Andrew Grathwohl

No, my precise definition of Zionism stems from a historical premise rather than a racial or religious one. What I meant to say was that there were a multitude of religions and groups that were killing other groups over their religious belief that the land was "theirs." Christians were Zionists when they attempted to retake the land of Israel during the various Crusades that allowed countless numbers of men to be slaughtered. These conflicts lasted for over 200 years! Muslims were also Zionists multiple times throughout history - even before the Christians took it over, they took it over from the Romans. The Romans took it over from the Jews, who had to also fight and kill for it to regain it from the Greeks, who took it from the Jews originally. There have been skirmishes and all-out wars fought since the dawn of time over this piece of land, and it doesn't begin or end with simply the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Also, to end, let me quote Mr. Brook himself:

Probably! When an economy needs a recession, it needs a recession. As witnessed by our overall economic crisis, the longer we hold out on a recession by abandoning free market principles, the worse the inevitable recession will be when it finally rears its ugly head. If California were to eliminate all welfare, it would likely be a miserable 5-10 years. But eventually they'd get over it...

Um what? He asked if it's better to make money based on the merits of one's own mental work instead of correctly investing in the minds of others. Why don't you take a look at what I quoted from him: The only useless thing here is your ridiculous attempts at trying to belittle me with your absurdities and superficial attacks, spurred by a disagreement you had with me in another thread. Why don't you grow up?

I would ask anybody who calls thievery a profession to check his premises. I'd also ask anybody who calls stock trading thievery to check his premises. Companies choose to go public and make shares of their company purchasable by the public. If you're producing something, without initiating force against another person, how could it possibly be immoral based merely upon the means of accomplishing this task?

I think the premise has intellectual merit, but we must remember at all times that it's not the "work" itself that is judged on any level of positive or negative, but rather how you do that work. There is nothing wrong with playing the stock market, or even being a garbage man, as long as you are doing it the right way, with the right results, and for the right reasons.

I'm sure the forum rules allow you to be an asshole, but you could help us all out by perhaps being justified in choosing to behave that way. I'm fully aware that Objectivism is not what Rand's characters did in her books, however, you'll have a tough time telling anybody that has read the book that his playing the stock exchange was an example of immoral behavior. She specifically uses this event in the character's time line to demonstrate how it was in fact quite the contrary. And the context behind his playing the stock market was of nothing incredibly unique, special, or significant. In fact, it was just his normal attempt in rising above and investing the money he'd made working at the copper plant, if I remember correctly, with the goal to ultimately purchase that plant for himself. What exactly about this story makes the OP's situation so distinct that the example couldn't apply? Anybody who's read Atlas Shrugged should be able to easily distinguish which aspects of Francisco d'Anconia's behaviors were moral to Ayn Rand's Objectivist code and which ones weren't. You're not even arguing a point here - you're just being a dick for the sake of being a dick. I'm not sure what precisely about my post makes it so much more prominently against the rules, when you will find an enormous percentage of all the posts here amounting to the theme of "What would Ayn Rand do?" when answering questions.

Francisco d'Anconia played the stock market to put himself through college. So, I'd say Ayn Rand saw nothing intrinsically wrong with the stock exchange. Also, I can't imagine on a more meaningful level what aspect of Objectivism would actually be against strategic ownership of a stake in a corporate entity...

Ayn Rand said often in interviews that the burden of proof was on the asserter of such ideas. If it cannot be objectively, rationally proven with real evidence, then it does not exist. This is also known as the axiom of existence, "Existence is identity" (part of the Objectivist viewpoint on objective reality). It is easy to see how this would contradict the existence of such a creature. If reasonable evidence is shown to back up such a claim of a mystical tyrant existing throughout the universe, then I suppose this would make the case otherwise. Also take note of a principle followed by Objectivists, which Aristotle is responsible for: A is A For these reasons, Ayn Rand was certain that a god doesn't exist.

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1917387.html Seems too good to be true...

