CapitalistSwine

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html We aren't Empiricists. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationalism_vs_empiricism.html Objectivist epistemology can be complex and nuanced. To properly and thoroughly understand it you will have to read ITOE.

The connection is that society has been "anthropomorphize " into the entity which is the state. As such the societal transactions which would fulfill the "brother's keeper" morality are substituted by state action, hence we get the Democrats and all the other 31 flavors of statism.

Damn lol.

I believe Diana Hsieh and a few other people (mostly the people with the most posts etc. on there) put it together.

People said the exact same thing about numerous other President's, including Bill Clinton, who had been polling at 2% for a good while.

You have the right to not be unlawfully restricted in the use of your property. Property rights, properly and well-defined, are a great fix to an amazing assortment of problems that people never consider, including many forms of pollution, and other things with respect to the environment (fishing zones etc.), for instance. This is why so many advocates of liberty give so much applause and importance to them, they are very much a necessary foundation of a free, advanced, rights-respecting society. This is just another instance: by what right may you impede in the use of someone else's right to the function and operation of their property through the exercise of your own?

I am blown away that people think this guy, the guy that parrots on about the Constitution more than any other congressman, act like if he became President he would just executive order federally ban it. Abortion and gay marriage are two issues I am very, very strongly in favor of and normally being against these things means a no vote for me regardless of your other qualifications, but while his position is not ideal, its certainly not as bad as most social conservatives, no less the social conservatives that are running would have it, and this assumes he would even be able to get these things passed. Also, his slim jim's for this campaign specifically state he is against socialized medicine, so I doubt you have to worry about him trying to institute something through that programme. Also, he will have his hands full with everything he wishes to do with respect to the economy and foreign policy that it would likely be even more of a wedge issue than it is currently.

The impairment of cognitive abilities is not the same as this, which is what I was specifically referring to, and is completely and absolutely false as anyone who has used the drug regularly knows: I am well aware of various studies on marijuana, however, you should know better than to use government sources for marijuana research. It is a well-known fact worldwide that governments have been heavily biased in their research on that drug. For instance this: " The results suggested a partial recovery of function but the past duration of cannabis use continued to have an adverse effect on the ability to effectively reject complex irrelevant information. There was no indication of improvement with increasing length of abstinence." My neurobiologist professor focused on this issue specifically, and compared government subisized studies vs. non-government subsidized studies. The non-government ones usually showed complete reversion to original cognitive abilities and information sorting after a period of time.

His track record seems to be in strong disagreement with your answer, there are a few key issues he wishes to leave to the states, in all other areas he has been solidly principled with respect to what it states is allowed in the Constitution etc., and this is why I am not satisfied with this particular line of reasoning. The suggestion that he believes you have no other rights *at all* or doesn't believe you have *any* rights is just a patently absurd statement to me. Under this logic, the only person you could possibly vote for is an Objectivist politician, and that will not be happening. At any rate, Gary Johnson has, HIMSELF written an Op-Ed for Fox News asking why he is not being let into the CNN debate, and he cites that Bill Clinton polled similarly to him and then exploded in the polls, yet was allowed in the debates when polling similarly to Johnson, read it here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/07/why-wont-cnn-let-me-come-to-their-debate/#ixzz1OcSElUPM (The video up top is unrelated)

Look I don't like his stance on abortion either, however, I can at least understand it, given his current and his past profession he has more reason for that belief than most Republicans, who usually simply appeal to faith. At any rate, I think the question on whether or not he will stand up for your other rights is a silly question, since he has attempted to defend these other rights consistently for decades. The real question you need to be asking is: who do you trust out of the other viable candidates to protect ANY of your rights? When you answer that question you will understand why so many people are attempting to support RP this time around.

Interesting. I actually had the pleasure to visit and get a VIP tour of the Federal Reserve in Minneapolis (VIP meaning: 1. I was able to go into areas most visitors cannot go to. 2. I was able to sit down with one of their top economists, half an hour of him speaking, half an hour Q&A, and 3. Meet the Fed Chairman for the Minneapolis Reserve) as part of a special trip my University economics club took at the end of last year. We also visited the Best Buy Headquarters, also located in Minneapolis, and got a special VIP tour of that, which means essentially seeing 85% of the Headquarters as well as their project room (a best buy store built into a BB store-sized room where they tested layouts, placed new products they were planning on selling in the future, etc.) I have pictures of the latter, you aren't allowed to take pictures inside the first, with the exclusion of the project room, which is no cameras. However yes, this is an interesting quiz, especially if you compare it to the Austrian one which is of the same length (though there is a more in-depth version also)

Thats because most people were worried (rightfully so) that McCain would have a heart attack or his arm would fall off during the inauguration speech, I understand it will be of some concern but anyone that would even consider voting him cares more about the message he has that is different from the status quo, not his age. In all of these years I have seen probably 3 remarks about his age from people, that is why I don't think its that huge of a deal in his case.

