Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Yes

Regulars
  • Posts

    495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Yes last won the day on June 5

Yes had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Yes

  • Birthday 11/19/1948

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Regarding this forum, to discuss, nurture, enable, and even sponsor the further development of modern capitalism and its foundation philosophy, Objectivism. To relate capitalism to my personal experiences. To debate politics from the capitalist's standpoint, injecting both fact and personal experience into such debate, at the same time, staunchly defending Objectivism to those who wish to tailor it into traditional political endeavors.

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Connecticut
  • Real Name
    John
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Read many of Ayn Rand's books, including "We the Living", "The Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged", "The Romantic Manifesto". Highly recommend "The Romantic Manifesto" which is my favorite Ayn Rand book.
  • Occupation
    Architect

Recent Profile Visitors

2812 profile views

Yes's Achievements

Member

Member (4/7)

9

Reputation

  1. Regarding "pro-choice vs. pro-life" the main criteria here is that government has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to a woman's body. No matter what a President, an individual member of Congress, or state and local representative, or governor believes, it is imperative that government stay out of the race to restrict or prohibit a woman's right to an abortion.
  2. Politicians' best posture is to NOT impose abortion regulation. In itself, this shows a respect for women's rights.
  3. So, in one corner, Rep. Greene of the Christian White Supremacist Right, and in the other corner, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez of the Urban Neo-socialist Left. A prime example of why I despise politics. Neither of these representatives has a political philosophy rooted in reason, in my opinion. Modern politics is that way- amoral, collectivist, with a blatant disregard for individual rights. Neither of these should be the voice of the future of American politics.
  4. Agreed- America deserves better than to be a nation defined by anarchy and violence.
  5. Apparently you didn't watch his incendiary speech to the protesters yesterday morning. So I strongly disagree with your statement, which has absolutely no basis of fact.
  6. As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol. This in the name of Freedom? Are these hooligans striving to look for their Fuhrer? As a footnote, something like this happened in fiction- in Atlas Shrugged.
  7. Your response is interesting, to say the least. But I do not agree that joining the military is, in itself, highly immoral. What would be immoral, if not illicit, is a country's use of the military to initiate force and violence against another country. Our military is supposed to be prepared to defend our nation against the initiation of force and violence against us. In that regard, just joining the military is, in fact an honorable move in that the military person then trains to defend against enemies. Also, the personnel in our armed forces are not "volunteers" in the sense that they are paid, given essentials (food, clothing, shelter, etc.), and even "perks" such as the GI bill of rights which helps pay for their higher education. A nation whose basis is the socio-economic system of capitalism requires an armed force to defend its citizens' rights.
  8. I don't argue with the above. But, if one is sick, one should have the common sense to stay home until well. If one sick person goes to work, knowing that one is sick, then that amounts to deliberately exposing others to illness. In a civil society, one doesn't have the right to initiate pain or grief upon others. That being said, in my opinion, just send the sick person home- "punishment" (as I read in another post) is inappropriate.
  9. The assumption being made here is that humans have no control over nature when it comes to one's right to live a healthy life. And yes- one has a right to live a healthy life, free of infections. Science has spent innumerable resources in developing those items which enable one to live out life in a healthy manner, whether by vaccines, treatments, drugs, or simple wellness measures. I disagree there is an "assumption of natural risks" as the awareness of natural risks comes with knowledge. One's right to live a life of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" must include wellness. And the government, in its mission to protect our rights, has to include protecting us from infectious diseases.
  10. I'm with Yaron Brook. All things considered, Trump's abject failure as a president to even accomplish what little is good about his agenda, plus his pitiful response to Covid-19, in which his government failed to protect the rights of Americans against being infected by others, and add to that his disrespect for voting rights and the woman's right to an abortion, and that leaves only the choice that Yaron Brook advocates.
  11. There is no way that Trump can identify with objectivism, reason, or even capitalism. His insistence upon levying tariffs on China and Mexico has not in any way helped the American economy. His "tax reform" is a joke- who has really experienced tax saving from this sham except the extremely rich (who know how to deal with the tax system anyhow)? His awful response to the pandemic will most certainly doom his chances for a second term. So how should have he responded to the oncoming pandemic? He should have mobilized the pandemic response team.....oh, wait, he disbanded this? Isn't the President- government supposed to protect our right to our lives? Doesn't that include protecting us from those who carry infectious diseases? On that basis, once the source was identified, America should have set up the personnel needed to first shut the flow of those who came to America from Wuhan province, and those who did come in should have been tested, then immediately remanded to quarantine. This is how America responded to potential pandemics in the past. With such response, we could have controlled the flow of covid-19 on to our shores. Instead, we had Trump and his cronies in government lie and deny how serious this pandemic is- and, as a consequence, Americans find themselves trying to go about our daily lives 1) not seeing loved ones 2)wearing face masks in public 3)social distancing 4)limiting travel 5) forbidden to go to concerts, sporting events 6)disruptions in classroom education at all levels. Many on the New Right complain about this violating their individual rights- what does that mean? I mean, no individual has the right to initiate infection upon another- OK, I'm paraphrasing that no individual has a right to initiate violence or force upon another. But I think you get my point. If that is not enough, Trump is waging war against his political rivals by threatening to seek indictments against them. This wreaks of the autocratic governments in Russia and China. There is no way I can support a president who had been this negligent, this dishonest, this autocratic, and this corrupt. Biden offers to continue American policy and the mixed economy with its virtues and its few vices. His team will get my vote.
  12. Lockdowns are a terrible thing, in my opinion- is it that the"cure" is worse than the symptom? But it's inexcusable to display swastikas, and weapons which allow protesters to threaten gun violence. And it's puzzling that these protesters are openly displaying placards supporting the very President who is misleading us through these trying times with misstatements, lies, and the government's bad response to this pandemic.
  13. OK, I understand the frustration with these folks. But why the swastikas, the white supremacist chants, and- yes- the weapons? https://www.yahoo.com/news/swastikas-nooses-governor-slams-racism-234906995.html
×
×
  • Create New...