If Germany were a free state, nobody like Hitler could have ever risen to power. You disagree with this? The point I intended to deliver was that even IF nuclear bombing Iran were in the defense of Israel, doing so would put us in a lot more danger than we were in before the fact. Your disgustingly childish inability to read my argument regarding the Treaty of Versailles as written, however, is a wonderful example of your hypocrisy. Once again, manipulating the conversation, and manipulating history. I never thought I'd see the day... After WWI, Germany was not a free nation, and fell under the rule of a dictator because of its high vulnerability. This is just history, man. We refused to hand the Shah over for trial to the Iranians, and they took hostages in response. We sanctioned Iran, and furthermore punished other nations and bodies of people who wished to make deals with Iran - we're perfectly within our right to do that. We just have to realize that doing this inevitably rises cost of living to an unsustainable level for the ordinary citizen, and causes huge deficiencies in modern technology and management, because Middle Eastern politics is highly irrational and idiotic. This realization is called being rational - something you are supposed to be in favor of. It should be something that the US expected to happen, and our inability to foresee this is largely why we have a huge mess on our hands. Feel free to place these concerns on the people getting sanctioned by us, but you do so at the risk of being highly unreasonable and unrealistic. It is extremely unrealistic, and not in our interest, to expect that the Iranians would just "sit there and take it" and that they would be able to manage their new problems introduced to them by us well. America should have expected her policies to result the ways they did. America should have foreseen the problems that have arisen. America should anticipate what types of strategies will bring what types of results. Like in Atlas Shrugged, sometimes we have to work to uphold the present situation because the rest of the world surrounding us is irrational. When it becomes too hard to bare, and when there is a formidable alternative system (which we do not possess in the US), we can begin to change things by means of protest and doing what is right. But making the decision as to when is key. If you do these things at the wrong times, then you are wrong.

The US should stop defending everybody! It's not just Israel - I assign no special ranking to Israel. They're just one nation in the group of "nations that aren't the United States" that I think we shouldn't be defending, giving subsidies to, etc. Look, "most Jews" aren't committing the violence and hatred caused by Zionism. A select few in the ivory towers are causing these problems, just as they always have been. Would you honestly believe, for example, that all the millions that died in the various crusades, died for a movement spurred by a collection of citizens? These battles were initiated by, and fought under the name of, the various religious rulers that were involved in the conflict. And remember, Zionism isn't limited to just Jews or the present State of Israel. The Christians and Muslims are also trying to take back the land that they think was divinely given to them. The fact is this: Israel is supposedly the religious home to Judeo-Christian thinking, so anybody who asserts themselves as followers of this sect of religion follows a religious text that says Israel is their homeland. And because of this, there will be Zionists in every imaginable sect of these religions, as there will always be this divinely inspired idea that they can kill and savagely plot against others who they think are in "their" homeland fraudulently. I cannot believe that I am being accused of being some sort of bigot when we here are all supposed to recognize the absurdities and irrationalities behind religion. Unbelievable...

Sorry, double post... see above.

Zionism, over a multitude of different cultures and religions, has indeed caused a huge number of deaths throughout the history of humanity. This ridiculous obsession between the various religious groups in getting back to their "fatherland" has resulted in the slaughterings, deaths, depravities, and worthlessnesses of an uncountable number of people - everything from the crusades to the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You must understand that Zionism does not refer to just Jews, nor does it refer to just the present nationalist Zionist movement of the past 60-70 years. It's been an ongoing problem since the original establishment of the Judeo-Christian code. People have been ruthlessly killing one another over this issue for hundreds of years! The Israeli government is treated like a step-child by the United States government, and has to rely on us for a significant amount of its resources, weapons, and military management. We undermine Israel's sovereignty by not allowing them sign agreements until the US agrees to their terms as well. Israel's existence, and general success as a nation, is based almost entirely on the US's sacrificial selflessness. If this is acting rational, then I will apologize and retract my statements. And again, for the last time, I say this coming from a Jewish background and having a number of close family members living in Israel presently. I have nothing irrationally against the Jews, or the right for Israel's existence as a nation. They took it and they won it - it's theirs. But I denounce their pretense to loot, mooch, and survive based on the merits of others, and also question the way in which the nation was first established by the UN. Surely, any nation who exists in this manner must be questioned? Also remember that my criticism can expand to a number of similarly-behaving countries around the world - I do not limit such criticisms to just the ones who happen to occupy the news these days.

I'd like to get some clarification on this... I will admit firsthand that I used to smoke pot almost every day, and drank on weekends. I've done, in the past, magic mushrooms (3 times), LSD (3 times), cocaine (once), and MDMA (twice). I've ceased all drugs except the drinking, and pot smoking, which is down to once or twice a month... just to give some upfront bias if any may remain. I think everyone here is in agreement that drugs should be legalized, but I wanted to find out if they are truly "moral" in the sense of the Objectivist code. It would seem to me that Ayn Rand would not find them moral because anything which alters the mind (that includes caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco) would be distorting the mind, and distorting the mind from being able to be rational and objective would ultimately be immoral. However, I read this quoted post above and it got me to thinking... If people who smoke pot are indeed after the "high", I'd like to see how this justification differs from Ayn Rand's views on sex. It is clear from what I've read about Ayn Rand's views on sex that she believes sex is no more than the body's highest ability to deliver pleasure, and that it should be done only for yourself, and not for your partner. So, the basis of understanding this here is derived from her belief that sex should be conducted in order that you get pleasure from your body, and for no other reason. The underlying moral principle that is applied to Ayn Rand's view on sex, it would seem, could certainly be applied to smoking marijuana. Both pot and sex can be abused, but both also have the potential to bring an unprecedented level of pleasureful feelings - in different ways, of course. Could it be reasonable to use the same justification Ms. Rand gives for sex as a basis of understanding the morality of smoking weed, or doing certain other drugs? By the way, I would run under the suspicion that it is immoral to be addicted to a drug, but that no drug in and of itself is immoral, the above being the case, until you're addicted to it. This would mean, however, that substances like cocaine, opium, and tobacco, have a much higher chance of being used immorally than weed or psychedelics. Just wanted to establish that final thought...

