Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

johngalt1972

Regulars
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About johngalt1972

  • Birthday 12/15/1972

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified

johngalt1972's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. “Numerous,” “countless,” and your four examples exemplify what I mean by subjective (selecting criteria based on individual bias). Take your first example: First, people are not imprisoned anywhere for thinking. Actions, yes. And your statement is still grossly misleading. If I tried to stand in front of the Federal Building in San Francisco right now with a sign reading, “Laissez-faire Capitalism Now,” I would be arrested (a.k.a. “imprisoned”). Now in China I might get shot (if I were a Chinese national). Measuring freedom in terms of the number of actual political prisoners is not a measure of freedom per se. Ironically, it was a similarly misleading statement that got me started on measuring freedom in the first place.
  2. Since I was asked the following questions, I thought this would be the correct place to post my answers. My acquaintance with Objectivism began in early adolescence with (this will be original), Atlas Shrugged. This was followed almost immediately by The Fountainhead, We the Living, and ITOE. Just before I reached university I added The Virtue of Selfishness and Philosophy: Who Needs It to the list and I recently re-read the latter. Just a few months ago I read The Romantic Manifesto for the first time. I would not say that I have studied any of them (I was a psychology major). I intend to re-visit ITOE soon as well as tackle Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I’m not sure how to answer the second question. I will say that prior to being directed to this forum a few months ago, L.P., Y.B., H.B., and even D.K. meant nothing to me. I admit that I’m intrigued by the seemingly visceral response Objectivists have to the mention of D.K.; alas, I have no opinion on the man because I haven’t bothered to knowingly read anything he’s written. I have a great amount of respect for Ayn Rand. Clearly, I maintain an active interest in her philosophy. I look forward to future discourse on subjects more interesting than this post.
  3. Having been to China, this was not my experience at all. I have not been to Iran. If people were “afraid of thinking something wrong,” how did the United States come into existence? How do you think change happens? Furthermore, fear is an individual choice; you and I choose to be afraid or not. If you put a gun to my head you’re going to make me angry, not afraid. Once you pull that trigger I’m dead, what am I supposed to be afraid of? I will agree inasmuch that I can say almost anything I want. I cannot, however, say what I want, anywhere I want. As far as “doing something wrong,” I was recently in court because I walked across railroad tracks (to get to the other side). I took the case to court and won. But when I’m stopped at gunpoint with a cup of coffee in one hand and a cigarette in the other at 7 o’clock in the morning, I have to question how free I really am! I can laugh now (as the judge did when I destroyed the officer’s case in court), but it doesn’t change the fact that this kind of totalitarianism exists here (at least on the San Francisco Peninsula where I live).
  4. Mr. Veksler’s original post suggested a list with an explanation before it was edited down to “The Economic freedom index” alone (post #4). I interpret his post now as an edict, rather then a suggestion. If freedom is measured exclusively in terms of economic freedom, then I am simply applying this definition to my quote in your original post. In post #45 of American intentions in Iraq, I said, “There is no scientific or objective way to measure a State’s freeness” (emphasis added). Why did you choose to quote me if you wanted to drop my context? You are, of course, aware that anything can be subjectively measured and any two things can be subjectively compared with each other? Thus far, I still believe there is no way to objectively measure freedom. Patrick N. has offered the best subjective approach (sic) in post #3; I fully appreciate his answer. However, I would not recognize another nation’s right to invade the United States (in part or in whole) because they happened to attain a government that was closer to “a standard.”
  5. If we assume the aforementioned list to be the standard, then as a rationale for war (the context of the original quote) which of the two is the correct: A. Hong Kong has the right to invade any nation. B. Hong Kong through Canada have the right to invade any nation below Canada. If I am reading this list correctly, it looks like Germany can now legitimately invade Poland, France, etc.?
  6. Don’t know much about any “commies.” My neighbors and I are all millionaires. When was the last time you were here? (Hint: Goggle “Silicon Valley”)
  7. I’ve used the word “must” a lot. I stand by it and I’ll try and bring it closer to home. If Mexico (or any nation) decided to invade Texas and the U.S. military was spread too thin to defend it (yes, this is kinda silly but I have a point), I would be on the first train there to defend my country. I don’t even like Texas, not enough trees. The point is that I am an American before I can be a Californian; I identify as the former. It’s clear that the people of “Iraq” don’t identify with the whole.
  8. Thank you, Burgess; my post was not very clear. No, what I was trying to say is that one must look at the ethnic composition of Iraq. It was clear under Saddam and it’s clear today that the people of what the world recognizes as “Iraq” are not united by anything except a piece of paper. If Washington D.C. was blown off the face of the earth, I do not believe that Americans would start shouting, “Anarchy!” Even though we (the people) have differences, we are still united. Similarly, Germans were united to rebuild a new Germany and Japanese were united to rebuild a new Japan.
