ZSorenson

This is the weakest link. Developing Asia puts so much of their would-be savings in American debt because they lack critical financial infrastructure. And that's only the beginning of their problems.

A lot of growth in China for example is fueled by government policy (not optimal investment), including monetary manipulations. Plus, a lot of the excess savings come from selling to America.

America is far and away the high-tech powerhouse in the world. Fareed Zakaria, even, in his book called The Post-American World, concedes that the upper level higher technical education occurs overwhelmingly in America.

This isn't good news for the 25% poorest in America, but is bad news for the 75% poorest in China.

Peter Schiff makes the same mistakes as other economists by not looking far enough beyond the 'status quo'. In this case there's this assumption that Asia is some miracle. It's not. It has a high population, and is 'behind' the industrialized world. It's capitalizing, that's all. And it's capitilizing so that American can by consumer goods at a discount. In other words, we're paying for their miracle (and then they don't have anywhere to put the savings gained by lower-than-American-wages-workers except into our debt). All it has to do is capitalize up to the levels of the West, and its magic growth will freeze. And it won't be able to reach that point as Communist. I can't even imagine the level of malinvestment in China, let alone the ongoing cultural implications of a dependence society (no matter what number have the entrepreneurial spirit).

Of course, America only has until Gen X reaches levels of upper management (20-30 more years), until we've completely lost our edge. By then, I predict a good percentage of our skilled labor will be people comfortable moving back to native India, or Korea, etc.

If America drops the Wagner act and the minimum wage, fixes Social Security and Medicare to flow like a leaky faucet, abolishes the income tax (who cares what replaces it - so long as it isn't VAT), repeals all drilling and energy production bans, and goes back to the days before the Federal Reserve system, then in less than a decade I'd predict we'd storm FAR ahead of anybody else.

In terms of 'cultural infrastructure': we'd have to introduce school choice, as well as end federal grants - totally - in the education system. Art, science, medicine, only 'depend' on federal dollars because we've created them too. And that 'dependence' breeds a lot of art, science, and medicine that doesn't optimally benefit the economy.

And if the economy is bad enough, all that will happen. Short of being 'that bad', I can't see how anyone else would move ahead of the US - unless they too liberalized.

And that's where Objectivism comes in. America's 'edge' is built out of its government's history economic laissez-faire policies, and the frontier ethic of its people. This ethic means: a population forced to accept reality. If someone else can do that, then that's where the economy will thrive.

But who will do that? Japan - until recently the 2nd largest economy - succeeded because they worked really really hard, and that hard work was spent copying the lessons learned by the American 'cowboys'. China has many times over the population of Japan, so only a small portion of it needs to industrialize to overtake Japan. There's no recipe for success there, in the long run.

But the world was destroyed economically in the 1940's, and since then there are three economic stories: 1) Rebuilding (only lasts so long) 2) A little technology (computers, barcodes, shipping containers) 3) Billions of people living in collectivism, conquered by the West, forced to learn its legal institutions, liberated from Imperialism for a couple of decades (before the institutions are unlearned).

So what we need is a return to the 1820-1920 era of American economic policy. That's what 'made' the industrial revoultion.

But returning to that period means returning to a time when people didn't think about certain things. These economic/social concepts, of the 20th century, have to be rejected in order to have long-term global economic health:

- Economic Equality
-'We're all in it together' protectionism (there is no 'guardian' of the market, just a referee)
- The idea that nobody is ever supposed to suffer in society.
- The presumption that man has some God-like ability to know and impose a moral order of some kind on his fellow man.

**That's my opinion, and I don't count as an official Objectivist. Objectivism as a philosophy would offer the idea, I think, that knowledge, therefore morality and volition, are possessed ONLY on an individual level. So politically AND economically, the whole concept of 'social policy' is contradictory to man's nature. There's no good 'social order' he can establish over others, and there's no economic way for it to work. So you need to reject 'social policy'. Man can only destroy himself, or other men, if he tries something like that.