You do a great disservice to your argument by trying to associate my ideas with a negative label, and by your pathetically desperate attempts at labeling me. Look, I'm not an anti-Semite, as if that's even relevant to this discussion. I come from a Russian Jewish background, similar to Rand. I hate all religions equally, including that of my ancestors, believe me. APOC? Hah! You should call it what it really was - The British Petroleum Company. The British colonized the Iranian oil market, by contract, but did not hold up its end of that contract. It didn't aid in the building of schools and hospitals, it didn't provide the wages agreed to in the contract, and it didn't offer to attain a new contract or deal with the Iranians. It was incredibly irrational to want to nationalize their oil in lieu of some more capitalistic approach, but regardless, it was the British, not the Iranians, who disrespected a contractual agreement. I didn't say Iran attacked anybody - I can't think of any one instance when the Iranian government itself actually attacked the United States. I do know that the Iranian people held Americans hostage for 444 days, but that was because the US, by force, didn't allow the Iranians to try the Shah for the crimes he committed. I also know that some terrorist groups were given weapons by the Iranian government, which Israel and the US sold to Iran for cooperation with the Hezbollah hostages release back in '85. For this reason, I know that the United States and Israel enabled any attack that occurred from then on by people connected to the Iranian government. However, similar to a drunk driver, we must punish for the crime, and not the intent. The drunk driver must get prosecuted for hitting an innocent citizen - the fact that he was drunk was merely the reason for him committing the crime. Iran was the alcohol in the late 80s and early 90s terrorist attacks against US interests (and, of course, had nothing to do with 9/11). The problem is that the you're drawing an insane conclusion from a seemingly true premise, as you seem to think that if a foreign government is "tyrannical", this justifies other governments not only "retaliating" against them but invading entire foreign territories and waging total war against not only the foreign governments but the civilian populations. This is an absurd justification for initiating force against innocent bystanders. It also opens up a subjective can of worms in which different governments are treated as being better or worse relative to each other, and legitimizing otherwise illegitimate governments in the process. Apparently you have no qualms whatsoever with targeting entire civilian populations. You rationalize this by essentially saying that those within the "country" of the "bad guys" bear moral responsibility for what their government does. This is a blatantly collectivist viewpoint. Someone who just so happens to be born within the territory of a tyrannical government is not responsible for what some powerful men in an ivory tower do. Punishing people for the crimes of others is not justice, it's monstrously contradictory in nature. Blaming and exercising force on entire populations within a territory for the actions of their governments, which they essentially have no control over, is collective guilt. Objectivists are supposed to be the ultimate opponents of collectivism, yet when it comes to foreign policy you appear to be a die-hard collectivist, treating entire "nations" as bearing responsibility for the actions of a few powerful men within them. In your words, innocent bystanders can legitimately be murdered in the crossfire of conflicts between governments. The axiom of non-aggression applies to everyone but the individual within a tyrannous government, it seems? I wonder if the founders of the US overstepped the boundaries when trying to fight for themselves for their free society... I still cannot understand how this obligation to use retaliatory force should apply to Iran. And even so, I am amazed by the lack of consideration for the greater consequences associated with the actions preferred by some of the members here. None of you fear nuclear war waged against the US? None of you fear an economic disaster which will render your individual rights useless and void by our own government? None of you fear the consequences of our actions? Don't these tragedies far outweigh any possible successful outcomes associated with striking Iran at this very sensitive point in American history? The United States government hardly even suffices as a free nation anymore when looking beyond the surface - even guilty of many of the same crimes we rightfully consider the Iranians as being so despicable for committing - and yet I think many of the members here are strangely endowed with undeserved nationalism. I am not a pacifist; I fully supported the original US intent of going after the Taliban after September 11th, 2001. This wasn't even because I happened to survive these attacks, but because I completely understood that an identifiable group of people had committed an intrinsic crime against the US, and the US had an obligation to use retaliatory force against those responsible. The pacifist line is such a straw man argument, by the way. It is intellectually dishonest. I fully advocate self-defense. The problem is that what you advocate is not self-defense but pre-emptive force and outright initiations of aggression. The accusation that I advocate just sitting there and allowing oneself to be agitated by foreign entities is absurd. Your view is totally warped, as it is the America government that is agitating the average people within foreign territories. It is precisely those people, the people you favor attacking, who have the moral right of self-defense against both foreign invaders and their own tyrannous governments. The objectivist political doctrine is opposed to taxation. Yet your stance on currently existing issues fully support making use of tax-funded government institutions like the military. This is severely inconsistent, and very - very- contradictory. But while objectivism is supposed to be about objectivity and reason, consistency is not a word that describes your political doctrine. The word hypocrisy describes it much better. Ron Paul is no Objectivist. He's a paleolibertarian.

