Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

iflyboats

Regulars
  • Posts

    137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by iflyboats

  1. I saw that interview, and I disagree that Letterman won that argument. He actually conceded to not having any arguments. I can't imagine why anyone would consider him the victor.

    I don't consider him the victor in the sense of having proved his point with facts and logic. Instead he created the appearance of winning the argument (in the minds of impressionable, philosophically uninformed viewers) by constantly interrupting his opponent and garnering applause from the audience. It was a very public browbeating of individual rights.

  2. *** Mod's note: Merged thopic. - sN ***

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB00uJMGIDk

    I know Rand Paul isn't necessarily considered a hero to many Objectivists, but this video certainly betrays the real character of David Letterman. He brought Rand out just to ridicule him and discredit his ideas. Throughout the segment he brags about his personal wealth while at the same time pretending to care about poor people, education and government workers. Unfortunately, Rand allowed himself to be put on the defensive, creating the appearance that he was losing he argument, rather than coming back aggressively with a strong moral stance. So Letterman ends up riding away from the battlefield on his moral high horse as the victor, having successfully pulled America ever further down into the shitter intellectually.

  3. *** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. - sN ***

     

     

    Do you believe that we are headed toward economic collapse and hyperinflation as proposed by many of the prominant free market economists such as Shiff, Faber, etc.?

    If so, how is the prospect affecting your course of action? Are you doing anything to prepare?

    Is anyone buying a lot of gold and silver?

  4. How would feudalism be defined from an Objectivist perspective? During my battles for capitalism across the internet, I often encounter the objection that capitalism will produce feudal-like results consisting of "lords" (corporate CEOs) and "serfs" (everyone else). What is the proper response to this? How do I draw conceptual distinction between feudalism and capitalism? What is feudalism exactly and how did it result int the reduction of the common man to serfdom?

  5. Bernanke is not fundamentally a liar any more than Greenspan was. In many ways he and Greenspan have similar economic philosophies. Like Greenspan, he understands that there are ways in which a Central bank can affect the economy and make things "better" at least in the short/medium term. Every modern central banker understands that a lot of what they do involves redistribution of wealth from some people to others, but their political beliefs tell them that it is the right thing to do. Also, every modern central banker must realize that their actions can sometimes not just engineer a re-distributive soft-landing, but also blow a new bubble. I think this last issue -- i.e. their role in blowing the next bubble -- is the place central bankers evade the most.

    I think both Greenspan and Bernanke know that the Fed's actions are potentiating rampant inflation and are lying about it to protect the institution's interests. There is no way that Greenspan is dumb enough to believe the things he says - like that he "found a flaw" in his "free market" ideology after the collapse of the housing bubble.

  6. Bernanke is either extremely deluded due to a lifetime that had begun with an incorrect foundation in economic understanding, or is otherwise a neo-corporatist political crony of the worst sort with no conscience. That's pretty much all I have to say about the man. The history of the central bank as an institution, particularly the current one, speaks for itself.

    I find it impossible to believe that he doesn't know what he's doing. He is a fucking liar.

  7. I recently read Ayn Rand's essay criticizing JFK, in which she stated that FDR was responsible for delivering 1/3 of the world's population into slavery at the hands of Soviet Russia and plunging the US into WW2. My question is: how? Can anyone provide a brief explanation, or recommend something to read? And did Ms. Rand elaborate on these thoughts elsewhere? I suspect that I wouldn't find an answer in a standard history textbook.

  8. It seems to me that it must be immoral to do so since the government does not reimburse hospitals who are forced to treat the uninsured. So it's not like social security or a student loan where you're entitled to receive the benefits you paid for. Therefore, if you show up at the hospital uninsured and take advantage of the EMTALA, you're committing an act of extortion against the hospital. Do you agree with my reasoning, or am I failing to consider something?

  9. *** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. -sN ***

    If you find a lost wallet and you can identify the owner and return it, but you instead keep the contents of the wallet for yourself, is that an act of theft?

    I have not found a lost wallet; instead, I lost my own wallet, and I not only know that someone found it, but I know who found it, and the person does not return my calls or emails. Is this person stealing my wallet, or does the fact that I lost it make it fair game?

  10. This question has come up before on these forums, and perhaps something will be gained by straightfowardly addressing the question at this point. I assure you that we are not singling you out by splitting your (interesting) question into a separate thread.

    OK, but in case the government is reading, I'm only posing a philosophical question, not actually planning to kill a politician.

  11. The U.S. Constitution is a legal document about the organization of a government, it is only ever legally binding. If you don't know the distinction between a moral code and a legal code you will never get your thinking straight.

    Good point, but that was only a misuse of language on my part. I understand the distinction.

  12. Is am engaged in a debate with a friend who is a strict constitutionalist. It seems to me that the utlimate authority for human action is a rational code of morality, not a written document. Is it moral, therefore, to disregard the constitution where it contains flaws? Or is the Constitution morally binding even when it is wrong? Does it matter that politicians have been shitting on the Constitution for over a century now, and that it is sometimes practically necessary to violate the constitution in order to approximate the best course of action? Would it be moral, for example, for the President to orden the bombing of Iran without a declation of war by Congress?

  13. Well, I consider myself an average lefty (who is well versed in ayn rand's books - read them all more than once) and I don't jump to all those conclusions. But based on the 5 videos on the shooter's youtube account, he appears to be a strict constitutionalist, which, as you well know, the Right argues the Left are not. Couple that with the fact that Gifford voted for the health care bill and her office was the target of vandalism at the time. And she just won re-election in her district, taking away that spot from a tea party candidate. I don't think a Left wing extremist would target her, if that's what you're suggesting with your accusation of "propaganda".

    By that assertion, do you claim it would be more accurate reporting to conclude the shooter was Left wing?

    I mean. let's look what we have so far about the shooter:

    1. Possibly strict constitutionalist (except of course his violating of human rights)

    2. Seems to advocate a return to the gold standard suggesting he is in favor of pure Capitalism.

    3. His target was a dem who voted for the health care bill and recently won re-election, taking away that district spot from her tea party opponent.

    4. His reading list, while it includes, The Communist Manifesto, is varied and also includes a title by Ayn Rand - We The Living - as well as mein kampf and Siddhartha. So let's just say the reading material cancels out.

    5. It is possibly him burning the american flag in a video he favorited on youtube. However, that is easily because of his disillusion and dissatisfaction with the nation not moving in his preferred direction of a "strict" application of the constitution, and not from any leftist agenda.

    From what I saw of his youtube account, his "thoughts" were thoroughly disoriented and schizophrenic. Not distincly right or left.

  14. There are definitely situations in which one may rationally prefer to die; the destruction of one's ultimate values may be a fate worse than death. Galt himself said that he would kill himself if the antagonists tried to get at him by harming Dagny. In such scenarios, suicide is both selfish and rational.

×
×
  • Create New...