Mister A

When Bernanke and Geithner's policies bring us to third world status, I wonder if dropping their names would also function as a 'magic bullet' in an argument over Keynesian economics. Not likely.

They are not "open to it". Deep down, it's exactly what they want as long as the innocents being murdered are groups they don't like. They see government as essentially a huge gun with rival tribes competing to control it. When you have a huge gun pointed at everybody's head, why bother with syllogisms?

Where did this meme come from? Nathanial Branden? There is no dichotomy between reason and emotion; they are meant to be complementary.

I wouldn't waste my time. You're dealing with someone who voluntarily shut down his own mind and any attempt to nudge it back into operation will only make him resentful and humiliated. You're better off sharing the info in this thread to audiences who are not similarly self-handicapped.

Actually, an evader would at least have a dim, subconscious awareness of the danger posed by the gorilla but will imperiously demand for someone else to get mauled to death in his stead (i.e. "You will do something Rearden"). I believe evasion may occur whenever you deal with something in which you are deeply invested on an emotional level. To critcally examine the subject of the evasion can lead to a paradigm shift that an invested psyche could not withstand. There is such a thing as 'benevolent' evasion. The perfect example is Henry Rearden's refusal to recognize the true nature of his wife and that he will have to abandon his mills to triumph over the looters.

I'd say the motivating factors for such barbarism are profound alienation and hopelessness and antisocial ideologies like Islam serve as validation for acting out on this negativity.

That's the problem: people unable or refusing to identify their own behavior.

Care to elaborate? Bashed in a skull yourself?

*Sigh* You hint at having sympathy (even admiration) for Nazis and indifference to their atrocities while sanctimoniously lecturing us over a movie and questioning our fidelity to your perception of Objectivism. Not saying you're a closet-Nazi or anything but this is typical troll behavior.

Some advice: If you're going to speculate on the sinister motivations that resides in anybody's subconscious, you should at least avoid writing relativistic stuff like the above quote.

I just thought of a similar hypothetical that may be less obnoxious: Suppose there is a fatal virus that can potentially kill billions. An infant boy is discovered to be the only one immune. However, the only way to produce a vaccine is to harvest the boy's heart and kill him. Granted, this is just as extreme and unlikely (and probably contradictory to what we can do with modern medicine) but at least there are no faulty metaphysical premises like time travel, determinism and omniscience.

The Joker meme is disturbingly accurate. The way he agitates divisiveness and political violence reminds me of the boat scene from Dark Knight.

There is no such thing as legitimate single party rule especially if the people voted for it. Dictatorships are not the product of parties but collectives that are mindlessly uncritical by definition.

C&C Red Alert was a good game

Hey, this cat proposed a ridiculous scenario with the intent of exposing a supposed loophole in O-ism and then got huffy and condescending when the other posters wouldn't indulge him. You reap what you sow.

I speculate that 007 here is mulling over acting out some anti-social fantasy and is seeking philosophical sanction.

Indeed. What the OP's question dodges (among other things) is the nature of dictatorship; it's not the product of a single charismatic leader or even a cabal of thugs but rather a general populace that has morally and philosophically degenerated. The actual role of the dictator is to serve as a rallying point and enabler for the majority's evil impulses and that is what makes him interchangeable as long as there is someone around who is charismatic and vicious enough to play the part. Hence, the effective prevention of a fascist Germany would necessitate the murder of millions of Germans instead of one.

What's your problem? His point was obviously that authoritarians are indifferent to accomplishing objectives and this tends to manifest in incoherent, contradictory directives with no thought behind them. A perfect real-world example is Obama's health care plan.

I'm still mulling over whether or not Toohey is more evil than Jim Taggart. I admit I haven't yet read FH but from what I gather from other sources, Toohey could grasp the way reality worked and used this knowledge to make long-range plans in pursuit of a definite -but evil- goal. Taggart not only resented reality but also his own mind for perceiving it. He was basically a sentient mass of cancer cells that had no ambition other than to gloat over a mountain of corpses before starving to death. But I guess there is no real difference between the two villains other than the levels of disgust they inspire.

That was 2 days ago.

As hilariously over-the-top as this scenario is, it's not too far off the mark from what drones like Jill actually want deep down: association with (or becoming) an amorphous, omnipotent entity unbound by the limitations of reality that decides who lives or dies through the power of wish-fulfillment. They would just rationalize that the father is a selfish, anti-social misfit unjustly hoarding medicine that belongs to the whole of the tribe but to none of its members.

I would accept that explanation if the sentiment wasn't so commonplace. The majority of evil people are actually too cowardly to directly harm anyone; preferring instead to exploit moral equivalence to enable victimizers and disarm victims.

When private healthcare can't compete it's the same effect as heavy-handed banning, just 'nicer'.

What about those who seek to control or harm others for its own sake? Acting out fantasies of omnipotence?

That brings up the question what specific 'successes' are sought when one employs irrationality to obtain them. It seems that those who are consistently irrational have a severely stunted perspective that is limited to the personal, visceral and immediate; there is no empathy (or empathy is selective) or foresight. When an irrational claims to work towards a noble, long-range goal it tends to be an affectation meant to deceive others and himself.