further and say they are necessary for reasons of selection and removal. Government officials work for all citizens. Therefore, the citizens must appoint them. I cannot think of a method other than elections to accomplish this whereby it would reflect the citizens' wishes in the best possible way. The problem with appointing government officials is how do you decide who gets to do the appointing? Then who appoints the appointer? Etc. There is an infinite regress. Unfortunately, in that type of situation, the appointer typically ends up becoming a family member or close associate of the person. That is how monarchies are born. An election has a drawback in the sense that the losing side's wishes are not respected. However, that is why the correct system of government must be a constitutional republic and not a democracy. Constitutionally defined and delimited rights, and clearly enumerated and delimited governmental powers make sure that whatever government does, it is highly unlikely to violate an individual's rights. In a constitutional republic, it is likely that most people wouldn't vote. They wouldn't have to, since the range of actions of government officials would be so delimited. Fortunately, in a free society, politics would become a very minor concern among the populace, since government's influence on our lives would be so minimal. The even more important reason for elections is removal. They are a superb check on government power. Let's say a government official does somehow become bad. Vote him out of office or impeach him. That is also the benefit of term limits, which prevent against a populist-type politician from staying in power (e.g.: Franklin Roosevelt). Finally, appointments of many government officials, including judges, is entirely consistent with elections. As long as the key governmental "first movers" are elected, other officials could be appointed. I suspect a legislature, as the enactor of laws, would be elected. After that, conceivably even the executive and most or all of the judges could be appointed. In our system, the President is elected. I do not think that is a necessary feature of a constitutional republic, although it has its advantages. The American system of checks and balances was carefully devised by the Founding Fathers after studying the failures of other representative systems, particularly those of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. I am impressed by much of the logic of the system, including such features as lifetime appointments of Supreme Court judges so that they are removed from the day-to-day political fray. The three-part system we have -- an executive, a legislature and a court system -- sums up all of the governmental institutions there should be in a free society.
  8. Yay, I give praise and thanks to my preacher, for his sermon from Leviticus! I will study and learn the universal lessons from these great stories of the Good Book!
  9. As far as I can determine, the big problem with American Indians is their tribalism. Whatever "claim" they had to patches of land were tribal claims. Tribes don't own land; individuals do. This problem meant there would be a conflict when an individual non-Indian farmer came along and began farming a plot of land. Individual rights are the basis of an advanced capitalist society. The Indians had little, if any, concept of such rights. Given their lack of knowledge of such rights, it seems that conflict with non-Indians was inevitable. Interestingly, some Indians lived in permanent villages, or even cities, and farmed. The Pueblo Indians of New Mexico lived in a dozen or so permanent villages and survived by farming. The more advanced Aztec, Mayan and Incan civilizations of Mexico, Central and South America sometimes lived in rather large cities (e.g.: Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztecs, population: 200,000 in the 15th century) and engaged in extensive farming. These more advanced, stable societies would seem to have had some justification for exhibiting a right to property. However, they were incredibly mystical, collectivist, and devoid of individualism (e.g.: human sacrifices). Conflict with the relatively more individualist West was inevitable, even if the Spaniards were incredibly brutal in their own ways.
  10. I could be wrong. I hope I'm not since the Democrats have a good chance of gaining the Presidency. Regarding the issue of leaving allies high and dry, I do not think any political party has a monopoly on that. After all, Eisenhower left the Hungarians high and dry after initially supporting their rebellion against the Soviets. Pres. Bush Sr. left the Shiites and Kurds high and dry after publicly calling for them to rebel against Saddam Hussein. Of course, the Democratic record is also very sordid in this area: the Nicaraguan rebels, the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs, etc. As for Iraq, a civil war there does distract the enemy, but it also demoralizes Americans, and makes Americans less willing to confront true enemies such as Iran and North Korea. That is the lasting damage that is being done by the Republican half-war against the terrorists. As for Democratic pacifism, I would argue that Republican timidity has actually emboldened it. Many Democrats initially supported a strong fight against the terrorists, but as the Republicans bungled the effort and failed to name and confront the larger enemies, the pacifist side of the Democrats gained strength. Would the Democrats retain such pacifism if they held the executive branch? That is the question I am considering.