Israel is not a secular government. If you don't think that their main purpose is defined by their Zionist goals, then you're blind to their intents. And please, everyone, stop with the analogies. In no way is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict akin to a stupid man stepping off a cliff. These analogies highly belittle your arguments and are highly contradictory to Objectivist ways of thought. If we're going to deal in the real-world, in the rational and objective world of absolutes, then let's please remain there. These foolish analogies do no more than confuse those like myself who are trying to understand this concept and at the same time make you appear to not be all that conscious as to how Objectivism must be applied and debated.

We have heavily sanctioned Iraq and Iran for their prior instances of this. In the meantime, Iran has not threatened the individual rights of the citizens of the US. And I never said that any unfree nation deserves respect; my issue stems from the fact that the rest of the world thinks they do. I can only envision the rest of the world taking our first-strike on Iran as being so hostile and so wrong based on their flawed moral code that the resultant actions of other nations against us would be devastating. We are not the "greatest" country in the world anymore, and we cannot handle being in a war against the rest of the world. Israel is a mooching State which gets almost all of its power and funds from the US. It is a danger to be associated with Israel, as they do not think rationally, and their government, even in its best state, is not capable of thinking rationally (unlike the US, which can be brought back to a state of objective, rational structure). Their creation as a whole was based off of mooching from the international community, and the coercive actions of the UN. Israel is as much of a failure of a state as the rest of the countries on this planet, and is just as unjustifiably deadly in its actions. Additionally, their political goals are enormously religiously charged, as the government is based on the Jewish principle of Zionism, and this notion of Zionism has indeed caused millions of deaths over the years. The Israeli government is just as irrational as their neighbors' governments, only they have more power and money to get away with it. I think that the burden of proof lies on you with that one. The end of the American government? Please - I was there on 9/11. No government would nuke us - not even a powerful one. No terrorist organization has the ability to nuke us - they're not knowledgeable enough. I'm confident in America's national defense strength to that degree. If you aren't confident that America could circumvent a situation like this, then I'd say that you better check your premises as to why that event would be possible. Perhaps in a free society, the United States wouldn't have to worry about these things? I'd put the priority on the domestic United States to fix their own issues before we have to worry about the issues of others. Perhaps, then, there wouldn't be an issue to begin with. They go after the United States for a certain reason, and it's not because we're a predominantly Christian population. It's not because we're free and rich. If these were the reasons, they'd go after much easier targets than the United States! I meant that in the sense that all religions preach violence and non-retaliatory force. Islam is just the flavor of the month as far as violent religions are concerned. Perhaps we should have thought rationally before we overthrew an elected leader of a sovereign nation there and installed a political puppet of the United States CIA. Was that in our best interest? Iran was a democratic and free society after the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, and was one of the freest nations in the Middle East before the US and Britain tired of not having a forcefully imperial control over their oil. We are responsible for that region's transformation from a constitutional parliament-based system of government to a "Supreme Leader" form of rule. Perhaps Iran is at war with us for what they see as a perfectly justifiable reason. You'd think that more Objectivists would realize how it was not rational or in our self-interest to dictate the way a sovereign, constitutional country was run. Had we not done that, I think there's a good chance we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. Invading Iran would only be furthering our wrong position that we did nothing to spur their anger and hatred at us. If we pointed out the ways we've both wronged each other over the past 50-60 years, and came to an agreement which supported active trade and communication with that region, it's very possible that the next Iranian Revolution will be one in favor of our political system, rather than the one they utilize presently. I'm sure that Ayn Rand would not have approved of our forceful overthrowing of the peaceful, successful free government of Iran. The question is, why do some here seem to be OK with it, or simply ignore it? It is a severely relevant fact that needs to be taken into account when we discuss the best course of action against Iran, and I find very few are willing to bring themselves to the inevitable, conclusive fact that the United States was actually wrong for a change.

