TheUnbroken

On my way into work this morning I overheard an excerpt of a Bush speech in Colombia and it reminded me of why American foreign policy so often fails to bring about any meaningful change in the world. Here is the link to the CNN story: Compassionate America The most pertinent part is where Bush says "It's very important for the people of South America and Central America to know that the United States cares deeply about the human condition, and that much of our aid is aimed at helping people realize their God-given potential". This is as close as Bush will get to making a direct response to Venezuela's Chavez who is having his own counter-tour to highlight America's lack of compassion for the poor and needy. In choosing to respond this way Bush has already lost the debate for us. He has allowed Chavez to set the premise that it is America's responsibility to guide Latin America to a proserous path when he chose to defend America based on Chavez's allegations. It's yet another example of American's biggest foreign policy failure. The failure to stand up for a moral premise and say to the world, not that America has compassion, but that it is not America's responsibility to have compassion for other countries. By choosing a 'middle' path we tie ourselves into knots by creating a contradiction whereby we say that we are compassionate and yet we also remind the world that we are not its policeman. Men like Chavez spend their whole lives playing the sort of game that profits on a country that so willingly handicaps itself by this sort of moral abdication. What does everyone else think? What should bush have said? Should he have been there in the first place?

I just finished reading most of the last 11 pages and I think the last 3 posts were the best yet. Applying a moral judgement in a strictly literal way is an error. As some people have said, the context of a situation is vitally important to understanding its moral significance. It is not a question of, do you drink? Instead it is a question of, why do you drink? Drinking has many qualities that are pleasurable (please don't mistake the use of the word pleasurable for moral) such as its taste, use as a muscle relaxant and sedative qualities. If a person drinks fully understanding the risks with drinking to excess and acts accordingly have they been immoral? For example, by taking care of their daily responsibilities, putting themselves in a position to avoid driving and understanding that important decisions should be left until they are fully sober, has a person tried to evade reality. I argue that they have not and it is this desire to evade reality that is immoral, not the act of drinking. If a person drinks to excess frequently then they are evading reality and this will begin to show in the actions they take with the rest of their lives. The drinking has become a symptom of an immoral motive within their mind. As for harder drugs, the negative consequences of using them vastly increases. A person who chooses to use them is much more likely to be evading reality because the consequences of severe addiction, destroying your family life and a significantly shorter lifespan are so grave that very few should want to do them. However, if you are terminally ill and in pain, using a hard drug like morphine would seem very rational. Again the critically important part of the argument is context and applying morality to the motives behind an action.

As others have touched on, Iran does not have a right to enrich uranium or produce nuclear weapons. First of all nations do not have rights because they are not volitional entitites. A Government may be rightfully permitted to engage in actions such as the building of weapons for the defense of it's citizens, but those rights stem from their citizens right to be free from harm. As the majority of Iran's citizens are: 1. Mostly Disenfranchised 2. Philosophically (theologically) opposed to individual rights Their right to self defense (which exists regardless of what they believe in) does not extend to the possession of nuclear weapons by their Government. If Iran were able to produce nuclear weapons they would clearly use it as a tool of extortion and fear to exert influence in the Middle East. The very nature of their Government and the philosophical disposition of their people is what deny them a right to that type of defense. As to why no one in any Western Government has ever fought Iran's claim to this type of right. It would require them to touch on some embarrassing issues. Firstly they would have to discuss the nature of State's rights. Secondly they would have to tackle the politically incorrect notion that Islam is fundamentally flawed. Instead they abdicate what little moral high ground they have and spend years in the UN wasting time and money on a solution that won't work.

Amazingly, I just found out about the movie yesterday. I know they had made attempts at producing it before that came to nought and was shocked when an 'Objectivist' told me yesterday that it is actually going to happen. I see from forums here that people have been debating it for two years so I've spent the morning catching up on what people have had to say. I have thought for a long time that I would like to see a movie made, but given the size, scope and need to keep the integrity of the book intact, I really doubted that it was possible. With that being said, Ayn Rand did want to see the book made into a movie if it was possible. Ultimately it was not possible in her lifetime because the people who wanted to develop the movie would not let her give the final approval to the script so she rejected it. (and rightly so) Of course since then Peikoff has sold the rights to the movie so it requires no oversight from a person with beliefs in Objectivism. I think what we all fear is that the movie will be a terrible abbreviated production, large premises will be cast aside or even left misunderstood by the people in charge of the movie, and generations of movie-goers will be given a false presentation of Objectivism that will make it difficult for believers in Objectivism to accurately spread the philosophy. Our great defense to this worst possible outcome: The fact that all any free thinker who has had their curiousity picqued has to do, is read the book. No terrible movie will ever change the truth, intelligence and rationality that is Ayn Rand's masterpiece. Going back to the movie, I think it IS possible for it to be a success because I don't believe that anything is impossible. I don't think it is likely, but nonetheless I will hold out hope. The key will of course be the screenplay. The acting, directing, producing will all be critical, but without an adequate screenplay the movie is doomed from the beginning. As for the actors, it does raise fascinating questions about who could and who would. This post is getting a tad lengthy so i'll send it now and write another one about might thoughts on the actors in a while.