Jake_Ellison

I'm honestly curious about what you meant to say there. Please explain. I'm especially having trouble with the word "sounding". (Can't seem to figure out what it means)

I agree with the part about him acting a certain way(I would use the terms "vague" or "empty" tather than moderate) to get elected, I just don't see why you think he's such a passionate marxist: I've listened to that interview from 2001 on Drudge too, and what I heard was just a smug moron trying to be poignant (it suited him to be that way in academic circles), and liberal and militant (trying to move up in Chicago politics). Real militants don't talk about the Supreme Cout and "technical interpretations of the constitution", the talk about revolution and race wars. He's not gonna do anything extreme, in fact he'll probably do less than McCain would, because he doesn't have the experience and connections McCain has made over the years in DC. And even if he was a militant( I guess we don't know enough about him to decide either way, thanks to the media deciding to sit this one out), we do know for a fact that Pelosi and the democratic majority have only one mission: to stay in power--and you're not gonna stay in power if you drive up taxes (and unemployment with it), go after talk radio with the fairness doctrine, or any of these other scary laws people keep talking about. In fact the only thing keeping them in power right now is the fact that Bush and the Republican leadership are awful.

I'm not trying to split hairs, I just think this one point is important for my entire argument(in one of my previous posts): I would argue that all proper laws enforce a single moral concept: "the concept of individual rights". (as opposed to moral concepts plural) Absolutely. This does not negate my statement, that: "In an objectivist society the government would most definitely not be legislating morality.!!!" Morality(by definition) means the whole package, not just the part about "individual rights". Ayn Rand makes it clear in the quote you posted that the only puprpose of government is to protect man's rights. P.S. "only man's rights" definitely means "not animal's rights", so you can't say everything is up in the air because she didn't mention animals.

I think I offered you a more than adequate explanation as to why a government dedicated to the defense of rights, funded by voluntary contributions, does not subjugate anyone, nor does it use force against anyone except in defense of individuals who are being attacked. Since instead of addressing my point, you continue to ignore it, and present arguments based on the fact that such a government is somehow a tyranny, this conversation is over as far as I'm concerned. WE'RE NOT HERE FOR YOU TO SPREAD YOUR IDEOLOGY TO, WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE AN OPEN CONVERSATION TO HELP US BETTER UNDERSTAND THE PHILOSOPHY OF AYN RAND.

Well, under objectivism someone's dog is property. But that wasn't my point. All I'm saying is that a dog is either property or is not, according to the law of identity. Saying this much is like saying: e = m times (c square). It's not something you get to disagree with, no matter what the definition of dog, property, or life are. All you need for that to be true is for the definition of aristotelean logic to be true.(I think I've got this right:) If you change the definition of property, depending on how you play around with that definition, you could argue yourself into supreme ruler of the universe, protector of all that is created by the Lord, but it would not be objectivism.(one thing you still could not do is say that a dog is both property and whatever the opposite of property would be under your definition) Property is defined in objectivism, and set in stone in a capitalist society.

In an objectivist society the government would most definitely not be legislating morality.!!! Government would have the right (and the mission, given to it by its voluntary funders) to defend victims (their right to life, liberty and property, to be precise) and to punish those who initiate violence. Not because it is imoral to initiate violence, but because it is moral to punish those who do, in the proper context of this government. Why is it moral to contribute to or participate in a government created to punish those who initiate violence against members of society? Because such a government is essential for man's survival qua man. Why is it not moral to contribute or participate in a government created to punish those who initiate violence against their animals? Because such a government is not needed for man's survival qua man. In fact such an act, of breaking a citizen's right to his property (whether he is snorting his coke or torturing his pet) is imoral: not a rational act in one's self interest. (in your case it happens to be an emotionally motivated act)

Depending on what you mean, I think I may have caught a big one ( yes, sportfishing pun intended) ) here: Objectivism section one, subsection one: Axiom of Identity: A is A. If a dog is property, then the dog is property. It cannot be a property today, and not a property tomorrow, just because you feel like rescuing it. If it is a property, then, according to Ayn Rand, in a laissez-faire capitalist society property is sacred. End of story. If it's not, then what is it? And since you said you have dogs too, what gives you the right to claim them as yours, and keep them in your house against their will. Can I come over and take them with me? After all, they ar not your property.