Nonsense. I've met plenty of big names in the Objectivist community who take a foreign policy position of non-interventionism. It must be said, additionally, that Libertarianism in the US takes most of its influence from the Objectivist way of thought. The classical liberalism / minarchist government models that most of them subscribe to come directly from Ayn Rand's ideas regarding the use of force by the State - that the only proper role of government is police, courts, and national defense. Beyond that, of course, there's the split in libertarianism - those who believe it for moral reasons, and those who believe it for practical reasons. My understanding is that my belief in the moral code of Objectivism and the principles of rational thought can lead me to agreeing with a minarchist government system. A lot of old-school Objectivists, I find, don't understand that they are libertarians, too. My thoughts, like yours, do not spawn from a populist/collectivist basis like that of Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater. They are formed by putting Ayn Rand's philosophy into practice. One other thing I'd like to mention is that I think it's horribly damaging to one's argument to say "Ayn Rand said ..." because she herself recognized that she wasn't infallible. I think it's a rejection of logic to take her written testimony on one foreign policy controversy and then translate that specific instance into a means of generally supporting some other specific instance. Nowhere in the Objectivist code (ethics, metaphysics, reason, politics, or aesthetics) does it definitively give an objective answer regarding this foreign policy that many here seem to prescribe to. The only mentioning of it by Rand without going into specific conflicts during the time when she was alive was in regards to the only moral force being retaliatory force. As has been shown, there has been no reason to attack Iran yet, because they have not directly threatened the individual rights of the citizens of the United States yet. Indeed, if Iran's government formally declared tomorrow "Death to America!" then there would be obvious and sufficient reason to engage in, as Mr. Odden said, informing Iran. But until then, we're sacrificing the blood and treasure of the United States with little to no gain, and also run the high risk of starting a much greater conflict than intended. As I said, if we were living in Galt's Gulch, the positions I hold would apply to a much different practical outcome. But we live in a world that doesn't even come close to achieving this, so I think that applying this type of logic without the appropriate contexts is a surefire way to destroy the few individual rights we have left.

So you support defending Israel? What exactly is so important about them that we must risk our standing in the world to protect them? With Israel gone, how much worse off could we possibly be? I didn't mean to imply that any Objectivist would support subsidy of Israel. My apologies if that's how it came off. Well, wouldn't one need to factor in what a travesty it would be if we were to bomb another country like that in the present state? Wouldn't that overall influence a decision as to whether it was the right or wrong thing to do? Nuclear bombing would probably be just as ruthless and aimless as suicide bombing, no? I understand the "enemy", but the "enemy" as you describe them in the Nick Berg incident is not Iran. I find it highly unlikely that Iran will bomb Israel. These people live in a third world nation! How could they possibly do any harm to a country which has arguably one of the best defenses in the world and has some of the most sophisticated anti-missile and anti-nuclear technologies on the planet? I must repeat that I take strong opposition to pacifism, because that's just as bad as neoconservative warmongering. However, I fail to see much of a distinction, still, between the neoconservative foreign policy and the one that some here subscribe to. I see the one here being a bit more logical in nature, and still approves with the basic premise that it's in our interest to tell other countries how to live when we cannot even make our own country run properly (notwithstanding, however, your comments above, which I cannot dissect to find any suggestions on how to move forward in the real world). I agree that government should use force in retaliation for the initiation of force, but we haven't gotten there yet, and probably never will. We can still take a proactive approach to this, but perhaps without the violence. What if we actually talk to Iran and work something out? What about trade agreements and peace treaties? There's no reason why we cannot take advantage of their oil, while they take advantage of our management skills and technologies. Trading with Iran would probably accomplish what war games could never accomplish. Even though Iran is wrong, what's the harm in taking this approach? Maybe they don't deserve it - but do we deserve the opportunity to have as many friends as we do? Hardly... it is in our interest to not have enemies, and to benefit from one another's specializations. If we take an economic approach to this, we would be much more profitable if we gained something from the Iranians, rather than waste human lives, the people's money, and lots of valuable time, trying to take down a stubborn and powerful Islamic regime in one of the most powerful countries in the MENA region. Wouldn't that be acting rationally?

I see your point. I think that the results of a nuclear-first strike on Iran would result on US not even being able to drink Coca-Cola. I think it would be the start of a new era of massive death and destruction. "Tactical precision bombings" have already been performed by Mr. Obama with a severely high ratio of innocents killed in Pakistan. Unfortunately, not even precise bombings get away with killing zero innocents. Not that I disagree with tactical precision bombings as a premise, but how they've been used recently hasn't been very effective in doing anything but pissing off Pakistanis even further.

