johngalt1972

“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.

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.

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).

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.”

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.?

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”)

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.

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.

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?

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…

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Patrick, sorry I’ve taken so long (I wasn’t ignoring your questions). Both use conjunctions so I need to treat them as four. Yes, the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights. However, there are over 200 governments (they exist). Is the only moral justification for a government its ability to protect individual rights? If I said yes to that, I would be condemning myself as an American. The truth is I am less free today than I was 20 years ago. This goes right to the core of my Canadian example (which didn’t go over well with Marc K.) and my Hawaiian example. Because there is no way to measure freeness, you cannot use it as a rational for war (by war I mean one nation invading another). Do nations have the right to protect themselves? Absolutely. Iraq never invaded the United States. Hawaii never invaded the United States. Vietnam? No. Need I continue? Consensus does not make something true. Unless you’re talking about law, laws are true even when they’re wrong (meaning unjust). Self-government can be a pain in the ass, but there is no rational alternative. Either we govern ourselves or we live under dictatorship. Sovereignty either lies with the people or it does not, there is no gray area on this. As far as perception, it is not necessarily reality. perception (noun) 3a: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation We know the world through our five senses. To say “perception is not reality” means perception is never reality. Perception can often be reality. That is not to say perception is (always) reality. That would be incorrect.

Burgess, thank you for the questions; they are not unlike the ones I’ve asked myself. Documentation of town meetings, the First and Second Continental Congress, and other sources make clear that while there was by no means a general consensus on the specifics of a new government, the majority of the colonists supported independence from England. Once independence was declared, The Articles of Confederation were tenuous at best. Nonetheless, this newborn country held together not because of a vague document, but because the majority had the same desire. I absolutely agree. For example: The Declaration of Independence exists. That doesn’t prove majority support for the document. However, study of how it came into existence (in this case) does. Merriam-Webster OnLine majority (noun) 2a: the age at which full civil rights are accorded 3a: a number greater than half of a total All individuals? Of course not, it should be obvious we are not including children in the discussion. It is, nonetheless, important that we establish which adults count as people (sic). Yes, only male and white. Negroes didn’t get the right to vote in this country until 1870. As far as women, not until 1920. Merriam-Webster OnLine will (noun) 1: desire, wish 2a: something desired; especially: a choice of determination of one having authority or power “Will” means what it means. I like, however, that you mention “active support.” Keep in mind that lack of an action can be active support and is by no means acquiescence. Then and now, the United States exists by the will of the majority of the people it governs. Putting laws on paper is meaningless without the will of the people. Need a real example? The 18th amendment was ratified in 1919. Didn’t stick, hence the 21st amendment in 1933. Law does not create will; will must create law. If the United States’ intention in Iraq is to create a government, how do you impose (force) freedom? I’m not saying that is why we went to war in the first place. Frankly, that no longer matters.

Of course I do; it’s obvious (you caught it). I was trying to be polite. If you still cannot figure it out, ask me again. How about oil? Gold? More snow? (It doesn't matter) Why did the United States pay Russia $7,200,000 for it anyway? I know it’s easier to dodge the issue. If this helps use the overthrow of The Kingdom of Hawaii as an example and then answer my earlier question. It sure did to them. Treason was punishable by death. (i.e. they risked their lives so they and their posterity could be free) Here’s a question: If someone blows your head off and you did not want to be dead, are you still dead? Assert what to be true? That the colonies declared independence (Hint: 4th of July) or that sucession from England was treason? Marc, I type like I talk so don't take this post personally. My intent is not “I’m right, screw you!” I’m trying to understand how Objectivism works in government in the real world.

You need to work on your imagination! I was in a five-year sexual relationship with someone who is today, my best friend. When we broke up seven years ago it was kind of ugly. Today, this person lives in my house (granted, it's a big house). Now, I have dated people who have a problem with this arrangement; they’re clearly too insecure with themselves to understand that it is possible. The person with whom I am involved with today has no problem with my ex living in my house. If it did become a problem, I would end the relationship with the person I’m dating. When you say, “Your true love will want to own you completely […]” these are the kind of people you need to avoid. Honestly, it sounds just like codependence.

THANK YOU! Let me just take my 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged off of the shelf and turn to page 425. Follow along, please: If I had to choose the one area of my life where Objectivism clearly proved the most useful, it would be in regard to relationships. With all due respect, it doesn’t sound like you have much self-respect. There are other areas where I continue to try and understand Objectivism and how it works in the real world (as opposed to in a novel), but here it truly shines. I hope this helps! [insert stupid smiley face here]

There is no scientific or objective way to measure a State’s freeness. It’s easy to ask such questions when you are comparing virtual opposites. But what happens when you compare the United States and, say, Canada? My point is that you have to be able to ask the exact same question of every State. What if, for example, the people of Canada determine that they have a right to Alaska and we no longer do because [insert reason here]. Do we agree that both Canada and the United States have a right to exist? If yes, then it all comes down who has the stronger military. States exist only by the power of the people. If the majority of the governed are unhappy, they can and must initiate the change. The founders of our great nation were not happy under British rule. They declared independence and became outlaws and terrorists (in the eyes of King George). They turned to France for help, who ultimately provided troops and arms to help us fight our mutual enemy, the British. Okay, that was the ultra-abridged version of U.S. History 101. What I want to make clear is that Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, et al could not have pulled off creating the United States without the will of the majority of the colonists. Furthermore, had the French said, “We’ll help you fight the British, but you have to do everything our way using our model,” the result would have looked more like Iraq does today.

I’m sorry if I came across as uncivil, really. I should use those little emoticons with the smiles or something. Unfortunately, it’s against my religion (just kidding). So, just how do we shake hands online?

My concern is with Patrick N.’s comment. If committing immoral actions negates a states right to exist, then the United States has no right to exist. I do not agree. concentration camp Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary noun: a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined MSN Encarta Dictionary 1. [HISTORY] Nazi camp for exterminating prisoners: one of the prison camps used for exterminating prisoners under the rule of Hitler in Nazi Germany 2. prison camp for civilians in war: a prison camp used in war for the incarceration of political prisoners or civilians

Yes, there is. My post was a direct response to statements you made. You brought up “concentration camps.” I did not read into that as being exclusive to Hitler’s Final Solution (this thread is about Iraq). I am very curious why in the above quote you’ve changed to “Nazi death camps” (emphasis added) instead of maintaining Nazi concentration camps? If anyone is trying to be misleading, it is not me. I did not understand your context to be such. Why would I? This thread is about Iraq. When small pox was deliberately spread throughout American native populations by means of infected blankets and other materials. Yes. What the hell (sorry) does that mean and how is it not totally subjective? We killed a lot of Vietnamese… mostly in the South (the ones we were defending (sic)). When did they attack the United States (i.e. initiate force)? Again, I bring this up to refute your earlier post. And I am not suggesting that you are. My proverbial alarm went off when you said:

And by his arguments, neither can the United States.