[What Is The Greatest Ancient Civilization?]

I agree with everything Free Capitalist said. We tend to idealize the Greeks even though they were normal people. Greek civilization was amazing considering when it had its golden age and all that came out of it. But that is not all that should be considered as Roman civilization was truly grand spanning many generations and eventually conquering the Greeks.

[Science And Terrorists]

If we started to experiment on captured terrorists it would certainly anger the terrorists who were not captured. It may possibly lead them to do even worse things to the hostages they capture.

[I Am Sickened]

I have no interest in arguing with you anymore about this.

And I you

[I Am Sickened]

let's analyze your question:

"Since this argument is just going in a circle I'd like to ask a question of you who are arguing against me. Why is it so that America has to be the country that liberates all of these dictatorships?"

A "why" question asks for a reason, a cause or a purpose.  For instance, the question "why did you vote for President Bush?" already presupposes the statement "you voted for President Bush" and is asking the reason(s) for your choice, not which candidate you voted for.

Similarly, the question above presupposes the statement "America has to be the country that liberates all of these dictatorships" and is asking for the REASON for this presumption.  It didn't ask "Should America do so?"  It already assumed the answer to be "yes" and asked a further question "Why?"

Now tell me you didn't presume anything false.

Okay, should america do so?

[I Am Sickened]

The question was not meant as sarcasm. I really want to know how much you have studied Objectivism.

I suggest you either read or re-read The Virtue of Selfishness, specifically the essay entitled Racism.

I started to read VOS. I guess I didn't enjoy it because it is gathering dust on my bookshelf.

[I Am Sickened]

The question you asked me PRESUPPOSED that I thought America had to be the one to oust the dicatorships.  Since your presumption is false, the question is invalid and deserves no answer.

The question is not invalid, stop dancing around it and just answer it.

I wanted to see what everyone here thought of the question, but you were the only one who responded to the question. I did not presuppose anything of you, because I was asking the question of many people.

[I Am Sickened]

So what? That's a non-sequitur.

Try to separate race from ideas. It makes no difference if 100% of Muslims are Arabs or 1%. It is the IDEAS of Islam that we attack, no the racial makeup of those who practice it.

It makes no sense to lump race and religion into a "package deal." They are two distinct and unrelated concepts.

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

They are related. Their religion permeates into every aspect of their lives. Islam is a major part of who they are. When you attack Islam you attack the most stable and fundamental thing in their lives. Islam is inseperable from their race.

[I Am Sickened]

I, or any else here for that matter, never stated that America has to be the country that does so.

I never said you did, but I did want a response. Now you haven't answered MY question.

You, on other hand, haven't answered my question: how can you possibly claim that a dictatorship has the moral right to exist?  In other words, how can you claim that a government has the right to violate rights of its own citizens, provided that it doesn't violate the rights of the citizens of another country?

Because any citizen can leave. Also the citizens can overthrow their own government. The citizens are ultimately responsible for themselves and for their own future, we certainly are not.

How does the fact that a majority of Muslims want to institute a rights-violating theocracy MORALLY JUSTIFY that theocracy's violating the rights of others, particularly non-muslims or dissenting muslims in the theocracy?

I'll stop reprhasing my qustion from this point on if you still don't answer it.

Isn't this basically the previous question asked differently. I might as well answer it again. If the majority of citizens desire a theocracy then they should have it. If it by chance begins to violate the rights of dissenting opinions then the people who wish to should leave. If christians are being persecuted in Iraq then they should leave Iraq. It doesn't make any sense for them to be over there if there is violence against christians.

I know that this particular aspect of self-determination and democracy is looked down on by Objectivism but I don't really care. We live in the real world.

[I Am Sickened]

How do you define racism?  What is the difference between what an individual thinks and what race he is?

Racism: Discrimination or prejudice based on race. (Dictionary.com)

'What an individual thinks' is their thought processes. Race is their ethnic origin.

On what premise do you assert that any form of government is valid if most of the people want it?  (This is John Kerry's argument, by the way, for the enslavement of Viet Nam.)

On what premise do you assert that the majority of the people in a country are not entitled to the government that they desire?

What is the definion of a lie?  What is the difference between a lie and an error?

Lie:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

(Dictionary.com) I like these two definitions.

Error: An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true.

So I guess it comes down to whether was a liar or whether he was just ignorant. And which would actually be better, an ignorant president, or a liar?

[I Am Sickened]

That is absolutely false.  No institution that violates individual rights to the extent that a dictatorship does has a right to exist.  To claim otherwise is to claim that it has the right to violate any and all individual rights. (!)

In otherwords, you're claiming that people have the right to be dictators provided that they not use their dictatorial powers to invade another country. Or, if you still don't get the implication of your argument: that people have the right to enslave, loot, plunder, kill, rape, etc...others who are citizens of their own country.  Not only that, your very argument blatantly denies the right of individuals to OVERTHROW dictators who have not invaded other countries.

Unless you maintain that absurd position, you had better read up on Objectivist ethics.