I think that the 1940's, imperialism before that, and the millenia of barbarians and warlords before that destroyed mankind's productive success much MORE than modern liberal democratic 'social policy', and so the latter appears to have been successful. But we're finding out that it isn't in the long run. We've never bothered to see if laissez-faire works, because we concluded that it wasn't fit due to its lack of a controllable 'social policy'.

Also, Objectivist epistemology has a lot to offer economic science. I happen to think that the poor do not, in fact, have their 'share' of wealth distributed to the rich. Instead, their 'share' is distributed to the future, where everyone is richer.

This future involves inventions that change the productivity of the economy in a way that is not expressed in the present-day total 'share'. Objectivism fundametally understands the open-ended nature of concepts, and can therefore 'handle' epistemologically the idea that a share of wealth today can corresponding to a greater share of wealth tommorrow - even when today's 'share' is 'distributed' to the 'rich'.

Austrian economics fails to 1)Reject the political idea of social policy and 2)Properly conceptualize wealth creation (through induction it arrives at the proper conclusion, but fails to provide an epistemological basis, hence the inability to reject social policy).

That's a Sunday night for you. Apologies for the disorganization. I can't really see how this fits together coherently. It's just a bunch of ideas relevant to the topic, listed one after the other. Use what is interesting or useful, and do not worry about the rest.

I get it!

I see my arguments are being ignored while people go on to continue discussing issues I've challenged as if I haven't. I've been accused of incoherence, and then organized my thoughts quite clearly. Next, my posts have been called walls of text, that are "unreadable". So I will make these points again, and briefly, since my other posts are more comprehensive. If I'm being redundant, it's only because I have been given evidence that people have not actually read the substance of my posts, so I'm acting as if I've not said them.

Principle 1:

There are no givens in human behavior. If a person chooses to violate your rights, your only option is to deal with it. Hopefully, you'll be in a situation where your rationality will give you an advantage over their irrationality.

So, if the population you live within (since 'society' doesn't exist, and is 'only a concept'), wants to take your money, they will. Your ability to produce better guns is what might stop them.

Principle 2:

There is a point after which you would decide to deal with other men like men, rather than like beasts. This is when the population you live within generally holds reason as the proper means of interaction between men.

If these people want to steal the gains you produce, you would have good cause to rebel against them. If they find such actions illegitimate, and agree with you that rational men should not use force against each other, then you should return the favor and not use force against them.

Principle 3:

Reason is the process by which a man judges how he should interact with other men. Reason is a process that occurs in the mind of an individual man. Free trade acknowledges that this process can and does reach different outcomes depending on the man. This includes different outcomes concerning the proper times and means of the use of legimiate retaliatory force.

If you are treating men as men, and not beasts, your judgments about the use of retaliatory force in your interactions with them must be based on a common standard that is known to all so that all may rationally plan their actions around that standard. Otherwise, you reject the rationality of man. Because men cannot think collectively, consensus as an epistemological process must be employed to determine the standard for the use of force.



A man cannot hold to his own personal standard for the use of force, if he is to treat those with whom he interacts as rational men. By personal standard, I do not mean the fudamental ethical standard of initiation vs. retaliation. By all means, if his neighbors reject that standard, a man should rebel against them. I refer to what constitutes initiation of force, and what the proper retaliation should be, and by whom. So, by no means can the consensus legimately decide that your economic gains should be their property for their needs. That misses the point.

I see my arguments are being ignored while people go on to continue discussing issues I've challenged as if I haven't. I've been accused of incoherence, and then organized my thoughts quite clearly. Next, my posts have been called walls of text, that are "unreadable". So I will make these points again, and briefly, since my other posts are more comprehensive. If I'm being redundant, it's only because I have been given evidence that people have not actually read the substance of my posts, so I'm acting as if I've not said them.

Principle 1:

There are no givens in human behavior. If a person chooses to violate your rights, your only option is to deal with it. Hopefully, you'll be in a situation where your rationality will give you an advantage over their irrationality.

So, if the population you live within (since 'society' doesn't exist, and is 'only a concept'), wants to take your money, they will. Your ability to produce better guns is what might stop them.

Principle 2:

There is a point after which you would decide to deal with other men like men, rather than like beasts. This is when the population you live within generally holds reason as the proper means of interaction between men.

