rtaylortitle

Yes, I believe that too many individuals in powerful places (with more and more boldness since Bush, Sr.) have shared what they really expect to happen, to-wit: a world government with common currency (or two or three) controlled by a small cabal of enlightened individuals that know what's best for the rest of humanity. With America's perpetual welfare/warfare state thanks in large part to those we now called neo-conservatives, our absolute infatuation with Israel (a nation fully capable of taking care of itself) and the newest religion of "global warming...I think it is fairly easy to envision what is now occurring on the world scene. Checks and balances are dissapearing, we have a Marxist president with a Congress that acts more and more like the mafia with extortions and bribes for votes and a Supreme Court that seems to have forgotten about the Constitution and states rights. I am an Objectivist, but I am not a fool.

Very well stated. You are, in my book, one of the new intellectuals that could help turn this nation around.

While I agree with you in general, and I am definitely for tort reform of some kind, I think there are two instances where it might be beneficial to consult with an attorney: (1)purchasing a home utilizing a new mortgage (2)purchasing a medical policy of some kind. Remember, the BIG print giveth and the LITTLE print taketh away.

To utilize a very technical, esoteric philosophical phrase, the personal who correctly stated that Ron Paul's foreign policy can be summed up as non-interventionist............."hit the nail on the head." He proposed we TRADE with everyone instead of INVADING AND/OR OCCUPYING other nations. A true "liberal" should be FOR a peaceful relationship of voluntary trade with all nations. The only true duties of any government, federal or state, should be: *maintain a military to defend our shores/boundaries/airspace and shipping lanes; *a system of courts to settle/litigate civil and criminal matters; *the cop "on his beat". That's it.......everything else can be handled effectively, productively and profitably including the post office, Amtrak, fire and police protection, education (Especially education), etc. To keep saying Ron Paul is an isolationist is to reveal one's shallowness and lack of perspicacity as to real issues.

I'm both an Objectivist and a libertarian. The primary difference I have seen is in the area of foreign policy and immigration(which I consider to be part and parcel of a foreign policy). Objectivists would be close to what is termed today as neo-conservativism as to an agressive foreign policy towards nations that are, more or less, antagonistic to America. Libertarians would agree more with what the original founding fathers believed.....only attack those nations after it is clearly determined that there is an immanent threat to the nation or, obviously, if our country has already suffered an attack. As I don't feel it is our duty to engage in nation-building or spreading "democracy", I cannot abide with our current aggresive policy. Of course, many Objectivists will say that there is a moral right to attack those nations that enslave their peoples and do not respect man's, qua man, natural rights. I can't abide with that either. We should trade with any nation, including Cuba, and let those nations decide their own internal affairs whether we deem them to be evil or not. Another area I see as an error with certain Objectivists is in the area of immigration. Many Objectivists believe that our borders should be loose and welcome low-paid workers to our system of capitalism. I disagree. Citizenship is of vital importance to our Republic. Our immigration laws may need to be re-examined, but until a full, rational, objective debate takes place on that subject...our borders should be strictly policed not just with a strong border patrol but by the military as well. Our nation has evolved into a Welfare/Warefare state. We have more than 170 military bases in over 100 countries. That is an empire no matter how you define the term. As I said, I'm both libertarian and Objectivist. I just finished re-reading "Atlas Shrugged" for the 4th time. It never fails to captivate me both intellectually and emotionally.

A representative government is meaningless, as in this country, unless all political parties are allowed to enter and be heard. The news media today is almost totally controlled by interests that are detrimental to objective journalism, and the system (state by state) does not lend itself to other parties other, primarily, than the Repubs and Demos. The individual states need to loosen the ties that bind this process. Whether a group calling itself the Capitalist Party, the Constitution Party, the Socialist Party, the Green Party....whatever, they should all be allowed a voice. Maybe some independent syndicate will arise some day to allow such coverage to be presented and debated. Admittedly, there may turn out to be too many groups or parties to share the platform, so some objective standards would have to apply. Possibly a small percentage or registered voters that sign up with that group or party. But, the standards would have to be rational and fair to all concerned. Also, I don't believe in "winner take all". I believe a proportional system based on the number of votes each group garnered should be installed. I think in the long run such a proportional system would be the most fair to all concerned. Again, reason would dictate that some mathematical "rounding off" of votes would be needed to install the proper candidates to office. But, it can and should be done.

The primary reason for the fall was the empire's turn to mysticism, i.e. Christianity, the "life after death" syndrome and the move towards altruism that this religion brings with it. It made the distinctly Roman character overall weaker. Taxes and inflation (the coinage was being debased) had its part as well.

We need to be selfish in upholding our own values, be that sustaining a profitable enterprise or be that a mother who values the life of her husband and children above all else and is willing to stay home to nurture and care for their children. Neither is a sacrifice or a "duty" in that sense...it's merely the rational decision to uphold what one deems most important in life.

I think to simplify all that has been said above, we are not Platonists nor Kantians..we simply hold that there is "outside of our consciousness" a real detectable universe that will continue to be there when my sentient consciousness expires. Yes, that tree does make a noise when it falls whether anyone is there to hear it or not. I think the more you belabor the point the more you weaken your case.