Miles White
-
Posts
217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Miles White
-
-
I pulled this from an unofficial Deist Website and it seems the basic tenants do not necessarily disagree with the tenants of Objectivism. I am intrigued as to what anyone has to say about this. after all the founders were mostly deists and it would make sense that there was some first cause and it very well may be intelligent.
How does any of this validate the existence of God? You could believe a purple flying monkey with a golden spatula created the universe in a boiling cauldron, but that still doesn't make your belief any more palpable toward the realist, rational minded, individual. You have to go with what your senses tell you about your surrounding environment when trying to understand reality, or else you'll dwindle away into another stupid, sooth saying, barbaric, mystical fool, no matter how original your ideas are. "Intelligent" religious people are still boobs, just to a smaller degree, depending upon how far they lean toward the side of reason/science and away from mysticism/dogmatism.
-
I've always been fond of the Bourbons, and would've gladly considered myself among them had I of been alive then. It's a shame their ideology has rescinded into such a minority in this current political climate.
As for Cleveland, the man was much better than 50% of the politicians back then and a HELL of allot better than 99% of the politicians today.
-
I would recommend John Derbyshire's weekly podcast. He's a writer for the national review who lacks the religiosity of most conservatives. I find him very entertaining and witty, with a very dry British approach to his humor.
-
I have reading allot about bureaucratic theory lately (Max Weber and what not) and I was just curious as to what the specific structure of an Objectivist government would be or wether there is even an objective answer to the question. For example I see some Objectivists support government institutions like the CIA and others oppose it. I'm trying to paint a concrete picture as to exactly what the government in a free society would look like.
-
So I'm an altruist when I feel for someone? Are you suggesting Howard Roark was an altruist for feeling pity for Peter Keating when Peter shows Howard his paintings?
Why should you care about someone who is your intellectual opposite? What do you have to gain from continuing a conversation with him? How are you not an altruist by making yourself care? Or in other words why should Howard Roark care about Toohey? The title of the post is what should someone feel when they are talking to collectivists, not "someone" in general.
-
So, when you encounter a dyed-in-the-wool collectivist, what do you feel?
I don't feel for them. I'm not an altruist. I don't care about what other people beleive in, as long as they don't infringe upon my liberty... or have political pull.
-
Moreover, are you saying that governments don't produce anything? You don't believe that governments don't provide vital services like arbitration and protection? Do you think these too should be handed to the private sector?
Are you saying that my congressman are in charge of literally building the tanks, ships, artillery needed ect. to "produce" a defense for us? Government is not a productive engine. Only the market can build unless the government nationalizes which still requires the worker to work and the innovator to innovate under the condition of coercion.
From investing in the stock market. Are you ready to call professional investors, hedge fund managers, mutual fund managers, etc. immoral? They provide vital services by increasing the amount of loanable funds in the market.Here's an idea, how about we allow citizens to purchase stock within their own government? You could literally be a shareholder to your own congressional seat. As far as governments obtaining revenue from investments goes I think that would be a much more beneficial idea.
-
I think George Reisman gets it right at how the structure of our government would look in a fully free society. Oddly enough, if you look back in history, it really wouldn't be much different from the 19th century United States, given the exception of coercive taxes and a national post office.
There are presently fifteen federal cabinet departments, nine of which exist for the very purpose of respectively interfering with housing, transportation, healthcare, education, energy, mining, agriculture, labor, and commerce, and virtually all of which nowadays routinely ride roughshod over one or more important aspects of the economic freedom of the individual. Under laissez-faire capitalism, eleven of the fifteen cabinet departments would cease to exist and only the departments of justice, defense, state, and treasury would remain. Within those departments, moreover, further reductions would be made, such as the abolition of the IRS in the Treasury Department and the Antitrust Division in the Department of Justice.The economic interference of today's cabinet departments is reinforced and amplified by more than one hundred federal agencies and commissions, the most well known of which include, besides the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the FBI and CIA, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA. Under laissez-faire capitalism, all such agencies and commissions would be done away with, with the exception of the FBI, which would be reduced to the legitimate functions of counterespionage and combating crimes against person or property that take place across state lines.