If these people want to steal the gains you produce, you would have good cause to rebel against them. If they find such actions illegitimate, and agree with you that rational men should not use force against each other, then you should return the favor and not use force against them.

Principle 3:

Reason is the process by which a man judges how he should interact with other men. Reason is a process that occurs in the mind of an individual man. Free trade acknowledges that this process can and does reach different outcomes depending on the man. This includes different outcomes concerning the proper times and means of the use of legimiate retaliatory force.

If you are treating men as men, and not beasts, your judgments about the use of retaliatory force in your interactions with them must be based on a common standard that is known to all so that all may rationally plan their actions around that standard. Otherwise, you reject the rationality of man. Because men cannot think collectively, consensus as an epistemological process must be employed to determine the standard for the use of force.



A man cannot hold to his own personal standard for the use of force, if he is to treat those with whom he interacts as rational men. By personal standard, I do not mean the fudamental ethical standard of initiation vs. retaliation. By all means, if his neighbors reject that standard, a man should rebel against them. I refer to what constitutes initiation of force, and what the proper retaliation should be, and by whom. So, by no means can the consensus legimately decide that your economic gains should be their property for their needs. That misses the point.

I watched Beck today for a few minutes.

He went into a fair amount of pseudoMormon doctrine. Hell, he even told everyone to pay their tithing (I know ftw)?

He's declared the Tea Party to be the third great awakening. He's basically insisting that this is going to be about God. That's not an endorsable aspiration.

However as a religionist, he seems firmly convinced that religion means personal faith and personal salvation. Mormonism holds that knowledge is necessary for salvation. What knowledge, you ask? Good question, the answer is what makes Mormonism a total crock. But there is nevertheless an appeal to individual accountability for acquiring knowledge and for making choices. Glenn Beck is trying to force out any other interpretation of religion from the public sphere. Interpretations that include collective salvation and social justice.

Religionists don't rely on solid evidence to construct their concepts. As a result they are more 'flexible' than academics. This has obvious drawbacks, but I have come to conclude that it gives religionists - particularly in American society - a phenomenal advantage in their inductive reasoning over the Left. Yes, they employ too many pseudo concepts - but this allows them to employ a broader inductive process.

That's why they know that individual knowledge and choice is important, but they don't know why exactly. That's what Beck is appealing to: the reason they don't know they have.

I don't like Beck's movement, but I'm happy about the possibility of it driving back Obama's. And this isn't a point about the lesser of two evils. I think we can hope that Beck will be influenced to identify the role of reason in his message. Or someone. Because we can't convince these people to give up God.

This is the weakest link. Developing Asia puts so much of their would-be savings in American debt because they lack critical financial infrastructure. And that's only the beginning of their problems.

A lot of growth in China for example is fueled by government policy (not optimal investment), including monetary manipulations. Plus, a lot of the excess savings come from selling to America.

America is far and away the high-tech powerhouse in the world. Fareed Zakaria, even, in his book called The Post-American World, concedes that the upper level higher technical education occurs overwhelmingly in America.

This isn't good news for the 25% poorest in America, but is bad news for the 75% poorest in China.

Peter Schiff makes the same mistakes as other economists by not looking far enough beyond the 'status quo'. In this case there's this assumption that Asia is some miracle. It's not. It has a high population, and is 'behind' the industrialized world. It's capitalizing, that's all. And it's capitilizing so that American can by consumer goods at a discount. In other words, we're paying for their miracle (and then they don't have anywhere to put the savings gained by lower-than-American-wages-workers except into our debt). All it has to do is capitalize up to the levels of the West, and its magic growth will freeze. And it won't be able to reach that point as Communist. I can't even imagine the level of malinvestment in China, let alone the ongoing cultural implications of a dependence society (no matter what number have the entrepreneurial spirit).

Of course, America only has until Gen X reaches levels of upper management (20-30 more years), until we've completely lost our edge. By then, I predict a good percentage of our skilled labor will be people comfortable moving back to native India, or Korea, etc.