"There is no such thing as the right to enslave."

--Ayn Rand

The people living under a dictatorship (although the argument was originally based around a theocracy) have the responsiblity to decide if they are going to live there. It may seem absurd that somebody would decide to live in Iraq or any other middle eastern country, but they are religious and these governments cater to that religion. They can practice with all of their brethren without fear of christian influence.

The only people who have the right to overthrow a government are the citizens themselves (unless of course the government had declared war etc.).

Since this argument is just going in a circle I'd like to ask a question of you who are arguing against me. Why is it so that America has to be the country that liberates all of these dictatorships?

[What Is The Greatest Ancient Civilization?]

I voted for Rome even after I considered the numerous contributions the Greeks made. The Romans had quite a bit as well but the reason I voted for them was because their civilization was truly impressive, the time span was enormous (over 1,000 years) and their civilization basically covered the entire world worth conquering. With all due respect to Greece they could not maintain the empire they created, and the golden age of Greece was only in the Greek peninsula, it would take Alexander to spread Greek culture to the world.

Rome however was able to build an empire and was also able to pass leadership succesfully. They were both great though, and thats why they both have a lasting influence today.

[I Am Sickened]

And what about the few honest rational individuals which are being ruled by the Islamic government?

Don't THEY have a right to be governed by a better government?

Should we just let that matter go just because the majority wants an Islamic government? Not to mention that an Islamic government is more dangerous than a secular one to America.

Of course the people have the right to be ruled by a better government, we all do. That is why anyone can leave their country. The Berlin Wall was put up because the best minds in East Berlin were running into West Berlin. The wall couldn't even stop them.

A government is for the people, and typically it serves the majority. If the majority want an Islamic government who are we to say "sorry, that is irrational."

And not all Islamic governments are dangerous to the United States. None of the governments in the middle east can even compare to U.S.S.R., Germany during the '30s and '40s, and Japan during the '30s and '40s.

[I Am Sickened]

Oldsalt, I would adjust this to say "culture of Islamic fundamentalists", because not all adherents of Islam want world domination, an Islamic state, and to murder anyone who is not a Muslim, any more than all Christians want to end their lives in a standoff with the FBI and be burned to death as per the Branch Davidians at Waco. Some of Prae's arguments are directed against the premise that ALL Muslims are murderers, which is incorrect. There are probably as many shades of adherence to Islam as there are practitioners, and if a Muslim does not intend to violate my rights, they should be free to practice their religion and live their life free from interference.

Finally somebody agrees with me.

Prae: it does if the government violates individual rights to the necessary degree. Obviously there are, again, shades of this (I would not advocate invading Washington D.C. because it levies taxes on me...), but for example, a dictatorship is not a legitimate government and has no rights, and can be morally overthrown at our discretion and replaced with a government that protects individual rights. This does not mean we must always do it, or that it's the only way to do it, only that we have the right to do it.

This I certainly don't agree with. But that is all I can say, that governments have a right to exist without interference unless they clearly attack another government.

[I Am Sickened]

What is the extent of your knowledge of Objectivism?

What's your's?

[I Am Sickened]

If you realize that race and religion are different, how could you call condemnation of Islam "racism?"

Because the majority of Arabs are Muslims, everbody knows that. Of course some other races are muslim but they don't even compare to the arab population.

[I Am Sickened]

I am in favor of overturning the present system of government dictated by Islam

That one part of your post expressed exactly what I disagree most with you. Just because we are the 'civilized west' does not give us the right to destroy other governments at our discretion. With that type of philosophy we would be heading down a dangerous road. I can envision sunday school children being led out of their classrooms at the point of a bayonet in the name of reason.

People have the right to live their lives, even if it is by worshipping a fictional god. I would never be in favor of banning religion, and certainly never be in favor of toppling governments so that people couldn't worship god anymore. These people should be allowed to determine how they are going to live, whether we disagree with it or not.

[I Am Sickened]

Are you unable to distinguish between a race and a culture? A race and a religion?

I am perfectably able. Are you saying that the majority of the people who live in the middle east are not muslim? I am sure there are a couple Arabs over there who aren't muslim.

And since Oldsalt considers islamic culture and philosophy the enemy, that means all practicers of islam worldwide. That is ecompassing multiple races, but still one religion.

I don't really see your point however, it doesn't refute anything I said, all it does is make me clarify myself.

[I Am Sickened]

Racist?  Bush is a liar? A mistake to look to history for context?  You are a perfect product of a concrete bound, range-of-the-moment modern "education".

Prae, if this were any other forum, I wouldn't bother to notice such ignorance.  But this is an Objectivist forum, so I'll simply say this:  Your education has left you bereft of the critical skills and knowledge required to address the questions you are discussing.  Objectivism is the beginning of the cure for this ignorance.  I'm not saying this to be mean or to demean you in any way.  There is no shame in ignorance, unless it is maintained through sheer laziness.  Since you are here, I'll grant the possibility that this does not describe you.  Perhaps you are unaware of the extent to which you have absorbed the multi-culturalist, politically correct "axioms" which underly your statements.  If so, you need to become aware of how much they are coloring your thinking and root them out.   