To complete this catalog of government interference and its trampling of any vestige of laissez faire, as of the end of 2007, the last full year for which data are available, the Federal Register contained fully seventy-three thousand pages of detailed government regulations. This is an increase of more than ten thousand pages since 1978, the very years during which our system, according to one of The New York Times articles quoted above, has been "tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules." Under laissez-faire capitalism, there would be no Federal Register. The activities of the remaining government departments and their subdivisions would be controlled exclusively by duly enacted legislation, not the rule-making of unelected government officials.
And, of course, to all of this must be added the further massive apparatus of laws, departments, agencies, and regulations at the state and local level. Under laissez-faire capitalism, these too for the most part would be completely abolished and what remained would reflect the same kind of radical reductions in the size and scope of government activity as those carried out on the federal level.
-
I would say the FBI is alright if they stick to doing what's proper, which is enforcing the law, but all those other alphabet soup agencies or products of the New Deal is in complete contradiction with the concept of an open government.
-
Also, a representative government isn't just some bizarre institution that obscurely governs and makes decisions upon it's citizens behave like an involuntary organ that exists for the sole purpose of carrying whatever duty it was created to do. A representative government is the manifestation of the general ethics of the populace, for they are the ones truly in power in a Republic. Even if their only options for politicians were horrible, they could demand better ones if they cared enough to take to the streets and protest for their convictions but they don't. The sad truth is just simply that most citizens don't care about ideas. True intellectuals only encompass a small minority of the general population, the rest are to concern for direct material needs to even care. Our government composed of bipartisan anti-ideological morons could just be a representation of that attitude.
-
My suggestion? The men of the mind can all become self sufficient farmers, so that they won't even have to participate within the economy and the government would be forced to look else where to commit plunder.
-
-
Peter Schiff's rebuttal. If anyones interested.
-
-
I don't post as much as I should; busy, for the most part.
Are there any here interested in the study of music theory: components, forms, tonality, rhythm, who can offer any details as to how certain aspects of music relate to life, particularly an Objectivist sense of life?
I'm a music theory and composition major, and understand all components of music well, but cannot use this knowledge to explain how it could relate to Objectivism or philosophy at large.
Even if you can't make any abstract connections, I'd love to talk theory with an Objectivist.
-WC
I've been playing the guitar, piano, and bass from my very early days in high school. I've also taken private lessons in music theory from a fantastic teacher named Mark down at Laguna Beach who taught me the fundamentals of theory.
That being said, I'm not sure if it is possible to relate music to Objectivism in general. Music as I've been taught, is a repetitive competition between tension and release that is able to manifest itself with human emotion and thus like a romantic novel, becomes a form of art. Since Objectivism is a philosophy and not an emotion, I would say that it would be to vague to classify one form of music for having an "Objectivist sound/feel" to it, but since the Objectivist stance on art is romantic to the glory of man, I would say music that what would appeal most to an Objectivists aesthetic would be something definitely within a triumphant major key of some sort. The specifics as far as chords within the progression, tonality, modes, key changes, genre of music and what not are up to the composer.
-
(Don't know if this is in the right place, but....)
Link: PETA wants to rename fish "sea kittens"
Oddly, I think I'd find fish more appetizing if they WERE renamed. It's just too bad I can't stand the taste of sea kittens.
That cute little picture on the article I linked to looks pretty appetizing, though....
Being a Pescetarian (for health/practicle reasons. Not ethical ones) I'd say the bastards can kiss my ass if they don't want me to eat sea kittens. Hell I might even eat them in the portal to Hell known as Red Lobster as a double whammy. To piss off both the bible thumpers and Peta freaks.
-
I couldn't believe the turnout of people in the freezing temperatures for this guy.
I heard bits and pieces of the speech. Then I heard NPR commentators; what a load! (Paraphrasing) "He was very honest with the American People. He knows there is a lot of work cut out for him, and they will give him time to fix it." Not even a hint of skepticism toward his ability to "fix" in their voices, much less a discussion about it.
Sometimes it's hard to stay positive when the country seems to be steadily flushing itself down the crapper...
Our politically correct dominated culture doesn't help either. What with people being pressured by their peers to accept unearned guilt for NOT voting for a black man. How evil do you have to be in order to want to prevent history from taking place?
-
Thank Galt he's gone. Obama will be far more capitalist and libertarian.
I hope thats sarcasm.
-
Thank Galt he's gone. Obama will be far more capitalist and libertarian.
I hope thats sarcasm.
-
I don't know...I'd say conservatism has been ruined since long before bush got his hands on it.