If America drops the Wagner act and the minimum wage, fixes Social Security and Medicare to flow like a leaky faucet, abolishes the income tax (who cares what replaces it - so long as it isn't VAT), repeals all drilling and energy production bans, and goes back to the days before the Federal Reserve system, then in less than a decade I'd predict we'd storm FAR ahead of anybody else.

In terms of 'cultural infrastructure': we'd have to introduce school choice, as well as end federal grants - totally - in the education system. Art, science, medicine, only 'depend' on federal dollars because we've created them too. And that 'dependence' breeds a lot of art, science, and medicine that doesn't optimally benefit the economy.

And if the economy is bad enough, all that will happen. Short of being 'that bad', I can't see how anyone else would move ahead of the US - unless they too liberalized.

And that's where Objectivism comes in. America's 'edge' is built out of its government's history economic laissez-faire policies, and the frontier ethic of its people. This ethic means: a population forced to accept reality. If someone else can do that, then that's where the economy will thrive.

But who will do that? Japan - until recently the 2nd largest economy - succeeded because they worked really really hard, and that hard work was spent copying the lessons learned by the American 'cowboys'. China has many times over the population of Japan, so only a small portion of it needs to industrialize to overtake Japan. There's no recipe for success there, in the long run.

But the world was destroyed economically in the 1940's, and since then there are three economic stories: 1) Rebuilding (only lasts so long) 2) A little technology (computers, barcodes, shipping containers) 3) Billions of people living in collectivism, conquered by the West, forced to learn its legal institutions, liberated from Imperialism for a couple of decades (before the institutions are unlearned).

So what we need is a return to the 1820-1920 era of American economic policy. That's what 'made' the industrial revoultion.

But returning to that period means returning to a time when people didn't think about certain things. These economic/social concepts, of the 20th century, have to be rejected in order to have long-term global economic health:

- Economic Equality
-'We're all in it together' protectionism (there is no 'guardian' of the market, just a referee)
- The idea that nobody is ever supposed to suffer in society.
- The presumption that man has some God-like ability to know and impose a moral order of some kind on his fellow man.

**That's my opinion, and I don't count as an official Objectivist. Objectivism as a philosophy would offer the idea, I think, that knowledge, therefore morality and volition, are possessed ONLY on an individual level. So politically AND economically, the whole concept of 'social policy' is contradictory to man's nature. There's no good 'social order' he can establish over others, and there's no economic way for it to work. So you need to reject 'social policy'. Man can only destroy himself, or other men, if he tries something like that.

I think that the 1940's, imperialism before that, and the millenia of barbarians and warlords before that destroyed mankind's productive success much MORE than modern liberal democratic 'social policy', and so the latter appears to have been successful. But we're finding out that it isn't in the long run. We've never bothered to see if laissez-faire works, because we concluded that it wasn't fit due to its lack of a controllable 'social policy'.

Also, Objectivist epistemology has a lot to offer economic science. I happen to think that the poor do not, in fact, have their 'share' of wealth distributed to the rich. Instead, their 'share' is distributed to the future, where everyone is richer.

This future involves inventions that change the productivity of the economy in a way that is not expressed in the present-day total 'share'. Objectivism fundametally understands the open-ended nature of concepts, and can therefore 'handle' epistemologically the idea that a share of wealth today can corresponding to a greater share of wealth tommorrow - even when today's 'share' is 'distributed' to the 'rich'.

Austrian economics fails to 1)Reject the political idea of social policy and 2)Properly conceptualize wealth creation (through induction it arrives at the proper conclusion, but fails to provide an epistemological basis, hence the inability to reject social policy).

That's a Sunday night for you. Apologies for the disorganization. I can't really see how this fits together coherently. It's just a bunch of ideas relevant to the topic, listed one after the other. Use what is interesting or useful, and do not worry about the rest.

Thanks, good reply.

I think there is a risk of viewing this ruling from a pragmatic 'ends justify the means' attitude. When in fact the remaining institutions in our political system that barely still protect any individual rights are being dismantled and undermined. I see this ruling as a victory for one right, but a defeat for potentially many others because of the continuing political implications of a judge justifying an argument on specious grounds merely because he supports the political issue.

