Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

James Madison Fanboy

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About James Madison Fanboy

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/13/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Biography/Intro
    Greetings Objectivists. I'm David, and I'm a 21-year old part time student at the University of Arizona majoring History. I'm a passionate fiscal conservative, in our American understanding of the word "Conservative" as opposed to the European definition. Among my interests are poltiics, history, philosophy, and economics. I don't really keep up with sports and prefer to read and write over watching TV (with the watching the History Channel being the exception to that rule.) I'm passionate about the US Constitution and favor States' Rights as opposed to Federal Hegomy. Since reading Atlas Shrugged I developed an interest in Objectivism, but have yet to grasp the full scope of the philosophy she advocated. Hopefully, our differences not withstanding, we will band together and fight Collectivism, thereby securing liberty for posterity, just our Founders intended.
  • School or University
    University of Arizona
  • Occupation
    Bookstore clerk

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    AZ, USA
  1. What follows are some vapid, economically ignorant statements from a friend of mine on another site. The problem is that while I know he's off the mark, I'm having a hell of a time trying to argue against him because I lack coherence in thought right now. I need some help. The below are his words: It should be noted that my friend is debating a conservative. Again, I need some help fighting off this ignorance of my misguided leftist companion.
  2. 2046, your post was very helpful as opposed to Grames.His post was of limited help in so far as he made a distinction between economics and philosophy, but your post that down these complex elements into a coherent group of sentences. I realize questions I ask from time to time are obscure questions, much like my somewhat inane "when did Capitalism begin," yet there you replied to me as well, and I thank you. I ask the questions I ask, not to waste anyone's time, but because I'm interested in the discussion for the discussions' sake. of course, talking about the dangers of collectivism and how
  3. There is no Objectivist economics? Very well, I don't have enough knowledge to dispute that. It makes sense. Then, given that, what were criticisms of Objectivists regarding the epistemological and ethical premises of the Austrian School? Also, given that concerns were raised about Austrians, which school of free market capitalism aligns most with Objectivism?
  4. Many schools attempt, through various rationales, to defend the free market principles. As someone who is not an Objectivist (instead a classical liberal/libertarian), but someone who gains his understanding of Rand's philosophy from reading Atlas Shrugged, it is manifestly obvious that Rand opposed collectivism. What's more, were I to read Rand or her followers' books, I'm sure I would find spot-on criticisms of collectivism, something that free market advocates all despise. Putting aside Rand's dislike of religion and belief that many of the defenders of Capitalism are irrational, I'm intere
  5. Than you for the clarification. I'm glad to hear this.
  6. I've essentially beleived, for some time now, that police and the courts are few things that ought to be managed by the state--so long as the citizens are able to secure the restraint of the police and courts in certain areas from violating liberty. There must be a way to protect, in my opinion, the interests of the society without breaching the rights of individuals. The US Constitution seems to have been the best guide to determine what the police and courts can and cannot do, even if it has been ignored by Leftists. This is actually where my conservativism becomes a little libertarian, but
  7. It has become all too common for the Left to criticize capitalism for every reason under the sun, albeit their reasoning has often lacked reason and has been aimed at an illigimate Appeal to Emotion. While there are many ways they may do this, my chief concern for this post revolves around a particular question. This question rises from one of the many criticisms of the Left regading capitalism is that it is an "oppressive status quo." Now, let no one think he must convince me personally that this is claim that capitalism is oppressive is fallacious. But all of this talk by them seems to lead
  8. This strikes me as a cheap reply, mmmcannibalism. You certainly live up to your username, what with your attacking outsiders for posing questions. What's more, your snide remark does nothing to address the questions being presented, but only shows your arrogance. As an outsider and fiscally Conservative/Libertarian newcomer to this site (that is, someone who is your outside ally though not direct team member in the fight against Collectivism and the involuntarily redistribution of wealth,) I'm a little disappointed and not impressed in the least. As a point of interest, your crass remark amoun
  9. Unfortunately, this is, in my Conservative opinion, a very accurate depiction of what Republicans will do if we re-take Congress. But that said, please know that there are candidates across this country in the GOP who have been gradually pulling at the moderate Republican establishment. There are many candidates at my state level who want to destroy Social Security, repeal the Healthcare law, get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and lower and cuts taxes without making new ones to replace them. But since they're at the state level they're not in a position to effect much naitonal chnage. But you
  10. Interesting. The chief problem with Republicans is that they have lost the Calvin Coolidge spirit long ago. So many Republicans claim to want smaller government, but in reality they desire an unecessary amount of the national budget to be dedicated to the military, or to maintaining various welfare programs. Now, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with having a good military which is well armed and ready to defend the country. However, at this time in our history, the possibility of a military invasion is very unlikely. Certain times call for different approaches based on diffe
  11. I'm inclined to agree with about the income tax--if the income if either progressive or regressive. Lately I've been doing some research on the flat tax. Interesting idea, but with the liberals running Congress in both the Republican and Democratic parties, I'm not sure it will ever come to fruition. Time will tell. I'm reading the Taxing Ourselves, which takes up many sides of the issue of the progressive income and regressive income systems, then places the flat tax as a third alternative, with a myraid of other lesser known alternative ideas from across the political spectrum.
  12. Thanks for the reply! I'm pretty new to this site, but I like it so far. I'd love nothing more than to continue this conversation, but alas, I have to go to class. I'll be happy to pick it up later, though. You and I would appear to differ in what we view as rights versus privileges. The aformentioned things, life, liberty, and property are rights of men, and they cannot be taken away--for such action is a violation of the contract by government. But as I said, and still hold, one does not have the right to be in a country which is not his own. He may have the privilege, if allowed, but no
  13. Never have I encountered such a precise, brief response to the issue of borders. Your view strikes as different only by degrees from conservations I've had with my Right LIbertarian allies. I see that you and I disagree in many areas. But I'll tell you what I tell my Right Libertarian friends. If I had to choose an immigration policy other than my own, if I had a choice between attempting to implent your personal policy and that of an American Progressivist and Collectivist models, I would choose yours. Realizing the differences between us, I still see more in common between us than with the
  14. *** Mod's note: Merged with an existing topic on Arizona's immigration law. - sN *** In a broad sense, this is a question pertaining to very nature of laws enforcing immigration law under National Sovereignty. This because SB1070 was created, I contest, in response to what is thought to be the failure of the US Government to secure the borders of this country. Or, more accurately, what is thought to be the Reagan and Bush Administration's incremental steps toward amnesty. Yet, in a narrower sense, the qustion also applies to the abilties of states to invoke the Tenth Amendment to secure their
  15. As a Conservative (capital letter used to to attempt to denote difference between false association of fiscal conservative from traitorous neoconservatives,) I have a belief which you may or may not agree with. I'll get into it if anyone responds. As Alexander Hamilton once "If men were angels, they would need no government." Here, Hamilton was expressing the need for a central, strong government with powers to curtail the passions of the People. He was one of the most ardent advocates of amending the Articles of Confederation and transforming the states from a loose confederation into a f
  • Create New...