  11. I would also want to live indefinitely. Keep replacing my body parts as they wear out. Use stem cells to replace dying brain cells. Hook me up to artificial hearts, kidneys and livers. Replace my knee joints and hip joints. I am in favor of the maximum deployment of biomechanical and medical technology to allow me to live longer. That is a lot different from being immortal, which is an impossible concept for living creatures. I wouldn't want it; I couldn't get it; it is a metaphysical impossibility. The Twilight Zone had an episode that made that point. The immortal person repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to kill himself. Ironically, once he became immortal, he found his life was no longer worth living.
  12. I concur with SoftwareNerd's recommendation above to read this series. I just finished it and it is excellent. It reports on well-respected scientists who have alternative explanations for global warming (or even foresee global cooling!). It also shows how the politics of the global warming issue have stripped the honesty out of the scientific debate. Here are a few random quotes I pulled from the articles. Reading the full articles in the series is worth the effort: I am beginning to conclude that the quote below is the bottom line description of the whole global warming frenzy. It is a religion for true believers:
  13. Kendall, Nice post. I agree with what you say. When I think about the political parties, I focus primarily on what they do. In terms of actions, the parties are identical on economic matters. In terms of religion, the Republicans are far more willing to violate the separation of church and state than the Democrats, despite whatever recent religious declarations the Democrats are making. In terms of foreign policy, I agree with what you say, Kendall, that a war half-fought is worse than no war fought at all (pardon me, if I am mis-characterizing your position). In this sense, I am becoming convinced that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats on security matters. Let's look at what Republican President Bush has done so far. He ejected the Taliban from Afghanistan, only to see the Taliban regroup and regain their strength in off-limits Pakistan. He deposed Saddam Hussein from Iraq only to see a terrorist-affiliated Shiite religion-dominated government take hold there. The country is in a state of near-anarchy, and Iran is biding its time until it can take over the country completely or turn it into a vassal state. So, at the end of the day, was our security heightened by Bush's timid, incomplete, and self-delimited actions in the Middle East? Contrast this with a Democratic administration. I think a Democratic administration would do better for one principal reason. Democrats would be so afraid of appearing "soft" on terrorism, especially with a loud Republican opposition yelling in their ear (hopefully), that a Democratic administration likely would have taken more effective steps. Consider this also. When it does come time to militarily confront Iran and remove the nuclear threat, it will be a Democratic administration that will accomplish this. Bush, who had the public will behind him in the first few years after 9/11, will leave office having failed to accomplish this most important of self-defense actions. Focus on the actions, not so much on the words. If words could win a war, all of Bush's hot air for all these years would have already vaporized the enemy.
  14. I concur on the recommendation for The Brick Testament. Legos were always my favorite toy. Now they are also my favorite marriage counselor.
  15. MisterSwig, you are my preacher. I humbly await your next sermon.
  16. Barack Obama on the Left and Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Right. Between the two of them, we can get government-funded Bible study sessions to attend while we wait for government-provided heart surgery. That way, when we die because we couldn't get the surgery in time, at least we can be sure to get into heaven!
  17. I completely agree. In my blog here I say, "Republicans are often worse enemies of capitalism than Democrats." I mean it. I also make the point here that Republicans are essentially the same as Democrats when judged on economic matters, with the only key difference being the Republicans' greater willingness to violate separation of church and state. And in foreign affairs, I contend here in a piece entitled, "President Bush--Big Talk and Little Action, a Dangerous Combination," that the Republicans may actually be worse than Democrats. These views may not be controversial to many readers of this forum, but I am thoroughly convinced that Republicans, on balance, are no better for the economy than Democrats. They promulgate destructive policies with about the same frequency as Democrats, and relatively minor good policies with about the same frequency. However, within this pattern, there are big-time statists such as Republican President Richard Nixon, who massively expanded government power. So far on economic matters, I would call Bush a "Nixon-lite", although he is moving in the "Nixon-heavy" direction. Politically, I think the Republicans are at their best when they are not in power. As the party of opposition, it is easier for them to be principled and pressure Democrats into adopting moderate positions. Remember when Bill Clinton said, "The era of Big Government is over."?