I'm not a legal expert, so my argument lives or dies on this next point depending on the legal reality. I could only be for this ruling if its specific justification for overturning democratic and constitutional outcome is based on an appeal to individual rights in general that could then legally become a more or less binding precedent that would apply in more broad situations. That's they only way this is a victory.

But I doubt this ruling will have any bearing on: eminent domain, environment regulation, enactment of Obamacare, even free speech in the UC higher education system (the politically incorrect kind). It seems like it's the judge deciding this time on this issue that individual rights apply, by whim. That is a mockery and defeat of the principle of individual rights.

That is also why I mentioned the Arizona ruling. Again, a controversial issue - but it seems that the judge ruled by political whim more than anything else.

When politics enters the judiciary, it's a big problem, because that's when rights die. No, Objectivists are not conservatives - but that's just a basic conclusion of the law of identity. Please don't conclude that my use of 'conservative' and my discomfort with this ruling means that I am implying that Objectivists should be in favor of 'traditional institutions like marriage' and against 'radical, uncouth, repugnant mockeries of tradition like gay marriage'. I can see that connection being made. But that is absolutely not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that the protection of rights is an achievement of society. The 'institutions' I refer to are the result of centuries of political discoveries, hours and months and years of hard work and study by professionals, and a lucky combination of social forces that support and uphold these institutions. Objectivists ARE radicals, but not anarchists. In today's political climate, being 'conservative' in that context - of defending the institutions we have today from that which threatens them today - is something I think is consistent with objectivism.

In other words, in this political climate, Objectivists should oppose Prop 8, and they should advocate for a judiciary that regards and respects individual rights more. But they should not support a ruling that is justified in a manner not consistent with that attitude after a fair and free debate and vote on the issue. While the 'system' supports rights in general - if it hasn't gotten to the point where revolution is necessary - then it is proper to put up with the rights the system does not allow.

But if only this issue were that broad. It's so obvious and narrow - a judge ruling by whim and not principle is not good for individual rights - even when he rules in their favor!!

Thanks, good reply.

I think there is a risk of viewing this ruling from a pragmatic 'ends justify the means' attitude. When in fact the remaining institutions in our political system that barely still protect any individual rights are being dismantled and undermined. I see this ruling as a victory for one right, but a defeat for potentially many others because of the continuing political implications of a judge justifying an argument on specious grounds merely because he supports the political issue.

I'm not a legal expert, so my argument lives or dies on this next point depending on the legal reality. I could only be for this ruling if its specific justification for overturning democratic and constitutional outcome is based on an appeal to individual rights in general that could then legally become a more or less binding precedent that would apply in more broad situations. That's they only way this is a victory.

But I doubt this ruling will have any bearing on: eminent domain, environment regulation, enactment of Obamacare, even free speech in the UC higher education system (the politically incorrect kind). It seems like it's the judge deciding this time on this issue that individual rights apply, by whim. That is a mockery and defeat of the principle of individual rights.

That is also why I mentioned the Arizona ruling. Again, a controversial issue - but it seems that the judge ruled by political whim more than anything else.

When politics enters the judiciary, it's a big problem, because that's when rights die. No, Objectivists are not conservatives - but that's just a basic conclusion of the law of identity. Please don't conclude that my use of 'conservative' and my discomfort with this ruling means that I am implying that Objectivists should be in favor of 'traditional institutions like marriage' and against 'radical, uncouth, repugnant mockeries of tradition like gay marriage'. I can see that connection being made. But that is absolutely not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that the protection of rights is an achievement of society. The 'institutions' I refer to are the result of centuries of political discoveries, hours and months and years of hard work and study by professionals, and a lucky combination of social forces that support and uphold these institutions. Objectivists ARE radicals, but not anarchists. In today's political climate, being 'conservative' in that context - of defending the institutions we have today from that which threatens them today - is something I think is consistent with objectivism.

In other words, in this political climate, Objectivists should oppose Prop 8, and they should advocate for a judiciary that regards and respects individual rights more. But they should not support a ruling that is justified in a manner not consistent with that attitude after a fair and free debate and vote on the issue. While the 'system' supports rights in general - if it hasn't gotten to the point where revolution is necessary - then it is proper to put up with the rights the system does not allow.