I don't think Iran is a free nation - I think it's a sovereign nation. Your proxy war comment is interesting, but I can't help but draw similarities to the foreign policy we follow now. Would it be rational for Israel to attack the United States just because we also fund their enemies with subsidies and weapons? I'm not attempting to disprove your point, rather, I want to understand it better. Frankly I don't believe we should be subsidizing anybody, let alone Israel and her enemies, but I would imagine that a lot more wars would have been brought upon us already by now if this proxy war idea were such an effective justification for war. I think that you may underestimate Iran's importance to some powerful nations in the world, and certainly the Saudis and others who we unfortunately depend on for natural resources would be outraged. Also, a nuclear strike on Iran would likely incite hatred from more than just the French; the entire WORLD would hate us for it. I can't honestly ever think of a time when a nuclear weapon would be in our self-interest, as we should likely want to only defeat our enemy - not all of the helpless brats and monsters they hold in their ideological jails. My apologies, but I thought everything we've been discussing was in terms based on reality and grounded in objectivity. I was under the impressions that make-believes made the burden of proof on the make-believer. To clarify: I am talking about a real-world foreign policy, not a world in which local regime change would ever happen in any time conducive to a nuclear-first strike against a Middle Eastern country in the near future! I understand your point of view regarding the relationship between Islam and the violence their believers engage in, but I find this nothing more than consequential of the times in which we live. If we were looking back a couple centuries ago, the "quite violent and dangerous" sect of religious nuts would have been the Christians, indeed. It's all relative to what positions certain religious groups are in at the time. Islam is just the violent religion of choice at the moment, but some would also say the Jews are getting up there as well, and there will most certainly be a new religion of violence in future times. Also, because we're supposed to be running under this objective, realistic premise, it would probably be best to treat our enemies the same way by not stooping down to their level and basing their characteristics on which absurd and ridiculous version of the same nonsense they choose to follow and swear their miserable, worthless lives to. I only say this based on my interpretations of what I've read from Ayn Rand, and from what I've studied as an Objectivist. I hope I can continue this dialog peacefully from now on in order to learn and grow more, and I thank you, Mr. Odden, for being so helpful in this respect.

I would disagree with your assessment on the reasons for Hitler's uprising. A lot of Hitler's rise had to do with the general vulnerability of the country because of the harsh conditions the Treaty of Versailles put them under. But this is merely history, and the greater point at hand is what I'd like to discuss. I understand that Hitler's rise, Stalin's mass killings, and Communism's expansion into Eastern Europe, are all bad things, but I hate to say that I don't see the relevance to the rational interests of the United States when you mention these things. You make it seem to me that you're resorting to fear mongering with slightly baseless threats utilizing frightful images of past history as your defense. I'd like to know how any of these examples you've provided are rationally in our interest to intervene in. Could it not be possible that certain countries' immoral interventions were legitimate causes for these examples you provide? I think it would be unfair to judge history as if the cause and result could only be one way and not other. Why couldn't it be said that our selfless sacrifices in a time previous to the ones you mention had to do with the problems we faced back then? After all, I think history shows that the selfless US involvement in WWI was a pretty significant factor for all three historic events you mention. I think that the teachings of Islam had something to do with it, sure, but only on the level at any religious person is affected by their religious thoughts. The religious people within our own government (a Mr. George W. Bush, perhaps?) also made some pretty fucking stupid decisions with suspiciously religious justifications - I don't think it's fair to assess it merely based on this, as I find a lot me people than just Muslims are guilty of this accusation, and we don't go tearing down other parts of the world for acting on their religious beliefs as we do in the Middle East. Yes, I disagree with this statement because surely Islam had an affect on these people, but as I said earlier, I see no connection between the Barbary Wars, the Iranian Revolution, and 9/11 in the context of attacking Iran. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, and the Iranian Revolution was GREATLY influenced by our overthrowing of Mossadeqh in the 1950s, and the Barbary Wars were engaged by thugs who happened to be from the MENA region, who may or may not have been motivated by much more than mere religious beliefs (people often justify with religion, as history shows, contrary to the popular belief that people are motivated by it). I absolutely agree that using force in self-defense is moral. But again, I don't find this reason valid as I don't think we'd be defending ourselves against anything unless the Iranian government attacks the United States before we initialized our strike against them. It should be noted that we have already put STRINGENT sanctions on Iran, which causes them a great deal of economic harm and causes a lot of lives to be lost each year in the country. Considering our sanctions have caused the airline industry in Iran ALONE to be in the gutter, that would account for over 1,500 lives right there. When then compounding that with the ever-present fact that the ability to sustain life in Iran is at times nearly impossible, it is quite clear that US policies against the Iranians have killed a lot more of them than they have of us. I think these sanctions are justified, but we need to be careful because it's quite likely that this is resulting in a lot of hate being directed towards us, since the average immoral Iranian doesn't have anything to do with the extremists who attacked us so many decades ago in Lebanon. Completely agree. Again, I don't find this statement relevant, as no Iranian government has initiated force against the United States yet to warrant any action. Any force that has been brought against us has surely been dealt with by the ever-tightening sanctions against that country, which causes a lot more deaths in that region than most here clearly think. Your wording confuses me. If you mean by this, that the government is the only one able to initiate retaliatory force against another country, then I 100% agree with you. Nope, that's quite an agreeable statement. I would check your premises, however, about the way in which our government protects our individual rights. If our goal in Iran is not altruistic, then the only alternative is that it's reckless and counterproductive. I'd be more specific in answering this by saying yes, assuming you mean that this is a single initiation of force that hasn't already happened yet. I think that our actions taken against the Iranians for prior events that the Iranian government had questionable amounts of relationship to have been sufficient. I'm absolutely not a pacifist, and pacifism doesn't get anybody anywhere. I don't doubt the history you provided. I simply believe that you're not taking into account what we've already done to Iran because of these incidents. I mean, we did a pretty big number on them without even having to lift a finger militarily. I think that was a very wise and rational thing for this government to do. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act was passed completely under US Congress approval without any force via the UN, and was almost too effective in punishing Iran - surely, we've caused the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iranians due to our economic and trade sanctions placed on them. If they attack us, which they would probably never do, then that would surely mean that they haven't learned their lesson and that further action would be necessary - most likely in the form of military attack. And besides, why not just go after the Islamic Jihad group? That's a pretty loose and nondescript connection to Iran you've provided - I'd be pretty logically offended, after all, if somebody attacked the United States due to aggression brought upon them by Israel, or Canada, or Mexico... I don't care about the Americans, nor the Jews. I happen to be both (rather, I come from Jewish blood, as did Ayn Rand), but I don't care about those roots. I care about myself, and I only think about myself when I think about the situation at hand. If I were thinking about the nation as a whole, or about the "feelings" of the Iranian people, I would most certainly have a far different opinion on this matter. But if I were to be doing this, I'd be rejecting the very doctrine of selfishness that defines the Objectivist movement! As I think I've shown, I find that doing the things you guys are supporting would put me into a more dangerous position - it would make me less safe, and I suspect that it would make all of you less safe too.