  18. Mweiss, Could you use a regular font and regular paragraph spacing for your post? With all due respect, your post is virtually unreadable with that particular font and spacing. Kindly, GG
  19. I saw most of this documentary on HBO yesterday: Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi. I highly recommend it as up-close anecdotal evidence regarding the intensity of religious belief in the Bible Belt. It is not a statistical survey and excludes (I believe) heathen parts of the U.S. such as my hometown, New York, but the real-life portrayals and spontaneous interviews are disturbingly interesting. What struck me the most is just how intensely these people believe in Christian doctrine. (Of course, they are all hypocrites; one funny juxtaposition shows a strip club next door to a gigantic cross. Certainly, those two behaviors need each other. Without the strip club there can be no cross and vice versa.) I wasn't an adult before the 1980s when the Christian Right attained political ascendancy, but my impression is that in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, secularism was on the rise, and religion was looked on as something that was largely private and personal. Proselytizing and public displays of religiosity seemed to be relatively dormant, or directionally flat or declining in strength. Of course, I welcome the opinions of those "older and wiser" than me for their thoughts on the status of religiosity in those earlier decades compared with today. My bottom line on the type of people shown in this film is that they're scary. Their mentality really does seem like the precursor to the type of mentality that commits terrorist acts. After all, a segment of these people blow up abortion clinics. They see themselves as "soldiers of God" and believe that they have a holy mission to make America Christian. As for politics, they preach from the pulpit which candidates to vote for, and they all seem to be Republicans.
  20. That is a very good point. I was in elementary school in the early 1970s when the famous crying Indian ads were aired against pollution. That kind of propaganda is mild compared to the incessant propaganda kids receive today, yet that ad was very effective in making me emotionally receptive to the environmentalist argument. It is kind of like the brainwashing one gets in church as a young child. Of course, a good dose of Objectivism, knowledge of economics, and my own observations of the world have thoroughly counteracted what the "crying Indian" did. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that we have a huge brainwashed cadre of people out there who do not question the environmentalist Gospel.
  21. I agree. Environmentalism is essentially a religion of nihilism. Their positions are taken on faith, nature is their God, and it is characterized by a hatred of man and his technology. I have not had many conversations with ardent environmentalists, but I suspect they are as (un)reasonable as born-again Christians. However, the crazy environmentalists aren't the only voters, fortunately. It is important to explain the facts behind environmentalism to all of the thoughtful people out there. They need to understand that environmentalism seeks to make man's environment a hell on earth.
  22. You make a good point. That is why I asked the previous poster what are the subsidies to the oil companies. I think the answer is none when measured against their level of taxation vis-a-vis other industries. Another somewhat different example of your point happened here recently in New York. Mayor Bloomberg raised property taxes 23%, then a few months later he handed out a $400 property tax rebate to all property owners in the city. Figure out the math on that one and the philosophical principle behind who got taken and who got back on that little maneuver.
  23. Well, I recall that Athens tended to ostracize their most successful generals. Of course, it wasn't ostracism, but a similar concept (the collective punishing the individual) that was applied to Socrates, who was made to drink hemlock. The best protection against bad actions by Congress will be a rational culture that values individual liberty, and a rational Constitution that would be the result of that culture. Such a Constitution would be similar to the one we have now, but would contain no "loopholes." If the state were circumscribed to its policing function (including the courts and armed forces), there would be essentially no scope of action for Congress to pass bad laws, since any bad laws (those that violated individual rights) would be unconstitutional.
  24. Yes, that is an accurate description of what happens in a church.
  25. What are the subsidies given to "big oil"?
×
×
  • Create New...