But if only this issue were that broad. It's so obvious and narrow - a judge ruling by whim and not principle is not good for individual rights - even when he rules in their favor!!

Only democracy, the rule of law in general. His argument is specious. At this moment in time, his political movement happens to think gay marriage should be allowed. Didn't my reference to Obamacare register with you?

If this was an instance of individual rights being upheld by a judiciary that does so consistently, I would be more than happy about it. But the decision, in light of the broader liberal agenda in America, is capricious - it's all about rule by whim.

The political institutions - judiciary, legislature, executive, the constitutional structure that acts as an interface between democratic sentiment and law must guard against whim so that the rational have the capacity to act towards the preservation of their interest.

True, that makes this an odd case - because the proponents of Prop 8 are themselves in error - but the decision to rule against Prop 8 was made for reasons that destroy, not preserve, the institutional safeguards against whim.

The difference is that the whim of an elite took precedent over the masses. Reason and objective judgment by the elite is supposed to be the last bulwark against the masses.

Our government is so illegitimate that I don't expect it to consistently stand up for all individual rights - but I do rely on it to protect those that exist. I need the government to be institutionally sound for that to happen. Otherwise, you get Obamacare and that sort of thing - which a judge could easily rule in favor of because 'morally healthcare is a right despite the constitution' which is essentially what this judge did regarding gay marriage - our system of government doesn't explicitly designate many rights beyond a few ammendments. So I do rely on democracy to protect some rights. At least then there is a process to advocate for rights and make changes - but when you convince a million minds of the importance of rights, what good is it when one elite has the power to overturn you? The process is destroyed, made arbitrary, and you can only hope that whatever it is that is popular with the government-academia crowd will be in favor of your rights. But chances are it won't, for reasons as obvious as those demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged.

But I think you're just being a smart aleck - "institutions" in quotes implies that you are mocking my concern. Which means that either you aren't intelligent enough to extrapolate from my earlier comment what I meant - or it means that you did, but you live in some unserious world where you choose to pidgeonhole any and all opinions into convenient labels to be referenced for the sake of convincing yourself incorrectly that you have the intellectual high ground.

Please, if you're going to make a comment like that - especially after a fairly long and articulate post - provide more details. If you disagree, then explain why you don't think any important institutions are threatened by the legal mentality behind this particular ruling.

That marriage exists as a fundamental right legally was well demonstrated. But there is plenty of good cause for arguing that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Access to marriage - to a man/woman relationship is NOT restricted along gender lines. Men and women have equal right to enter a man/woman relationship, as do homosexuals.

I personally think marriage itself violates the due process and equal protection rights of singles if only for certain tax and other implications.

So to defend marriage as a fundamental right - while legally proper - also legitimizes marriage along lines of tradition and so forth (which was clearly part of the legal foundation of the right).

This same reasoning bears nothing against defining marriage as a man/woman relationship.

The legal logic is flawed - marriage can be defined as man/woman - and the reason for it not to be is arbitrary - UNLESS there is a higher standard that is appealed to. This higher standard would have to question the legitimacy of state sanctioned marriage. The judge clearly argued the opposite.

Is marriage a man-woman relationship? If you appeal to legislation, tradition, democracy, precedent, and so forth, it is. You cannot, as this judge has, appeal to a historical and established 'right' but then pick and choose which components of that right your sociological worldview prefers. The historical precedent is either legitimate or not.

Both mobs and elites are defeated by rules, and both are served by arbitrary decisions. The idea that two homosexuals would want to enter into a strong sacred relationship is a view. The state has two options: totally allow individuals the right to their views or pick a view and stick to it. Marriage falls in the latter category. It shouldn't, but it does. So you can advocate and vote, but cannot celebrate an arbitrary ruling.

If I was on this court I would recognize that my job is to uphold the law, whether I voted for it or not. Gender roles might be the same in marriage, but that is not strict enough to establish that gender is irrelevant in marriage. If precedent is what I'm obliged to follow, and the law and the constitution, then I would approve of Prop 8. Hell I wouldn't have voted for it!

