Inspector

I think it's certainly on the top 10 list of best movies I've ever seen; that's what I think!

Whoops! I should have gotten that from mister frustrated-face. I figured maybe you felt you had to, but did not relish the thought. Maybe this expresses the sentiment?

Most of Rand's writings include accurate critiques of Socialism, unlike the opponents of Objectivism, which nearly all fail to understand exactly what Objectivism is. I say "accurate" critiques because I have spoken with many a socialist and they never deviate from Rand's assessments.

That doesn't strike me as a good idea on the surface, but that's because the overall goal is to affect the enemy in a certain way and not because I think that American lives should be risked to save the lives of enemy children. If it would in fact win the war of ideas, I would say "bombs away." It could be, if that was indeed the intent of the actor. Altruism is not the only reason why one might not do that, though.

You have an entirely backwards and wrong view of the place of science and of philosophy. No philosopher can or could claim to prove, on the basis of "philosophy" and not of "science," that the earth is flat. And the idea that philosophers are just men arguing postulates, castles in the clouds, is the result of the modern FAILURE of philosophy and you should not allow their failure to slander the profession as a whole. The axioms upon which all of science is (implicitly or explicitly) based are philosophical in nature and cannot, by definition, be proven. Philosophy IS a science, and is in fact the FIRST science. To claim that "over here is philosophy and over there is science" is a slander against philosophy, science, or both. You should stick around; you might be intrigued by what a RATIONAL philosophy will show you.

You may be inadvertantly context-dropping here. The children are forced to attend those schools and are forced to accept those ideas, are they not?

Janet, thank you for that rare glimpse into the past of America. You'd be surprised how few people can articulate things from that era. Keep up the good and inspiring posts!

Are you concerned that the term "ethnic" may imply that you share customs? You could say that you are "of Jewish descent," that way people are sure that it is your ancestry that you refer to and not your personality or beliefs. But yeah, like everyone says, there's a lot of confusion in what it is so be "Jewish."

Well, Thailand hated Vietnam so much that they would have stopped them. Between the terrain and the size of the Thai army, I doubt it. But even if they did... so what? Again, how does that affect America? There isn't anything particularly worth stealing in Thailand. They don't have to. The more they embrace Communism, the more they are helpless and weak and starving. We don't have to drop a single bomb. Consider North Korea: would they even HAVE missiles if the Chinese and Soviets hadn't given them the tech and factories? Nope. So China invades them... what are they then besides a drain on China's money and a big fat revolution waiting to happen? Communism and Nazism were set up as this big bogeyman, but they were not half as powerful as people say. The soviets STOLE every idea and invention they made from us or from the Germans. (who only ever had inventions because of the enlightenment)

Okay that's an answer I didn't expect, and can accept. I don't have kids, but I don't think I've ever met a child who is that awful, though I'm sure some must exist somewhere. Free will and all that.

So the guy says that 1) People are less happy today 2) People have more choices today And just *POOF* there is an established positive relationship between the two? And you *believe* this barking moonbat? As others have hinted, the resentment of choice is the hallmark of either not being able to distinguish between the choices, or of a damaged phychology that wants to be fed, burped, and told what to do.

Ah, but how is the best way to stop Communism? Does it not stop itself? What difference does it make to us if some unindustrialized pesthole is Communist or not? How has Cuba, sans Soviet arms, threatened us? Do we need to go into cuba and "fight communism?" No, we do not. We don't have to waste a single life, bomb, or dollar on Cuba becuase it will never amount to anything. Communism will fail on its own and it doesn't need any help from us. Had Vietnam represented any threat to the USA, we could have carpet bombed it until it no longer represented a threat. Of course these days, terrorism has changed that a bit, but the fact remains that it was a waste of our time, money, and irreplacable lives to fight in Vietnam. You could make an argument for stopping a looter from plundering something that might make him a threat to you, but how is this the case in Vietnam?

Well, I had to walk out on The Blair Witch Project to avoid vomiting, but that was more a factor of the shaky camera than the shaky plot. Wow, worst move? That's going to take some thinking...

It's from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land... a book so weird even the author was embarrassed by its popularity. It means literally "to drink" but a better translation would be "to ponder and absorb something into one's self."

Rolfe: What is THAT supposed to mean? That children who do not deserve love should be loved anyway? That's a highly irrational attitude, and I hope it's not what you are saying.

