2046

What do you make of this "Operation Northwoods" thing? http://www.smeggys.co.uk/operation_northwo...php?image=01#tt

Libertarianism is not the political application of Objectivism. Objectivism is a philosophy that starts with metaphysics and goes all the way to politics, and holds Capitalism as its political philosophy. Libertarianism does not have such a fully integrated philisophical base, and is no different from liberalism and conservatism in its epistemology, psychological subjectivism, as well as what many libertarians hold as their ethics. There are many essays written by Objectivists that explain the gulf between the two such as "Anarchism is Evil" by Leonard Peikioff, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz, and "Anarchism Vs. Objectivism" by Harry Biswanger, and "Selfishness Without A Self" from Philosophy: Who Needs it. You are right when you say that if all human beings were to universally follow their reason and hence behave morally there should be no government: if men were angels there would be no need for government, and if angels were to government, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. Objectivism's political branch does not seek to achieve some magical utopian transformation of human consciousness that causes everyone to stop being irrational or immoral, but rather it institutes a moral social system for dealing with people who choose to initiate force, and bars the government from doing so. "If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government." The Nature of Government http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...e_of_government

Well, the last I remember reading about her, she is 17 years old, travelled out of state and is supporting herself I assume with her new Christian pals. The state should not get involved in the battle of one cult versus another or one faith versus another over the allegiance of the young lady. She should be given legal authority to make her own decisions, as far as I'm concerned she emancipated herself already when she ran away from home and started supporting herself. As long as she is protected from force, let her decide which religion she wants to waste her life with and let her live with the consequences.

"Evading the difference between production and looting, they called the businessman a robber. Evading the difference between freedom and compulsion, they called him a slave driver. Evading the difference between reward and terror, they called him an exploiter. Evading the difference between pay checks and guns, they called him an autocrat. Evading the difference between trade and force, they called him a tyrant. The most crucial issue they had to evade was the difference between the earned and the unearned. "You had said that you saw no difference between economic and political power, between the power of money and the power of guns—no difference between reward and punishment, no difference between purchase and plunder, no difference between pleasure and fear, no difference between life and death. You are learning the difference now." -AS http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/economic...ical_power.html

Am I wrong in the assumption that it shouldn't say rights are "given" or "endowed by" anything because a right, by definition, cannot be given, otherwise it would be "a permission?"

It is also pertinent to mention that the article says the woman had a living will. That is an advance health care directive, a legal document invented exactly for this type of situation: to declare that you have certain wishes regarding health care, life and death, and that you are of legal capacity to make those decisions. That is how they knew enough to judge that she should not be given treatment.

Yeah I would just like to point out that Glenn Beck was all for socialism prior to November 2008. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909210037 He also called Ron Paul and his supporters a "crank," "un-patriotic," "un-American," "a domestic threat" and generally lambasted him/them for being against President Bush. Now he's a "libertarian." Uh huh.

That's almost as good as ACORN workers trying to unionize and management resisting and being slapped with "unfair anti-unionization practices" lawsuits.

Ayn Rand wrote an essay completely destroying the "doesn't capitalism lead to war" question, published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, called "The Roots of War." There's a quick run down of it on this page: http://capitalism.org/faq/war.htm and here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/war.html

I don't undestand the question? What do you mean "what do we do with them?" "We" don't do anything with them. We believe in a government whose sole purpose is to protect individual rights from force and fraud. It is your life--you have a right to act and voluntarily interact with others as you judge best, and you should take responsibility for the consequences (good or bad). The government should have nothing to say about how each of us conducts our economic lives. Their existence is their right and responsibility to support. To suggest that the only reason the President doesn't pull soldiers out of a warzone where they are taking casualties is because he wants to support a supposed vast section of our economy that relies on wars to exist is contrary to everything capitalism stands for, then to suggest that we exist in a FREE MARKET CAPITALISM system with "unregulated and unmitigated economics" and that the President simply needs wars to support the "unregulated and unmitigated" FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, is such self-contradictory evasion that I wouldn't expect him to be able to grasp the point of the political branch of Ayn Rand's philosophy if it were spelled out to him.

And that difference would be...? That actually is of zero relevance to this discussion, unless Beck threatened to kick Yaron off the show and Yaron tried to claim that his freedom of speech was being violated by Beck...? Well what is it then? I have yet to be presented with an actual reason other than "There's a difference..." --blankout, and "I feel it's wrong, but..." --blankout. What the hell does that even mean? It's Glenn Beck's show, not Yaron's, so Genn obviously does have greater utility in terms of the fact that he has a popular televesion show through which to speak and Yaron wants to do the speaking. No. I think you should explain your feelings.