That is your argument? Really? "This isn't some grand anti-libertarian action, guys. Gary Johnson just doesn't have the name recognition. They have Ron Paul on this debate, I'm assuming?" It is true he is better in interviews, I can only assume this is because he hasn't had much debate experience etc. It is clear however they he is getting the treatment Ron Paul was getting in the 2008 election (whereas Paul is being treated like a normal candidate now, for the most part), he has had a number of artificial obstacles put in front of him, and he was getting shafted during that first debate. Whether or not he has the name recognition is not a good argument in this case, he has consistently gotten the same or better poll scores as 2 of the people attending, and they invited Donald Trump who said he wasn't running. The point is that he is one of the most Libertarian styled candidates we have seen that isn't a joke, and it would be nice to get more than just Paul up on the stage to debate issues and to offer alternative viewpoints from that of the status quo, it helps spread awareness etc. Further, McCain is 74 and he was in far worse health than Ron Paul is now, and he showed in the 2008 debates that he is just as sharp as McCain for his age, regardless of your overall evaluation of him I just don't see this as a credible argument.

Update for anyone that cares: As anyone that has read this thread is aware, they decided to organize another protest at the Jefferson Memorial, this one drew out quite a lot more people, but it was handled much differently from last time, videos that I could find are below: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/15162198 Looks to be something like 100 people, basically standing around outside of the steps of the memorial (as the police blocked out all of the entrances) with signs and some people speaking. This took place today at 10am and was streamed through Ustream.

Meh, Campaign hyperbole isn't anything new, and apparently it was the title of this? http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/news-item I haven't read it however.

Link: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-excluded-from-nh-debate ‎"To our shock, at about 6:30 this morning, we learned that Governor Johnson was not invited, he was not going to be invited, and he would not be allowed to participate."-GJ's campaign office. Contact information of the debate administrators, and more details, are in the article. I have sent e-mails, I am trying to get this story shared on as many FB walls as possible so people at least know that CNN is not above doing something like this.

This.

I agree with you on all points Dante. It also bothers me a great deal that people have the habit of generalizing these actions to the entire profession, and the like. It is also clear, as has been pointed out, that a few of the dancers could have handled themselves a bit better. While understandable to an extent, the guy constantly shouting wasn't helping things, and the person that grabbed on to the other person's arm should not have done that. Doing that is a big no-no for non-violent protests, I don't know why that wasn't made clear by Kokesh (maybe it was) before they began. I agree that the focus should be on the law. At the same time, I also think these officers could have handled themselves better as well, particularly on the issue of failing to cite the law in question, which is required of them, and telling the one man to "shut up". I also can see why, at least from their position, the policemen would feel the need to intervene with respect to some of the dancers, though I do feel it was a bit ridiculous to mess with that one couple that was barely even moving outside of a 1 foot radius, though we all know far too well these situations tend to get messy more often than not. Like I said, agree with you on all points.

The background is essentially this: A few years ago, a young woman was arrested at the Jefferson Memorial for silently dancing, alone. The other day, a judge upheld the officer's decision to arrest her. His argument was essentially: we are the government. We have the power. Obey or else. There is no rule against dancing at the Jefferson Memorial. Some cop just took it upon himself to arrest a girl for dancing, and some fascist judge upheld the decision. No law was broken by any of these people. This is why, when asked what law they'd be breaking in the beginning the cop just says "you'll find out", because he could not cite one. The people basically decided to dance there as a way to protest this. Regardless of who you think was in the right during this incident, I find it sad that this took place there when "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -- is one of the quotes inscribed on the wall at the Memorial. He is also famous for having penned, "If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it he is obligated to do so." Straight from the horses mouth: I also think that the Objectivist habit of calling anyone who does something like this an "anarchist" is a bit ridiculous.

People arrested for silent dancing at the Jefferson Memorial: Was an organized freedom rally protest.Video here of the encounter w/ the police, woman being handcuffed immediately after first warning, tells them she didn't hear them/apologizing, they continue to arrest. Would not tell other group specific reason/law why they could not dance. Will be imprisoned for whole weekend. The man in the disobey shirt is Adam Kokesh, he hosts a tv show on the MSM network Russia Today and is a radio talk show host. He was a Corporal in the USMC and is an Iraq war veteran. He ran as a Congressional candidate in the 2010 elections in New Mexico. They are body-slamming and throat gripped people that are not even moving/resisting on to the ground violently and then handcuffing them. This is absurd.

