Wotan

ObamaCare is worse than no ObamaCare for at least the following reasons: 1) It fascistly forces you to buy something expensive and important. 2) It fascistly and radically limits your options on this to what Big Brother approves of. 3) It coerces the hell out of the medical insurance companies, forcing them to accept customers and provide treatments they prefer not to. 4) It coerces the hell out of doctors and hospitals too. 5) It invades people's privacy on the grand scale. Gov't is sure to use this to massively blackmail and intimidate gov't critics via the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc. 6) It significantly expands the IRS's gestapo-like powers. 7) It significantly shrinks health care options, such as limiting the variety of insurance plans and companies in existence. Over time this will become radical. 8) Lowers individual incomes, and impoverishes the economy generally, by giving a big incentive for companies to cut back hours to under 30 per week. Lowers company health care coverage too. 9) increases coercion generally. 10) Increases collectivism generally. 11) Increases regulation, bureaucracy, and red tape generally. 12) Increases the power, prestige, and authority of Big Brother generally. 13) It's based on the basically-loathsome moral ideals of "brother's keeper" (bible), and "greatest happiness of the greatest number" (Bentham), and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Marx). 14) It will massively sicken, maim, and kill people.

Four more years of collectivist, paternalist, fascist, socialist Obama? This will not end well.

I watched the first 15 minutes. Just two hapless, helpless, hopeless welfare statist dolts and clowns who know nothing about politics and economics. And the petty, nasty, monkey voters are far worse! Mitt began by pandering to essentially everybody, then he promoted his dreadful "free college" policy in Massachusetts, then he broke the rules by speaking out of turn. Barack called him a liar on multiple issues, but without giving any real specifics for this, then lied himself claiming Mitt favored "bankrupting Detroit." The correct answer for lowering unemployment is DEREGULATION. But neither knows this, and both are basically political and economic numbskulls from hell.

Free Masonry is attractive in many ways. Many of the Founding Fathers were members. But I think the fundamental religiosity and general belief in "service" makes this group untenable for Objectivists.

Voting for the Republicans is a serious crime. The Democrats too. Christie's speech was pathetic. We need to ship his fat ass to North Korea. Lots of unselfishness and shared sacrifice there!

Last night (August 28, 2012) New Jersey governor Chris Christie gave the Keynote Address to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. Gov. Christie didn't mention or praise: freedom, liberty, individual rights, justice, capitalism, libertarianism, laissez-faire, free enterprise, or free trade. So too: Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, or Friedrich Hayek. He also didn't mention or condemn: slavery, tyranny, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, communism, socialism, fascism, welfare statism, Big Gov't, or Big Brother. So too: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, Saul Alinsky, Joseph Stiglitz, or Paul Krugman. He did, however, praise his mother for saying people have to "choose between being loved and being respected." And he noted that you the voter should "fight for your principles." His best line was about the need for America to "cut federal spending and reduce the size of gov't." But Christie also praised New Jerseyians who "shared in the sacrifice"; and he condemned those who were "selfish," and believed in "every man for himself," and who think "self-interest will always trump common sense." What an advocate of self-sacrifice, and what enemy of political liberty! People who vote for Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan and the Republicans this year are truly attackers of freedom and destroyers of America!

Mdegges -- TOS seems very cynical and defeatist. Very amoral and unprincipled. Very depraved, ultimately. With their policy, how will Freedom ever defeat Tyranny? TOS are the bad guys -- the advancers and supporters of Big Brother.

Craig24 -- I think Rand was mistaken. She also opposed creating an Objectivist political party -- another error. Nixon was better than Hospers? Please. It's no joke to support the more pro-freedom candidate. People should vote their principles. No-one should politically empower and morally sanction welfare statism. A vote for evil and slavery is a vote for evil and slavery.

Throw your vote away. Always! Never be "practical" or "realistic." Never vote for evil or "the lesser of two evils." Never vote for tyranny. Vote for freedom 100% of the time. Find the most economically capitalist, socially libertarian, and politically pro-freedom candidate you can -- and then loudly, proudly, defiantly, aggressively vote for him! Cast your vote in steel! And be sure to spit in the voting monitor's eye when you do so! Your attitude and philosophy should be: no nonsense, no bullshit, no apology, no surrender, and no retreat. Take care that you don't regret your vote later on; take care that you don't have to rationalize, excuse, and explain it away. Don't ever politically advance and morally sanction slavery. Don't you dare! Always bear in mind that if you vote for the right-wing conservatives, or the left-wing progressives, then they will socio-economically prosper and politically strengthen. No-one will know or care that you secretly favor liberty. How could they? You're casting your vote for welfare statist totalitarianism! However, if you self-assertively vote for individual rights and freedom, everyone will know. The conservatives and progressives will both take note -- and then adjust themselves in a capitalist, libertarian, and freedomist direction. This will happen both after the current election, and during the next campaign. The powers-that-be will work for and actively court the liberty bloc. They'll tailor their positions and beliefs towards you. They'll noticeably alter and uplift their whole legislative behavior. So don't be a traitor to yourself and to mankind. Don't be a communist or fascist monster from hell. But if you do make the decision to perpetrate an act of political raw evil and vote for slavery -- in the pathetic belief that "It's just this one time" or "It's only because this election is so damn important," and you think your one pitiful impotent vote among millions will make a difference -- then recognize that as a result the freedom groups and parties will necessarily decline and the slavery folks will ascend. And who's fault will that be? Your fault! You need to vote for freedom now and forever and always! If not you, who? If not now, when? If you decide to walk into a voting booth, try not to be a complete and total scumbag and retarded monkey from hell. Try not to be a complete and total destroyer of yourself and the world.