So Ayn Rand was contradicting Dr. Peikoff when she appeared on The Phil Donahue show? What about when she wrote letters to the editors of The New York Times or other newspapers? Edit: JE beat me to it - Was Dr. Peikoff contradicting himself when he went on The O'Reilly Factor or The Savage Nation on radio?

It's not like ARI didn't know what Beck's views were and they just found out in the "incredible rant" in the OP: Beck has held these beliefs since the beginning of his show and has expressed them. I have known about Beck's views, I can't talk for anyone else, but at least I have known about them much prior to his ranting in the OP's video. I know that Dr. Brook has known Becks views as evidenced to the fact that in the video I posted we learn that Yaron has met in Glenn's office prior, as well has "having lunch together" whether they discussed their disagreements. Why don't you people decide what it is you exactly want Yaron to say instead of what he says, then post it here, or send it to him; but I really don't understand this "lending credibility to" and "Talking to someone = sanction of X, Y, Z" comments. Is there any similarity between Yaron Brook and David Kelley?

So you're saying he hasn't disagreed with Beck and he compromises with him? What's this then? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jT1c5UkNbc

Should he be writing articles in the New York Times? Should he appear on CNBC? Should he be speaking at panel discussions with libertarians and conservatives? Should he be speaking on conservative or libertarian television shows like Pajamas Media and Fox's Freedom Watch? Should he be speaking at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y? Should he just speak only at places where people strictly agree with him? Should he make everyone he speaks to sign a contact that states the must agree with him on everything before he will talk to them?

I think maybe what you are probing at (sorry) is: We live in a reality where actions have consequences. "What happens if I have no food." Then you'll have no food. "What happens if I can't afford education?" Then you can't afford education. "What happens if I can't get health insurance?" Then you can't get health insurance. etc. I think of this passage from Atlas Shrugged: You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it. and from The Objectivist: Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others—misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement—failure is not a mortgage on success—suffering is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence—man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone’s altar nor for anyone’s cause—life is not one huge hospital. If your grandmother was so poor that she had to rely on charity, that's one thing, but ask her if she believes she had the right to steal from others, or if her needs negate others' rights.

The simple, brief thing I use to explain the "good of the collective is greater than the good of the individuals" is that a collective is nothing more than a group of individuals, and the good of the individuals is the good of the collective. The good of society is the good of the individuals which make up that society. There is no seperate good of society. Society is inseperable from the individuals that make it up. You can throw in a "unless you believe 2+2=5? Does 2+2=5 in your world?" Saying that the collective is an entity unto itself that is above the sovereign individual is more or less stating: "We have no basis to consider the individual" "You are an individual, therefore we have no basis to consider you." So you can very quickly and easily state: Society is a group. Groups are the sum of their parts. What is the good for the parts is the good for the groups. If they give you some crap about how "man is a social animal" and must subjugate themselves to a collective in order to achieve anything they are basically using a zero-sum premise that everyone that gains must gain at someone else's expense. You must dispel that because it is the exact opposite: Person A + Person B = Collective. If A gains at B's expense, collective welfare goes down compraed to Person A and Person B cooperating voluntarily to exchange value for value, ex ante. So you explain, certainly there is much to be gained from cooperating socially with other human beings, but only on certain conditions: individual rights. "The good" is not determined by sacrificing anyone to anyone. Live your life according to your own judgement (or delusions) and leave everyone else alone. If you don't like the way someone is living, then you may try to convince them through voluntary persuasion and exchange ideas in the marketplace of values, rather thinking that you deserve the unearned and rather than trying impose some vision or goal upon another individual by force. Any argument to the contrary can be countered by saying "So you believe that you have the right to force your delusions onto me? If you believe that you're Santa Claus, you have the right to force me to make toys, is that it?" As for your grandmother: Ayn Rand stated (paraphrasing): Social Darwinism is garbage.

Okay, let me try this: I stated not just "servitude" as you have compared it to servers at a restaurant, I said involuntary servitude. There is no super-special definition other than the actual definition of the word: a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life, or as von Mises said "that the individual is in a position to choose the way in which he wants to integrate himself into the totality of society." That is to say there are two levels of choice involved: (1) To decide whether or not to interact (2) To decide on the interactions No choice is given for (1), the other person makes up your mind for you. (2) is where some choice exists, assuming you must interact. Freedom is being able to choose on decision (1). Slavery is not being given the choice. It requires an initiation of force to compel someone to involuntarily serve the needs, wants, desires, of another. As Rand puts it, to become the means to the ends of another. You asked: If some guy punches some other guy in the face, is that a master/slave relationship? I think it depends on the context and the situation. Just to assault him, no, not necessarily - but if Jones says to Smith, "Do X or I will assault you with physical violence" for example, then yes, Jones has just compelled Smith into involuntary servitude; he is a slave to the will of Jones. If I am forced under threat of punitive action to mow my neighbor's lawn, then yes I am a slave. if I am forced under threat of punitive action to give you money, then yes I am a slave. I am serving your means involuntarily, whilst you are disposing of the product of my labor against my will. The draft is a very obvious form of slavery: "Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. "It negates man's fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time." AR Now that reminds me of the speech "What the Black Man Wants" by Frederick Douglass in 1865: "What is freedom? It is the right to choose one's own employment. Certainly it means that, if it means anything; and when any individual or combination of individuals undertakes to decide for any man when he shall work, where he shall work, at what he shall work, and for what he shall work, he or they practically reduce him to slavery. [Applause.] He is a slave. That I understand Gen. Banks to do—to determine for the so-called freedman, when, and where, and at what, and for how much he shall work, when he shall be punished, and by whom punished. It is absolute slavery. It defeats the beneficent intention of the Government, if it has beneficent intentions, in regards to the freedom of our people." Certainly, the draft is slavery, if it is anything.