Fine, one by one... I've already pointed out my objection to the quote of proof you provided. I would love further explanation as to how you could correlate Ms. Rand's descriptions with the present situation in Iran. I understand the justification a nation could get by liberating an enslaved nation if it is justified in doing so and if it's not done selflessly, however I don't feel this applies to the current conflict. The US is hardly justified by any means because it A) is in no financial position to do so; could not possibly achieve success without other gigantic consequences and; C) doing so would result in making us less free. I don't think Iran is any threat to us - they're a third world country which couldn't do any harm to the US without significant improvements in their own conditions overnight. I think that an alliance with Israel is beneficial, although as another poster said, we live in the present, not in the past, I don't think many foreign nations deserve much of our attention these days. I find that an attack against Iran would be mostly to fulfill a selfless obligation to Israel, as surely we could survive without their friendship? Whereas if we actually did attack Iran, the possibilities for failure are nearly endless, and it would result in, most minutely, severely poor economic and domestic security, and most grandly, warfare emanating from other regions against us in retaliation of our recklessness. I am fully aware that Objectivism doesn't support taxation, but you must be aware that if we were to bomb Iran tomorrow, or any time in the distant future, it would be done on the American peoples' dollar, right? I think that the financial disaster that would result from a third major conflict arising at the present time would be much more devastating than any possible positive that such warfare could bring about, and again, I see these positives as being slim to most likely none. Don't give the other vile religions too much credit... see these Old and New Testament passages about holy war: I think it is understandable, but wrong, to suggest that Islam teaches anything more violently than any other religion. You'll find this kind of nonsense too in Eastern religions - in any faith that preaches the slavery to an intergalactic metaphysical dictator. And, am I wrong to believe that this position can be found in the teachings of Ayn Rand? I found Mr. Odden's answers simply a more well-worded version of the other poster's answers, but I've done as you've asked. I don't think you're in any position to judge my emotional stability. I am not here to scold - I find community in this board and wish to learn more. I already get gratification from my feelings, so there's no need for me to express them as you assume. My solution would involve a formal apology to those this country has fraudulently hurt, to write peace treaties with those countries who deserve them, and to ultimately get out of the way of the entire Middle East as a country and as an occupier. I find that occupation is the number one cause for general Islamist hatred of the United States, no matter how vile I find these people and governments irrespective of this. I think that trade and talking can accomplish a lot more than the barrel of a gun ever can, and think that our differences are still reconcilable with many of these nations. But what's most important is that I don't think we can pursue ANY of these endeavors without first fixing our issues domestically. I think that the American people should not be paying (yes, paying, because there's no way we could wage a war otherwise currently) for additional warfare until we get the government out of the lives of the people here and end the nanny state of looters we presently face in the US. If you wish to ignore me, you do so at your own loss, not mine. Don't think you're getting an ounce of resentment or feeling of failure out of me. As far as I'm concerned, your "logic" is poison anyway. I think Iran is nothing more than a little kid knowing that if he keeps stirring trouble he can get what he wants. Also, we could just simply choose to leave the room we're in if you're going to use that analogy. Why not get out of the game of Middle Eastern politics? Perhaps if we were better trained to deal with madmen (i.e. better prepared domestically as a nation) we would have the authority to intervene. But, honestly, I don't think we are at the moment, and I don't think we will be in a long time, if ever.