Again, the law impedes Atilla. When Obamas are in power, their only restraint is the strict law. Judges cannot inject their arbitrary opinion - no matter how seemingly virtuous - into a ruling or else the law is defeated, and Atilla wins.

I will read up on Objectivist anti-originalism. It seems to me most of the concern is over courts that used to implicity defend property rights, but no longer do. This seems more of a constitutional flaw than a judicial flaw, but I will read more.

In any case, I think disagreement on this issue hinges on whether you think the application of due process and equal protection concerning homosexuals and marriage is arbitrary or not. I think it is.

Because marriage is a certain something - defining it is essential to treating it as a 'right'. And the judge chose his preferred definition over the legal one.

That marriage exists as a fundamental right legally was well demonstrated. But there is plenty of good cause for arguing that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Access to marriage - to a man/woman relationship is NOT restricted along gender lines. Men and women have equal right to enter a man/woman relationship, as do homosexuals.

I personally think marriage itself violates the due process and equal protection rights of singles if only for certain tax and other implications.

So to defend marriage as a fundamental right - while legally proper - also legitimizes marriage along lines of tradition and so forth (which was clearly part of the legal foundation of the right).

This same reasoning bears nothing against defining marriage as a man/woman relationship.

The legal logic is flawed - marriage can be defined as man/woman - and the reason for it not to be is arbitrary - UNLESS there is a higher standard that is appealed to. This higher standard would have to question the legitimacy of state sanctioned marriage. The judge clearly argued the opposite.

Is marriage a man-woman relationship? If you appeal to legislation, tradition, democracy, precedent, and so forth, it is. You cannot, as this judge has, appeal to a historical and established 'right' but then pick and choose which components of that right your sociological worldview prefers. The historical precedent is either legitimate or not.

Both mobs and elites are defeated by rules, and both are served by arbitrary decisions. The idea that two homosexuals would want to enter into a strong sacred relationship is a view. The state has two options: totally allow individuals the right to their views or pick a view and stick to it. Marriage falls in the latter category. It shouldn't, but it does. So you can advocate and vote, but cannot celebrate an arbitrary ruling.

If I was on this court I would recognize that my job is to uphold the law, whether I voted for it or not. Gender roles might be the same in marriage, but that is not strict enough to establish that gender is irrelevant in marriage. If precedent is what I'm obliged to follow, and the law and the constitution, then I would approve of Prop 8. Hell I wouldn't have voted for it!

Again, the law impedes Atilla. When Obamas are in power, their only restraint is the strict law. Judges cannot inject their arbitrary opinion - no matter how seemingly virtuous - into a ruling or else the law is defeated, and Atilla wins.

I will read up on Objectivist anti-originalism. It seems to me most of the concern is over courts that used to implicity defend property rights, but no longer do. This seems more of a constitutional flaw than a judicial flaw, but I will read more.

In any case, I think disagreement on this issue hinges on whether you think the application of due process and equal protection concerning homosexuals and marriage is arbitrary or not. I think it is.

Because marriage is a certain something - defining it is essential to treating it as a 'right'. And the judge chose his preferred definition over the legal one.

Mostly because this is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. While proper dialogue between individuals should be factual, logical, and logically consistent, the format of a discussion is one in which facts are brought into the discussion by more than the one party.

For instance, you say there is not a shred of evidence to support this assertion. I had assumed, by my reading of the issue, that there was plenty of evidence - at least enough to justify a discussion on the issue.

But, since you have failed to see any evidence on your own, it is proper for me to present some clearly. It appears, then, that this discussion could be taking the form of a debate.

This is unfortunate, because despite being verbose and touching on zillions of political and cultural issues, I thought it was pretty obvious from my post that my main point was that political actions justified by political whim over consistent principle are never good for individual rights. I see how this might not have been clear to some, but I would expect many to understand. One reason to touch on a million issues as well as to mostly imply one's main point is to foster discussion.

A person can be asked to clarify his position on an issue, or whatever point he was making, but to mock a point or rule a point irrelevant by narrowing the context of a discussion to specific debate terms on the validity of specific arguments is to destroy the purpose of discussion. This purpose is to allow ideas to freely enter a conceptual space, and then allow the participants to come to conclusions as they examine those ideas from a variety of different contexts.