Baldness stinks. I have it and hate it.

WTF? The band invaded private property and violently disrupted a private meeting? That's news to me. And I've read or heard at least ten stories on it! If true, then the American media is notably incompetent and dishonest!

Vote for the more socially libertarian and economically capitalist candidate! And, yes, that usually means the Libertarian Party. Don't be a "practical" and "realistic" man, and vote for evil or "the lesser of two evils." Don't morally sanction slavery. Vote for freedom --- always!

Human nature -- with our mind, emotions, drives, instincts, etc. -- naturally pushes us in the direction of individual survival and personal happiness, and in the direction of social cooperation and collective prosperity. So, yes, human nature is morally good -- both personally and socially.

In his vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech yesterday, Paul Ryan didn't praise libertarianism, capitalism, small gov't, or laissez-faire; nor did he condemn socialism, welfare statism, collectivism, or Big Brother. As for what America needs most -- which is cutting gov't spending and regulation -- he didn't mention it. And certainly Ryan didn't say we need to significantly expand economic freedom -- such as by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- and we need to significantly expand social/personal freedom -- such as by getting rid of drug and prostitution prohibition. To say the least, Paul Ryan is not an open or principled advocate of freedom and individual rights!

Yes, but I'd go so far as to say most people are generally irrational. This includes most Objectivists. People largely base their lives on self-deception. People believe what they want to believe, aiming for a certain minimal amount of truth and rationality, and beyond that they just don't care. They're well satisfied with their current beliefs and lifestyle. They aren't interested in pursuing the truth or being rational beyond their current fairly low level. They think what they think -- and that's it. If you try to argue with them or point out their errors, you're the enemy. It doesn't matter if you're a good and rational person, or if you have the truth on your side. As a matter of fact, so much the worse. People are generally happy to be irrational. They don't want any extra or superfluous outside reason in their lives. They become hateful and malicious if anyone or anything tries to introduce it into their sacred but smug existences. Specifically, I pretty much laugh at folks who take the side of Leonard Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute, or of David Kelley and the Atlas Society, in the on-going ObjectiWars. Both sides strike me as largely irrational and indifferent to truth. It seems that if you join in, and have the truth on your side, and are being cleanly rational, then they hate you. Both sides believe what they believe, and aren't interested in improving or ascending. Fresh evidence and insight isn't welcome. Their brains and hearts are profoundly closed to new facts and ideas. They're proudly and defiantly irrational.

Leonid -- I think we're all irrational at some point -- including me. It happens when one's thoughts, word, or deeds can't be justified by reason -- when one's thoughts, word, or deeds aren't based upon, and oriented around, the known facts and available evidence. Also when one's ideas, and the "logic" behind them, are expressed in a serpentine and torturous manner, like Kant. --Please note that Rand was rarely guilty of this.

Not especially. But it galls me that the religious frequently claim to be rational. And I see irrationality all over the place. Including inside the Objectivist Movement.

Virtually everyone today considers himself to be rational. Reason was discovered and invented by the Greeks 2600 years ago, and few serious thinkers -- historically and currently -- reject reason to any considerable degree. But just because essentially everybody fancies himself to possess rational beliefs, and to manifest rational behaviors, doesn't make it so. Irrationality is rife throughout human society, culture, history, and philosophy. A person isn't rational if he holds a profound or wide-ranging skepticism about the power of the human mind to comprehend reality, or to generate a meaningful, worthwhile, successful life. This type of fundamental Skepticism is massively irrational and the root of all evil. Doubting or disbelieving in the practicality, efficacy, and authority of reason is, by defintion, irrational. So too is rejecting the evidence of the senses, and of personal experience, in one's lifestyle -- and then declining to apply logic to it. People are irrational who are a relativist/subjectivist or a dogmatist/faithist in their epistemology or reasoning. Truth-seeking and problem-solving requires reason uncorrupted by emotion, intuition, drives, instincts, revelation, and authority. To be solidly rational, complicated, contradictory, nonsensical claims and propositions can't be a significant part of one's thoughts, words, and deeds. And mystical, superstitious ideas, along with mythical, supernatural beings, can't be a significant part of one's life.