Obama signed a 4-year extension of the Patriot Act last night. He is currently in France, the White House said the president would use an autopen machine that holds a pen and signs his actual signature. It is only used with proper authorization of the president. Minutes before the midnight deadline, the White House said Obama had signed the bill. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html The sad thing is, a lot of the Democrats in the comment section said that this was pretty much the nail in the coffin for them not to vote for Obama in 2012, but most of them are saying that they will have to anyways because the Republican field of nominees is such a pathetic disgrace. I hate this party system.

He is vague and unspecific on most of his issue pages, and unlike most candidates, he does not have a section on the drug war, which is a major drain on the economy, makes the border violence much, much worse, and is unjust around the board. I may have missed it, maybe it's tucked into one of the other issue pages, but his lack of specificity on so many things is what is worrying me the most right now, especially since he has shown he has questionable integrity with respect to the rule of law on several accounts. None of the other candidates are so vague on their issue positions of him, at least to my knowledge. It seems like he is more trying to ride the popularity wave based on pragmatic and vague policy points that most people can agree with. I guess we will have to wait and see if this continues as the election process goes on. We will find out fairly quickly. He has also changed his mind on some odd subjects. For instance, the other day he came out stating he would put Muslims in his Cabinet, and then on...the 24th believe, changed his mind, stating no Muslims will be in his Cabinet. There is one other issue I am aware of him changing his mind on in quick fashion to a more GOP friendly stance, but I cannot remember what it is at this moment. I may be more comfortable with him down the road, but right now he makes me uncomfortable, I don't fell like I can trust him to not end up being more status quo, even if he is less status quo than people like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, etc. Some other information for those that don't know much about him that may be relevant to you: 1.He's the former chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. This is something he proudly proclaims on his campaign website. He is an ardent defender of the Fed, and has claimed that there is "no need to audit the Federal Reserve." He has gone back and forth on this auditing thing, so I am not sure what his official stance is at this moment. 2. He wholeheartedly supported TARP in 2008. His response to naysayers, or "free market purists" as he called us? "As we say in the South, y’all hush!" Classy. 3. His position on war powers is contrary to a Constitutional understanding of the subject. His position is: he would not involve the U.S. military in war unless three criteria were met. 1. There was a clear objective. 2. There was a verifiable U.S. interest in question. 3. There was a clear path to victory. From the article above, "My thoughts are less on whether he has the authority to do what he's doing than why is he doing what he's doing. Clarity of what he's doing and why is more important than whether or not he has the authority to do it." 4. He backed Mitt Romney in 2008. Even Juan McAmnesty is less of a socialist than Romney.

Herman Cain: Spying on Americans Is Okay, But Not Assassinating Them http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/herman-cain-spying-on-americans-is-okay-but-not-assassinating-them/239400/ I can't believe people take this guy seriously. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about half the time when you start getting deeper into the issues & not the first time: "I think it's one of our founding fathers who said - I think it might have been Jefferson, it might have been Lincoln...I'm not sure" The man is good at making pragmatic talking points that most people can agree with i.e. he is a good public speaker and interviewer, thats seems to be about it. He was on an MSM interview the other day, and he was asked about his position on Israel. I caught it on the tv while I was flipping around. He basically said he supported Israel but he could not give any actual reason why. My dog supports Israel too, but he seems to know why to the same extent as Mr. Cain. He also seems to be completely oblivious to the war on drugs issue, or is otherwise afraid he will lose potential GOP votes by going that route. If this man actually knew what he was talking about, and didn't have aspirations to abuse the power of the executive branch, he would have stated that we should nix the Patriot Act and revert back to United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18). I find it interesting he starts off with this, "That's why we have our court system, and that's why we have our laws." but then states he supports the Patriot Act and that we shouldn't worry about the "10%" that is of dubious constitutionality. My question to Mr. Cain then is, is this going to be his attitude on other legislation? I am 22 years old and yet half the time I almost feel as if I am more qualified than half of these candidates not in experience obviously, but sometimes in knowledge, and very often when it comes to respect for the American rule of law and our constitutional rights. This is freakin' sad. What the hell.

Egypt To Open Rafah Border Crossing Permanently http://www.npr.org/2011/05/25/136648871/egypt-to-open-rafah-border-crossing-permanently

Agree wholeheartedly.