The question is not what is considered "life affirming" or necessary as opposed to pointless, in respect to the treatment of animals. The question is what animals are, and from that what rights do they have? (naturally) I believe what Capitalism Forever said: they are someone's property: they have no rights. Only human beings have rights, therefore the government-or anyone- may only step in to defend a person's right to life and property. Neither the government, nor anyone else, have the right to protect an animal from its owner. Also, no one has the right to step in to protect a wild animal, which has no owner, and is therefore out there to be claimed. The reason why an owner would do anything to this animal does not come into this discussion of rights. On the other hand, if you believe animals have some type of rights, then please describe them. However, then, you have to respect those rights no matter what your needs are. If an animal has a right to life for instance, you are not allowed to kill it, even if your child is starving, and anyone can step in and stop ypu from killing it, the same way they could stop you from killing an innocent human. And that is close to what PETA believes, with one serious inconsistency however: they are willing to allow other animals to violate this animal's right to life. -- Somehow, in their mind, an animal has an inalienable right to live, if a human needs food, but not if a lion does.--and that is not ethical, that is quite a capricious treatment of animals.

I don't remember where I've read that: it may just have been someone speculating, because he's in favor of free markets, but also is for a strong military and America's right to self-defense. Obviously, when he wrote "Glengarry Glen Ross", he was a liberal, but he definitely changed his views since then. All I could find that's genuine for sure is this article, in which he praises Thomas Sowell (but at a quick glance couldn't find a mention of Rand or objectivism) : http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/new...n-dead-liberal/ If someone finds a more conclusive link on the subject, please post it. Anyway, my main point is that there's nothing wrong with "The Unit" , ideologically. I wish he would spend a little more time coming up with some of the dialog, though.

There is no really in-depth reporting anywhere. I usually just check Drudge and CNN, and if something that I'm interested in pops up, i'll just google it (Google News) and try to find the most accurate story-usually a newspaper local to the area. Unfortunately, when it comes to the middle east, evryone who has any resources to report on a story is heavily biased towards the multiculturalist side of the story, so the israeli media (the leftists there, somewhat surprisingly) are actually the only ones covering it fairly objectively. I check them out even if the story doesn't concern Israel, if it's in Asia. The US presidential election however is in my estimation simply not covered. For some reason, the people who have any idea what a journalist is supposed to do do not cover Obama and Biden. There is nothing more I need to know about McCain and Palin: McCain is a warhero, but has an awful record as a legislator, and Palin is just a fanatic and generally dishonest. There is no way I could vote for that ticket. I would love to make an informed decision, however, on Obama. Since there is no real media to vet him, I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for him, even as a vote against McCain. Here's a great editorial on the media coverage this election-year: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1 I've found it worth my time, which is rare for me.

This TV show is the only action type show or movie I've seen that actually tries to have hero soldiers who act rationally. A lot better than 24, in this regard, though not always as thrilling. As far as I know David Mamet is an objectivist, and he seems to have creative control over the show. (at least of the plot-his movies were better made though. I guess that's to be expected) Please check it out, it's entertaining, and do opine: http://www.cbs.com/primetime/the_unit/ I recommend the previous episode(from the sunday before yesterday), titled "The Conduit": it's very revealing of how the writer(s) feel about our political leaders. P.S. While the first two seasons were single episodes, each with its own plot, this last season they decided to tie them loosely together. If you start at the beginning of this season(there are five episodes so far), you shouldn't miss anything. The first episode is actually great---it had a 24 feel to it.

Well, I did answer the question. Why do I think Obama will win? Because all polls say he'll win, obviously. That's why we all think he will win. You are the only one who seems to think that all the polls in this country are wrong, and McCain is ahead. There you go: I think my previous post was far more constructive than this one though, since all I did here was state some obvious facts (you seem to be ignoring).

I wish we could discuss things point by point, it would make it harder to avoid each other's arguments, but if you prefer it this way, fine...but I won't go through everything you write either. I'll just read your post once and answer you on the fly. In an ideal society government would be funded by voluntary contributions. The scope of this government would be limited exactly by the fact that it is not allowed to use use force to collect taxes or any other tariffs, or in general do anything that would constitute coersion, directed at law-obiding (a laissez-faire capitalist law) citizens. As far as your question: individual freedom and the right to one's property absolutely justifies the use of force in defense of people's life, freedom and property. This act is justified when the entity doing the "defending by force" is defending it's own life or property, it's neighbour's or anybody elses. And this entity, acting in defense of a right( to life, freedom, or property) can be a person, gang, a government, or Satan himself risen from a Hell I can't imagine exists, it is perfectly justified to defend said right against anyone who would initialize force. So yes, because of this, a government which is voluntarily funded has the right to defend victims, the same way I have a right to jump to the defense of my friend if someone attacks him without justification.---I can't imagine a moral code under which such an act would fall outside my "rights". I wish you would share your moral code with us though nonetheless. Again, a policeman defending the victim of an attack or retaliating against such an attack is not using coersion, so I am not saying a coercive path has become acceptable. I am not granting him any new power, we all have the right to do what a policeman would do in an ideal society: defend against force. All I am doing (if I want to) is giving him a reason to do this job: money. Why am I doing this? Because I am making a rational decision that it is in my best interest to have someone be my protector, and everyone else's. No one forces soldiers to sign contracts. They do so voluntarily, and unfortunately it is necessary for society to hold them to that contract for those five years. We need to know we have a defense force we can count on, and they are perfectly aware of what they are signing up for: they have the right to do so. As far as the ills of government, even our current ones(in the West) are a pretty sweet deal( eh, Wade? --silly Fargo reference, I love that movie), if you compare it to times in history when government was scarce or nonexistent in parts of the world: in fact we have the best lives ever. And of course, there has never existed a truly laissez-faire capitalist society. Such a country would do even better than America did at the end of the 19th century, under a government that came closest to this. (yet so far away)