http://edition.cnn.c...file/index.html To even hint at the possibility of doping here is pure racism. When it comes to foreigners, we should all just learn to shut our damn mouths. We need to militantly adhere to the noble social ideals of political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion, democracy, and peace. Thus we should not breath a word about any possible doping here. Just because the Chinese have a long and terrible history of Olympic doping, as do all the other competing dictatorships, does not mean we should abandon our heroic Western ideals of dishonesty, cowardice, deliberate blindness, and general sleaze

In an ideal world, that Batman-movie Aurora, Colorado mass-murderer of twelve random innocent people would be openly and fairly tried, convicted, and executed within a month. This is because it's an open-and-shut case and because "justice delayed is justice denied." He would also be somewhat tortured first, because extraordinary crimes deserve extraordinary penalties. Social balance/retribution and abstract justice demand this. And friends of the victims and concerned observers would turn to philosophy and rational spirituality for comfort -- not to religion. And people would view the situation in context, and recognize that about 7000 Americans die every day, and thus not get overexercised about a mere twelve. People would rationally focus on saving the 7000 far the most. And as for preventing this type of atrocity "from ever happening again," people would have a natural and knee-jerk reaction in the direction of seeking more personal freedom in society -- not more gov't tyranny. They wouldn't consider banning guns. People would think about getting rid of gov't roads -- which literally pave the way for every madman and monster to come right up to us -- and the general public would demand that the various business venues like theaters and airlines and college campuses think about getting better security -- such as more public scrutiny, security guards, and metal detectors -- to more effectively protect their customers. They'd also think about legalizing drugs and prostitution, so the cops could focus more on preventing crimes of violence. Of course -- this is how almost everyone would react to a random, meaningless, isolated, largely-unpreventable atrocity in an ideal world. Our society and culture is very different.

The federal gov't evidently has unlimited dictatorial powers, so long as it taxes us in the process. Thus if we passively decline to join the Communist Party or Church of Satan, the gov't can rightfully make us join a gov't-approved Communist or Satanic group, or else force us to pay a "tax" penalty. This isn't tyranny or unconstitutional, according to Judge Roberts, because it "reasonably" is part of the federal gov't's power to tax.

The Supreme Court of the United States of Ameristan has evidently decided that the federal government enjoys unlimited power. Freedom is seemingly irrelevant and nonexistent, and thus here in the People's Republic of America, the government can unconstitutionally do as it wishes, without restriction by law or liberty.

Calling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, gov't roads, and gov't schools communist isn't hyperbole -- it's absolutely accurate. There's no fundamental difference between the 1930s, Stalinist, Soviet system regarding these six, and the US system today. To refer to these six specific programs and institutions as mere "social democracy" -- as some have suggested -- is inaccurate, misleading, and deeply unhelpful. It's best to call a spade a spade. There's really only two options when it comes to an economic system today: communism and capitalism. And there's really only two options when it comes to a socio-personal system today: fascism and libertarianism. It seems best to be direct and explicit when describing the various alternatives. America has a "mixed" political system -- but it's a mixture of two very well-named things. And these terms ultimately refer to slavery and freedom. Euphemism impedes the world in gaining economic and socio-personal knowledge; and in accurately, helpfully labeling important aspects of political reality.

Grames -- I harbor no sympathy for slave masters, invader conquerors, or those who see no evil in the pointless slaughter of over 700,000 Americans. The South negotiated endlessly, and for fruitless decades, with the North, prior to the "Union's" aggressive war of conquest. The dictatorial North imperiously refused to even discuss a just and peaceful political separation in 1860. You say: "There can be no such thing as a unilateral peaceful secession." Hong Kong doesn't have the right to secede from China? Quebec can't freely and unilaterally secede from Canada? A freedom-loving province of a slave state has no right to exit their political partnership? The American Revolution was illegit? Business and personal relationships can't be mostly unilaterally terminated by the unhappy party? Is freedom of association negotiable? Do we need our slave-master's permission to peacefully walk away from an unwanted alliance, and be free?

After the seven Southern states peaceably seceded and formed The Confederacy, they reasonably demanded that the hostile North let them have Fort Sumter near Charleston, South Carolina. That military installation was an objective threat which reasonably belonged to the South. The North was intent on a pretext/excuse for war, unlike the South, and refused to divide the formerly shared gov't properties equitably. I think that objectively the North has to be considered the attacker and aggressor state.