In case anyone greatly dislikes following links, the rules are the implementation of the idea presented in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, where a philosopher must state their axioms before uttering a syllogism. (I believe this was called Rand's Razor?) In short, the rules say that you can be banned if you do not accept the three axioms. (The interesting thing about this is that I didn't even remember that passage when I was creating those rules; I must have either absorbed it subconsciously, or it just plain makes that much sense!)

Well, my point has more to do with those who, as a result of traffic jams, want to remove themselves as far as possible from the experience of driving. It was my opinion that those who isolate themselves or are driven around should at least have a "weekend" sports car, or aspire to one some day. The deeper point behind that is that driving is a virtue and a pleasureable experience for a rational man, or it can be at least. It's a bit of a thread-jack at this point, though, so I'm sorry for that.

Why don't you tell us what you want it for, Kantian? Oh, and does existence exist?

There are things called limosines or taxis, that would suit your needs quite well. Such a thing is entirely beside my point, not for or against it.

This much, at least, is something I think we all need to acknowledge. To sum up your point, while the left have been more destructive in the past at implementing the morality of Altruism, the Right is transforming into an organization that will steal the mojo of the left and take it to depths of Alruistic destruction the likes of which we haven't ever seen in this country. I think everyone here accepts this premise. The question is one of timing: is this an IMMEDIATE danger? Is the right more effective right now at implementing altruism, or is it still neutralized by proto-capitalist ideas? Both Swig and Stephen (or Peikoff and Hurd) are arguing for the buying of time; the disagreement is on who represents a larger immediate threat to us: the Left through its policy of disintegration, or the Right, with the possibility of an awakening of a long-thought-dead force? Add to this a seemingly divergent priority given to the war: the "Peikoff" camp takes the position that nobody could possibly mess up the war any worse than Bush has. Also they hold the idea that people are "basically sane" enough that the public will not permit anyone to act in a sufficiently self-destructive manner in the prosecution of the war: it is only through seemingly sane actions (i.e. M), that the public will allow the war to be bogarted. This side seems to believe that the Far Left does not in fact speak for the left and will not be able to control Kerry into making things that much worse. To this side, the war is not as important: the larger issue is the political freedoms of the nation. Contrast this to the "Hurd" camp, which asserts that the Left most certainly could mess up the war a whole lot worse than Bush could, evidenced by the actions of Kerry in Vietnam and Clinton in Mogadishu/Bosnia. To this camp, conservatives are "basically sane" enough as to not permit a full socialism to be implemented. The left has implemented slow death by socialism in the past and it will continue to do so if encouraged. This side asserts that the Religious Right does not in fact speak for the Right, and will not be able to control Bush into making things that much worse. To this side the war is critically important and the threat to political freedoms is minimal. Interestingly, both sides think the "more fearful" party will mess up the economy. Both sides acknowledge that both the left and the right WANT to mess up the economy, but that the "less fearful" side doesn't have the guts to do it "big time." I think we can all agree that both sides are most certainly the enemy in the long term, but the key issue is: which is more threatening in the short-term? How should we vote right now? Edited for addendum. Edit again: This post is my attempt to understand the sides of the debate; both sides should feel welcome to correct me if I have accidentally mischaracterized them.

Plenty of those here: http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...hp?showtopic=53 Just do a ctrl-F search on the name of your choice.

Yet are these things not symptoms of the Left's dominance and not a result of the "conservatives?"

Allow me to throw in a point-counterpoint here: Point: European countries have survived much higher levels of Socialism than we currently suffer from. The sky may be falling, but rome didn't fall in a day. Counterpoint: The survival of euro-socialism is largely reliant upon the United States providing aid and capital, both directly and indirectly. For instance, European nations could not budget for their own self-defense, nor could their industries survive without imports to and exports from the US, or US capital for that matter. So it is unlikely that the US could survive european levels of socialism without some other nation propping it up.

What does that have to do with what I said? And I suspect the people you describe would hardly want to ride the bus.

I take it from your previous writings in this thread and elsewhere that you think that the battle for ideas is not at all near the point where we are immediately threatened with the loss of our essential freedoms, either from the left or from the right. As such, you conclude that the more immediate issue of defense against militant Islam is the lynchpin for the next election, as far as you are concerned. It is further your position that Bush is a better candidate on the issue of defense. Is this an accurate assesment of your reasoning? Again, please correct me anywhere I am mistaken.