obama.wav Only watch the first minute or so though. Then it gets old pretty quickly.

Well, they sure are all collectivists, can't argue with that one, but that's not saying much. So are the mcainiacs: nationalists, racists, or just proud of their "heritage", wether they're irish, italian, jewish or asian-americans, or anything else. That's all colectivism, so you can't really define the left by this trait. You can't say that's at the base of their movement: why wouldn't all the other collectivists join in the fun then?

Don't think you can convert your parents. They see themselves as the protector in the relationship, so psychologically they are the hardest people for you to teach or convince of anything, on the face of the planet. You'd have better chances going up to the pope:) You can try though, plus they don't have to convert in order to at least have an idea where you're coming from. Keep it light though, and make it your primary goal just to convince them that objectivism is a sane ideology, it's not gonna turn you into a school shooter or a suicide bomber. Tell them that it motivates you to do well in school , that should make them happy. Are they liberals?

I'm not up to researching the evangelicals right now (I'm kinda in the middle of something), but I guarantee you that you will receive a reply from someone around here demonstrating exactly that. I will just give you my brief opinion: most of the founding fathers weren't that religious at all. (they wrote a lot, and that much is clear from their writings). After the country was founded it went through religious periods(puritans), but none of them as fanatical as right now. For instance, before the civil war there was such a period, but Lincoln, who was a known atheist, was able to become president just by saying, five years before he got elected: "I changed my mind, I believe in God now." The evangelical movement, or even the catholic church(especially under the new pope), are not only fanatical, but also very active within (mainly) the Republican Party, and very ambitious as far as government and the political future of the country are concerned, in a way religious groups have never been in the past. "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " – Thomas Jefferson I like this one( I was thinking of saving it until someone claims I was wrong about him not being a cristian): "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."– Thomas Jefferson "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies." "Lighthouses are more helpful then churches." - both Benjamin Franklin "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln

That's not specific at all. "Preaches" and "blindly" are, if I'm not mistaken, both metaphors, and John McCain and Sarah Palin are definitely preaching a welfare state too. Those are all principles of communism, and here's another good one by Karl: 5. The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country. (Ouch. There goes Al Gore.) Still communism, by the way.

"Them" -isn't that an old disaster movie? You do have an interesting strategy though: Becoming more and more vague does invalidate specific arguments people make, allowing you to continue the discussion without contradicting yourself of having to address specific problems with your theory. Such a strategy would for instance allow you to skate on this particular, very precise question you've been asked: However, at the end of your post you do get specific, and write: Now Marxist beliefs, that's a very specific(pretty long) list of stuff. I'll pic just a few(I have to be honest, I don't really know them all, and these people-marxist "thinkers"- can be pretty verbose, so it takes time to find all the bulletpoints:), and I think you will have to agree with me, most Obama voters don't hold these views at all, or only hold one or two of them, not the same ones either: 1. atheism (that's only about 14% of americans right there). And that includes objectivists, many independents and even some libertarians. 2. the abolition of private property( I doubt the people in favor of this one make up more that 5%) 3. individuals are only significant when they act together as a class... Here's a good one: 4. The confiscation of all property of immigrants and rebels. That's a direct quote from big Karl himself. I wonder how James Dean would've felt about that one . I see two options for you here: 1. All people on the left adhere to all these principles, and then they are clearly a huge threat. Obviously, that's not the case. 2. A tiny( I'd say insignificant) number of americans adhere to these principles, so you need to find another description for these people you otherwise refer to as "Them", so that we can asess this threat you are describing, and compare it to the evangelical movement for instance.

Damn, I couldn't think of a good example to address this exact same point. I could also use a few better arguments against anarchy, if someone would like to add to that part.