  9. This is not a game. The U.S. did not just take Saddam out of power. The U.S. has taken out much of Iraq’s infrastructure (right, wrong, or otherwise). Image I took away your power, gas, water, and ability to engage in trade for food, clothes, and whatever else you need to survive. Meanwhile you hear explosions day and night and wonder when you’re going to explode yourself. What would you do? You don’t have your computer to play on. You don’t have a job to go to. Your school is gone. Nation building must come from within. At the end of the Second World War Germany, for example, was able to rebuild because Germany was full of Germans. Same thing goes for Japan (although it was full of Japanese, not Germans). What is Iraq full of? What can they be expected to unite around other than killing what they see as an occupying force?
  10. This is a very important point. Thank you, Inspector. When I was in boarding school, the kid across the hall from my room pulled a stunt with me once. He was about twice my size and got himself all psyched up for this ‘pissing on the tree’ session. I was about to go into my room and he starts his rant about something I did (I cut a class that we shared). When I told him, “Thanks, I’m aware of the fact that I cut class,” all hell broke loose. Wild-eyed and breathing heavy he gets in my face and starts shouting about how he’s going to kick my ass for being disrespectful to him. I was honestly unafraid. I knew he wasn’t going to kill me, but there was a real risk that I could get badly hurt. Well, I knew I was morally right. He pushed and I got right back in his face, “John, you know this doesn’t concern you.” He pushed again; again I got back in his face. “John, don’t push me.” At that moment, inches from him with our eyes locked, I began to see fear in his eyes. He knew he was wrong. He now knew I would fight back. I waited for him to swing and it never came. It all ended un-dramatically when an even bigger guy barked at John who then ran back into his room (by now every guy on the second floor was watching us from their doorways). No one ever pulled a stunt like that with me again because I earned the respect of my classmates. Not because I was willing to fight per se, but because I was willing to fight for the right reason. My classmates who ran from fights got their asses kicked all the time. Why? Because if some people think that they can get away with murder…
  11. With all due respect, Bryan, any historian who is going to make this claim knows nothing about American history. Did the Colonists have three choices? Okay. Are you just dividing by three? It should be clear from my original post that the Articles of Confederation (and later, our Constitution) were then (and remain today) just pieces of paper. Paper cannot govern you. People can (and do) by agreeing to follow (or not follow) what is written on said paper. Hence, sovereignty lies with the governed; be it some form of democracy or dictatorship.
  12. Mr. Banana (?), I first want to genuinely thank you for addressing my post(s). There are a couple points on which I can agree to disagree. Regarding the following: Thank you for your re-explanation of this point; I strongly support the statement as it is now written. Because I am not in the “nuke ‘um till they glow” camp, I admit I am displeased with how this war is being carried out. Regime change is one thing, while total destruction of a nations infrastructure is clearly another. I am sorry for splitting your Israel/America sentence. The former is my hot button and I respectfully leave it at that. I have no problem applying Objectivism to my life, but am still (after 16 years) trying to understand how it can work in government. If American intentions in Iraq (right now) are to create a government, this would seem to be the right thread. Finally, thank you for your suggested reading. My copy of The Virtue of Selfishness is at least 10 years old and it’s been about that long since I’ve read it. I will revisit it over the Holidays.
  13. Be very, very, careful here. The United States has lots of ties to terrorists (did you just sleep through the Reagan years? Bush years? Clinton years?). If you are going to use “ties to terrorists” as a criteria, you have to use it both ways. Have you studied the Nuremberg Trials? I want you to find out how “War Crimes” were defined. Gimme a sec… nope, there is something not right here. If, as Patrick N. states: I’m an AMERICAN, not an ISRAELI. Oh, now you mention Americans (well, Israel uber alles). Okay, you got me. Wipe him off of the planet. I mean it. Questions: How was a blitzkrieg through Iraq a plan to wipe Saddam off the planet? Isn’t military service compulsory in Israel? How does Objectivism view compulsory military service? How many Israelis are fighting alongside American soldiers in Iraq?
  14. Keep re-reading you post until it sinks in, seriously. In a society based on the rule of law, it does matter even if it is wrong. Go break a bunch of laws that you say are “wrong.” Get yourself arrested and tell the cop and then the judge, “These laws don’t matter!” I’m not kidding. I’ll give my home address so you can write me from jail. I don’t understand what you mean here. Please expand on this for me. Who said anything about “[liking] Saddam’s regime?” I don’t like the Bush Administration. I do not want to see the overthrow of the United States government because of them! Clearly the majority of the population of Iraq was not so unhappy as to be willing to risk their lives to get rid of Saddam. So, does Canada have a moral right to invade, say, Alaska? I’m sure they could argue that they are more free than the United States. (It's a rhetorical question) The point is that there is no omnipotent Objectivist judge who can make such decisions.
  15. Okay, you’ve established (correctly) why small pox didn’t exist in North America prior the arrival of Europeans. These two statements are by no means self-negating (and they are not true). So the Colonists, who wanted the natives out of the picture anyway, would never have considered using biological warfare? Why? Shooting each one individually was expensive, time consuming, extremely risky (natives would often shoot back), and when was the last time you actually shot a few dozen people?
×
×
  • Create New...