Check your premises.

You know what, I am wrong. We should go on a crusade against Islam and all who side with that terrible religion. Nuke em all. Then we can take their oil (which isn't stealing because they are not rational) and we can make the middle east a resort. People from all over will come to see the land that used to be home to the terrorists. There will be history tours with life size wax figures of arab people doing sub-human activities, all in the name of western progress.

[I Am Sickened]

If Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq -- that is, if he knew for a fact that no WMDs would be found -- why not sneak some nerve gas into Iraq to prevent the lie from being exposed?

Because if he was caught (and remember there was reporters everywhere) his political campaign would have been ruined. He probably reasoned that he could get away with lying, and he did.

[Industrial Revolution]

I am doing some research for my history class and I'm hitting a brick wall, so to speak. Does anyone know where I might find proof that during the industrial revolution power shifted from the farmers to the industries? I am looking for two specific elections where that was an issue, but all the records I have found do not seem terribly concerned with the issues. Some thoughts would be very much appreciated.

This is not political proof (good luck finding any) but rather based on evidence from the American Civil War. The industrialized North was able to beat the South because of the ability to create weapons, supplies, and ship them with railroads far more more efficiently.

If you are only looking for political proof there might be something buried in one of my History books about politics during that time. I could give you a general view that the South was upset because they wanted an economy based around farming and the North wanted to advance and they were raising tariffs which hurt the Southern economy. It was during this time that the North began to become more politically powerful, the South seceded in response.

[What should be done for a rights-violated child?]

This thread makes capitalism seem very cold and unforgiving (I'm a capitalist by the way). People are saying that Orphans should die in the street before the government should help them, doesn't that sound bad to anyone else?

Would there actually be enough charities to support all the orphans and others who need help (mentally challenged people come to mind). After spending all day at work how many people would want to spend the rest of their day helping poor people?

[I Am Sickened]

Every intelligence entity in the world thought that Saddam had an active WMD program, and even the UN inspectors could not account for material we knew that he possessed at one time.

It is because the material wasn't there and hadn't been there for a long time.

We haven't found these materials.  Does that mean that we ought to simply leave Iraq now?

We should have never gone there in the first place. People know there wasn't WMD's, yet they don't make the connection that Bush is a liar. I wish they had voted him out of office. I don't necessarily believe pulling out of Iraq would be a good idea because it would obviously cause a power vacuum (as if destroying Iraq didn't create a power vacuum).

This war is the continuation of a very ancient war which began with the bloody rise of Islam 1500 years ago.  These guys are just the latest power-lusters to use Islam to seek world domination.  We are in a fight for Western Civilization.  To know what that means, you must look to history and understand just who our enemy is.  The enemy isn't bin Laden or Saddam.  They personify the enemy, but the enemy is the philosophy and culture of Islam.

I have heard this argument used before and it scares me to hear it every time. I imagine you will disagree with me but this view is racist and ignorant. The fact that you had to look back one thousand years to find historical backing says alot. This is exactly the same attitude that the terrorists are portraying americans as having.

[I Am Sickened]

Prae, it still possible they were smuggled out at the last minute. But in any case it was not our responsibility to prove the WMD were there. It was Saddam's responsibility to prove they were not there, and he failed to do that. Also, there is plenty of evidence that Saddam was planning to restart his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted. As long as he was in power he was a threat, WMD or no WMD.

It is our responsibility to prove they were there or not. We were going to attack the country (we did attack the country) if he didn't give us proof the weapons were gone. How can he prove the weapons are no longer there? He can show the inspectors the factories but we would say mobile facilities, in which case he could never prove they don't exist.

And then we just assume that he was going to start the programs again. It's possible he might have, but we have no idea what he was thinking.

[I Am Sickened]

Do you believe that Hussein had no WMD's prior to our invasion?  (I infer that is what you believe from your statement, correct me if I'm wrong.)

I'm sure he had some at some point. But I do not believe they were there just prior to our invasion, maybe a few years before, a year at the least.

I think we were led to believe first that he had them and we would find them, and second that he must have gotten rid of them. It all seems like too much of an excuse for not finding anything.

"Oh, they're not there huh? Well he must have gotten rid of them."

[What should be done for a rights-violated child?]

I think it would be in the best interest of the government (however large or small it may be) to take care of orphans. These orphans if not cared for would probably become criminals, die, or at least grow up for a strong resentment for the government that did nothing for them.

Government assistance in the beginning of their life could at least make them productive members of society who wont hurt the other members of society.

Also I can't forget that they are children, no matter how cold my heart may become. I can't imagine my 3 year old nephew just being abandoned by everyone if he had nobody to look after him, he would undoubtedly die. It isn't fair for the government to leave these orphans on the street so that sympathetic passersby feel terrible and feel pressured to help.