My concern is that if we are to wait around for a perfect candidate then it will likely be an extremely long wait. I doubt very much that many who are opposed to Paul would be any more likely to support Jefferson, Adams, and Madison were they running for office because of their inconsistencies, and they seem to have had a great positive affect on liberty. To wait for an ideal candidate seems dangerously close to rationalism.
My second issue is that in spite of all of his differences, I fail tot see how he is worse then say Mccain or Obama.
I do not mean to say that we ought not oppose particular opinions of his or support him all out. Just that our energy might be better spent opposing the consistently bad people who our countrymen consistently do elect.
Even with Reagans faults, at least for a moment the Republican party actually looked for a while like it was going to succeed at limiting the size of government until Bushs compassionate/neo-big government progressive conservatism became the norm. I do agree that it would be very rationalistic to simply wait around for the "ideal" candidate especially within such a Kantian dominated cultural era, we'd be lucky to even see another candidate come close to Ron Paul again let alone Objectivism. We truly do need a moral revolution before we can hope for a decent political one.
I do not doubt that Ron Paul is an infinitely better choice than Mccain or Obama but that's not really saying much by comparison (It's like saying drinking cough syrup tastes better than drinking ones own urine)- it would be a dangerous thing to give a candidate the passing slip simply because they agree with you on the majority of the issues except for a few critical ones. The quantity of issues he gets right doesn't outweigh the quality of issues he gets wrong.
"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."-The Law by Frederic Bastiat, 1850
It was in my bank of quotes.
Thanks for that. I should've known it was Bastiat.
-
He also wants to get rid of the federal reserve which is a big plus.
The general response to this guy by Objectivists boggles me a bit, and I wonder if some of his detractors could clarify some things for me. I am aware of his faults and departures from Objectivism, but as office holders go, he seems like a prize compared to the religious socialists we almost always get. The fact that someone is in the house of representatives arguing(alone) explicitly against central planning and socialism is one of the few things that gives me hope that the US is not set on an irreversible downslope economically, politically, and culturally.
He doesn't claim to be an Objectivist so he is not misrepresenting himself or objectivism. He's out there, "in the arena," and still manages to stick to his principles well. And further, most of his principles are solidly pro-laissez-faire. So what gives? Why does he generate such a negative emotional response as compared to any of conviction-less democrats or republicans who have been so busy espousing their own rancid combinations of socialism and theocracy on the grounds of political expediency?
I don't remember where this quote came from, but somebody once said "the most destructive opponent to a philosophy is not to be defeated but improperly defended." or something along those lines. The point is, Ron Paul earns the most criticism among Objectivist specifically because he comes so close and yet strays away on other issues thus misrepresenting Individualism and basically doing to Capitalism what Bush did to Conservatism; Ruined it! If Ron Paul is going to be the popular spokes person of Lassie-faire, then he better do it right or else he'll give people the wrong impression that'll wind up lumping Objectivists within the kookie, bible thumping, "New World Order" conspirators for at least the next couple decades. I don't think anybody on this forum wants that regardless of how tempting his monetary and fiscal policies are.
-
7. Throwing of the Ball... lol!
Let's add this...
8. Airing of Grievances
9. Feats of Strength
Oh, wait a minute...
I don't think it's nice to make fun of other peoples cultural differences. I'm sure they have a very good reason for placing the right to "ball throwing" above something lame like the right to a speedy trial, trial by jury, double jeopardy, or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.
-
I don't really like how the raptor thinks it's a good idea to only pretend to be nice and distort reality for others. A rationally selfish person would be honest as well as egotistical.
-
I would absolutely vote for him if I lived in Connecticut.
Your Presidential hopefuls for 2012
in US Elections 2004/2008/2012/2016
Posted
Personally, I agree with this strategy.
I've always felt it would be strategically intelligent for "libertarian minded", or conservative politicians, to lay off criticism of certain key welfare programs (in regards to social insurance, vouchers ect.). The sad thing is most of them are just too popular for citizens to give up at this moment in time. There are plenty of other interventions that can be attacked instead, while they're still popular to do so like deregulating businesses, privatizing inefficient services, cutting waste, fraud, and duplicative bureaucracies and the works. Campaigning on those core fiscal issues combined with a platform of common sense civil libertarianism, would by far sound attractive to the vast silent majority in this country. As far as a winning political agenda is concerned, you have to respond to the times.