I appreciate that lecture given by Dr. Brook - it was very insightful, but because I can't ask him questions, I'd like to reiterate my thoughts to you guys. I'd say that by almost all definitions, I'm a pretty good example of an objectivist. Having read pretty much every non-fiction book of Ayn Rand's, and every fiction book, I think I have a reasonable grounding in terms of what I believe is objectively and rationally correct in terms of applying the objectivist moral code to present issues. However, I cannot still understand the foreign policy position that Mr. Brook takes. I cannot see how it is in our self-interest to initiate first-strike attacks against Iran. As far as I've seen it, we were the first aggressors when we overthrew Mosadeqh in the 1950s. I see the Iranian Revolution as having occurred due to resentment against the US caused by influential parties, having had hatred inflicted upon them by our foreign policy actions, coercing the people of Iran to think that way. I see the war in Iraq as having further angered them. I see the enormous irony in now supporting the Iranian sect of Islam after opposing them for decades in order to appease the US friendship with Saddam Hussein. And I see all of this irony and nonsense as having derived from truly unreasonable, non-objective actions that were not in the best interest of this country. Furthermore, I contest the very notion that we could in any way bring down a sovereign nation's government without being either forced to occupy that nation, or instead suffer vehement resentment from very powerful countries that would attack us in retaliation, causing us to be involved in a much more severe conflict than we anticipated. I remember hearing people say that Iraq would be a cakewalk, and that we'd be done with it in a few months - now, those same very people are heading the movement intending to strike Iran. I see the results of attacking Iran as being an enormously catastrophic event, which would never be in our self-interest. I see no conceivable way that we could retrofit an attack in Iran to being in our self-interest, as I see any possible action we take against this government (and similar ones) as ultimately ending in inevitable failure. As the objectivist would gladly leave the citizens of his own country alone, I feel the same must be pursued in the global sense. I understand that Ayn Rand advocated military action against the soviet Russia and Cuba, but I still don't find that she herself understood the level at which the United States government was defying the very wonderful principles that she purported. I don't at all consider the United States a free nation, and comparing us to other countries doesn't do anything to validate any point against that. Sadly, Mexico does not prove that we are a free nation - it merely proves that Mexico is a less free nation than us. But I truly find that Ayn Rand spoke of a free nation in regards to how the United States SHOULD BE - not how it actually is. I don't find that any quasi-free nation such as the US could find any objective justification to get involved in the affairs of others when it cannot even manage the affairs of its own domestic blunders. I am having immense amounts of trouble understanding how we could treat an entire region of this world in such a collectivist manner, affirming and backing up our foreign policy decisions by referencing events that happened long ago, performed by people who had no connection to the present players involved, and often times involved in completely different sects of the Muslim faith. I would never call any of these religious people moral (nor any of them that live in countries like Iran and Iraq), but I know that Ayn Rand would never allow a government to force amoral people into thinking differently at the barrel of a gun. I know that she knows that this type of action, no matter how poorly Dr. Brook asserts it has been pulled off, is precisely why we keep on fueling the Iranians and the Saudi people to think so viciously and violently of us. I also see the irony in how we despise the way that religious folk pervert their morals into collectivist ways of thought, but then turn around and think in the same perverted manner of others across the globe. This type of thinking - the type of thinking not focused on the individual - is precisely what gets anybody into trouble, and the United States is no exception! I am desperately trying to understand how so many of you could advocate a position different from mine, because now I am getting the idea that so many leading figures in Objectivism have horribly distorted the beautiful message Ayn Rand taught us to cheaply advocate for, and justify in the guise of objectivity and rationality, a foreign policy of barbarianism and caveman brutality. I truly believe I am thinking in the self-interest of this country when I think that Dr. Brook's foreign policy would be horribly damaging to this country. I feel no selfless feelings for the monsters living under the totalitarian regimes of the radical Islamist countries in the MENA region - I speak only in what I believe to be the objective self-interest of my own safety and the safety of my country, when I say that it would be absolutely foolish to advocate the policies that Dr. Brooks advocates. So please, I ask again, can somebody help me out here? I need to understand how this works.

Hah! I set some relevant information in my profile, thanks for letting me know about it. So now you can feel free to wish me a happy birthday in about 5 months... Connecticut is alright - it used to be quite great, but now the State of Connecticut is the largest employer in the entire state. Things are going pretty downhill here, as seems to be the trend across the country, sadly. Oh well - who is John Galt? At least it's still pretty...