1. His own speeches and interviews: -his stated belief that it is our responsibility, entrusted to us by God, to help people who are opressed around the world. His statement that he considers himself an instrument of God; his frequent mention of God and his religion in his speeches and interviews, etc. etc. 2. His actions: -despite the fact that american soldiers signed up to serve and protect the american people, as their commander in chief he decided they should take on the role of the iraqi police, and patrol the streets of Iraq for five years until the Iraqi police were able to step into their role. 3. Accounts of his life, by those who know him well also prove that he is in fact deeply religious=religious zealot. If you believe religion is a good thing, there is no reason to be offended by that word by the way. For the life of me, I can't figure out why you would put that in quotation marks, and say supposed, as if you're doubting the fact that he is really religious. 1. His efforts to introduce undue government incentives to encourage home-ownership played a big part in the housing-bubble that ultimately caused the financial crisis. 2. His continued support for the Federal Reserve's low interest rate policies. As the president, it was his ultimate responsibility to act if any arm of the government was dropping the ball. These policies made it possible (in a way that would not have been possible in a free market) for financial institutions to take on too much risk (bad debt). 3. The administration and congress's continued support for government regulation forced financial institutions into lending practices they normally would not venture into. (i.e. the Community Reinvestment Act, wich could at any point have been changed, while Congress was under Republican control between 2001 and 2006) 4. His administration's continued and stated willingness to bail out failing companies led to shareholders allowing managers to take risks they normally wouldn't be allowed to take. There are many others, plenty of them are discussed on this forum and other objectivist sites. The democrats may temporarily control 3 institutions that are relevant on a national stage (I certainly do not advocate voting democrat everywhere locally-there are often independent or secular republican options). Those 3 are: Senate, House, White House. Two of them will be under their control for two years, another for 4. Then, americans may choose to put someone else in control. Hopefully, somewhere down the line the republicans will either change or be replaced by another party. As far as the media, academia and the movie industry, they certainly are not controlled by any political party. They may be dominated by left leaning people, although not everywhere, and definitely not controlled by any one group. They are certainly liberal, but if they are to change, moving towards religion is not the answer. As far as the theocratic boogeyman goes, I feel I've answered this issue as well as I can, and you're not bringing up anything new.(I do agree with KendallJ's post on the subject, of course) Are you saying it's allright to be religious, or have a christian country (in the name of tradition, of course:) ?

That's funny, I had this weird dream about a republican president who is a religious zealot (and as a result managed the war in a manner that ended up killing 5000 american soldiers), who's economic policies led to a huge financial crisis, and who is currently supervising a massive shopping-spree, purchasing 1.5 trillion $ worth of bad debt and unneeded financial institutions. In my strange dream government spending under his presidency went from under 2 trillion/year to 3 trillon+/year, and now we are at a point where no one is calling him an anti-capitalist, because his own party are the ones who are suposed to be against big government. My intention, which I made clear by the way before, is not to support the democrats. I'm just pointing out that there is no real, practical difference between a McCain and an Obama presidency: they are both socialists, and yes, they are both in favor of govenment control over business. The only difference is an ideological one: Obama is a socialist, and he won't go far with that, too many people recognize his ideas as part of a failed ideology. The republican party, however, is controlled by its religious wing, and they are growing in popularity and are gaining courage. Their ideology poses the biggest long-term threat to reason and human progress, not Pelosi and Reed( who's approval ratings are under 10%).

I don't watch reality tv, but judging by the title it's not exactly pro capitalism. (Dragon's Den, Shark Tank, the only ones missing are alligator pit and snakehole).

Wow. Why don't you try living within your rights then? This sentence means that you're not even allowed to hurt plants. You have to wait for them to die, and then you can eat them. By the way, the seeds and fruit of a plant are essential for it's reproduction, so hands off of those as well. Dead leaves and hey (but only if the grass died on its own), that's what you are allowed to eat, according to your own morality. So go ahead and show us how good you are, and live by it, smartass.

Yes, losing the democratic primary is a change other than the race of their presidential candidate, hence there is no reason to believe he migrated to McCain based on race. He did it because he lost the democrat's support, wich is a political reason, nothing to do with race. A racist is someone who judges people based on their race, not someone who switches parties, so I don't understand why Lieberman's name came up in the discussion. Sure, Powell is a moderate, the problem is he didn't explain what in his politcal belief-system has changed since the last elections, that he felt the need to come out for a liberal, while before he was consistently in favor of conservatives. In fact if anythign, McCain is far more to the center than Bush, while Obama is far more to the left than Kerry or the Gore/Lieberman team in 2000. Did Powell turn into a liberal in a couple of months, or is he suddenly supporting a liberal because he's black?