I agree with Eiuol here. I would say ownership of humans has been abolished, and forced labor for the most part, but not slavery. If I lobby the Legislature for a law saying all people must say the Pledge of Allegiance at 8 AM every weekday, you are now my slave, as I have compelled you into involuntary servitude, the very definition of slavery. This does not change if I say "Keep financial records for tax purposes," "File a 1040," or "Register for the Draft."

In 2007 a group of G8 nations began a treaty-making process to create a new global standard for intellectual property rights enforcement. Dubbed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), signatory nations will form an international coalition against copyright infringement. This year, it is being negotiated in secret, and Freedom of Information Act requests have been denied by the Obama administration on the grounds that it contains "information that is properly classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." What is known about the act is that it contans a section on "Border Measures" which some have dubbed as "the Copyright Ghestapo" which will be empowered to perform warrantless searches and seizures of iPods, phones, laptops, and other digital devices at airports and borders of participating countries. Sources: http://www.aardvark.co.nz/daily/2008/0526.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterf...Trade_Agreement http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...c96ce5e&p=1 http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Pro...amp;oldid=29522 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews Reading the document from WikiLeaks.com, it includes authority to perform ex parte searches and provides "authority to seize and destroy IPR-infringing goods" and authority "to conduct random ex officio searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or 'ripped' music and movies. Travellers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed." In July 2008, the United States Department of Homeland Security disclosed that its border search policies allow US Customs and Border Protection agents to conduct random searches of electronic devices for "information concerning terrorism, narcotics smuggling, and other national security matters; alien admissibility; contraband including child pornography, monetary instruments, and information in violation of copyright or trademark laws; and evidence of embargo violations or other import or export control laws." It is already a fact that the US Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Flores-Montano and United States v. Montoya de Hernandez that the Fourth and Fifth Amendment don't apply to the borders of the United States, including ports of entry such as an airport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception And in United States v. Arnold, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that "reasonable suspicion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other electronic device at the international border." So if the Objectivist position is one upholding IP and copyright laws, does Objectivism support warrantless searches for copyrighted materal at borders, or otherwise? What is the Objectivist position on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is NOT the same thing Objectivists do. Doesn't Objectivism hold that your mind is fully competent to know the facts of reality and that we can not only dismiss the concept of a God or any of the other things you mentioned because they are arbitrary with no proof, but also because they are logical contradictions of the laws of nature, thus rejecting any form of agnosticism?

What exactly is wrong with this?

Did nobody notice the one of the latest episodes of Fox's Freedom Watch in which Judge Napolitano calls Yaron "the Prince of Libertarianism" then retracts it to "the Prince of the Free Market" afterward? It's just a fact that Yaron will get called a libertarian, a conservative, a liberal, a right-winger, a pro-choice secular anti-Christian progressive, or anything else you can think of by different people for different reasons. I still maintain that he should go on whatever shows will allow him to talk his piece with a modicum of professionalism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going on TV shows or doing intellecual forums, or panel discussions and hashing out the issues with consevatives and libertarians or anyone else (like this for example.) It's not sanctioning anything, unless you actually sanction something. I don't see how you could seriously make the connection of sanctioning something as litterally "Brook on Beck = sanction." Are you serious? It's only a sanction of X,Y, or Z if he sanctions it, not if he's in the same room as a person or simply talking to them or even agreeing with them on A, B, and C.

Since when is Thomas Sowell an Objectivist?

It is also pertinent to mention that the young lady is brainwashed by a Christian cult called the Global Revolution Church whose leader (which she met over Facebook.com) influenced her to run away because he believes in a coming war of Christians against Muslems. (Whilst one could also argue that there is another cult called Sharia that demands legal killings of all apostates by stoning.) I say allow the girl to be legally emancipated and let her make her own decisions, while protecting her rights.