In your reply, I can assume you are not innocently asking for more information. "Despite" "verbose" "zillions" "a single shred" and then reiterating the same point clearly made, over again, is what I read. Then, a question: "Why is that?" While I wouldn't necessary assume that the final question is rhetorical and malicious, the language I pointed out beforehand leads me to believe it is.

In a previous post I used some aggressive language against another poster, so I would personally justify the use of aggressive language in retaliation. For this, then, I cannot blame you. Nevertheless, your argument is completely shallow, and someone stuck-up. It's as if you can flame and call for a proper debate standard at the same time.

Still, legitimate concerns about what in this ruling in particular is of concern to me - specifically - I will address in the next post. Keep in mind that after a vigorous, or even a short discussion, it may become clear that this most recent Prob 8 ruling is not the best example of the principle I had wanted to discuss. I think it is, with the knowledge I currently have, but the discussion is still relevant and useful. Finding out that this ruling doesn't apply to the principle I've set forth to discuss would be a good conclusion to the discussion, as would finding out that it does. The purpose, though, isn't to come to a conclusion on the board - but to provide an opportunity for board participants to come to their own conclusions. That is one thing that differentiates this format from a debate - where an outcome is sought, if not achieved.

I will contradict (seemingly only) what I wrote earlier, and say that Objectivists ought to be intellectually 'liberal'. Yes, establishing concretes is important, but assimilating broad ideas is a necessary part of tying concepts to reality. That means that incessant criticism is a bad policy in a discussion - and I think that I have been too aggressive in my response to it. By criticism, I mean a consistently critical approach whereby one consistently attempts to point out the flaws in any given argument, and generally seems to view discussion as a competition. This is different than seeking understanding.

In other words, "I cannot comment on your post until you have provided a more detailed description of what specifically you find wrong in this particular ruling." would have sufficed.

I will address that issue in the next post.

Only democracy, the rule of law in general. His argument is specious. At this moment in time, his political movement happens to think gay marriage should be allowed. Didn't my reference to Obamacare register with you?

If this was an instance of individual rights being upheld by a judiciary that does so consistently, I would be more than happy about it. But the decision, in light of the broader liberal agenda in America, is capricious - it's all about rule by whim.

The political institutions - judiciary, legislature, executive, the constitutional structure that acts as an interface between democratic sentiment and law must guard against whim so that the rational have the capacity to act towards the preservation of their interest.

True, that makes this an odd case - because the proponents of Prop 8 are themselves in error - but the decision to rule against Prop 8 was made for reasons that destroy, not preserve, the institutional safeguards against whim.

The difference is that the whim of an elite took precedent over the masses. Reason and objective judgment by the elite is supposed to be the last bulwark against the masses.

Our government is so illegitimate that I don't expect it to consistently stand up for all individual rights - but I do rely on it to protect those that exist. I need the government to be institutionally sound for that to happen. Otherwise, you get Obamacare and that sort of thing - which a judge could easily rule in favor of because 'morally healthcare is a right despite the constitution' which is essentially what this judge did regarding gay marriage - our system of government doesn't explicitly designate many rights beyond a few ammendments. So I do rely on democracy to protect some rights. At least then there is a process to advocate for rights and make changes - but when you convince a million minds of the importance of rights, what good is it when one elite has the power to overturn you? The process is destroyed, made arbitrary, and you can only hope that whatever it is that is popular with the government-academia crowd will be in favor of your rights. But chances are it won't, for reasons as obvious as those demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged.

But I think you're just being a smart aleck - "institutions" in quotes implies that you are mocking my concern. Which means that either you aren't intelligent enough to extrapolate from my earlier comment what I meant - or it means that you did, but you live in some unserious world where you choose to pidgeonhole any and all opinions into convenient labels to be referenced for the sake of convincing yourself incorrectly that you have the intellectual high ground.

Please, if you're going to make a comment like that - especially after a fairly long and articulate post - provide more details. If you disagree, then explain why you don't think any important institutions are threatened by the legal mentality behind this particular ruling.