Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Anatole

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/11/1985

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • School or University
    Texas A&M

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
  1. First of all, I would like a definition of what constitutes a "legitimate" government. Second of all, your quote is taken out of context. That comes from the section in the platform dealing with human rights. And if Objectivism recognizes the basic rights to liberty and property, that would indeed make such proud domestic lodestones as censorship and taxation violations of human rights. Nowhere in the platform, however, does it say that the United States has no right to overthrow another government. Hamilton, Adams, Washington? All anarchists, I suppose? You assume that the
  2. An argument that comes up time and again when discussing progressive taxes is that liberals feel that since the government maintains the society that allows the rich to become wealthy, the rich are obligated to put more back into it. Does anyone have a quick, concise response to this argument?
  3. First of all, a 5% showing by a third party would do more to change American politics than an outright win by either major party, in both terms of immediate material gain and increased exposure. Second of all, your vote will not have an effect anyway due to the setup of our electoral system. If a state's election is decided by a margin of more than a few hundred, your vote obviously did not make a difference. And if a state's election IS decided by a ridiculously small margin, both parties will contest the result in court, meaning the election will be decided not by the voters, but by the p
  4. I'd still like an answer from the Schwartz defenders about why a vote for Libertarianism necessitates endorsement of it's supposed "nihilist" base but a vote for the Republicans doesn't necessitate endorsement of their obvious religious base.
  5. I'll agree to that only if the government also grants me the right to put up a NO SOLICITORS sign and shoot any vacuum cleaner salesmen on sight.
  6. Anatole

    Iraq Casualties

    In another thread about the morality of paying taxes, someone mentioned that paying taxes cannot be morally judged since it is being done at the point of a gun. The moral choice lies with those who initiate force, not with those who exist under it. The Iraqi people quite simply were incapable of bringing Saddam's regime down by themselves. They existed at the point of a gun, and the vast exapnses of desert and authortarian government made escape all but impossible. Therefore, I do not see how their lack of action can be morally judged any more than American Objectivists filling out a 1040 c
  7. For everything the ACLU gets right, it gets 10 things wrong. Just because their principles occasionally intersect with those of Objectivism doesn't make them an ally any more than it does neo-conservatives.
  8. Wrong on both counts. According to Section 505, financial data does not require any kind of judicial oversight at all. And the Patriot Act has already been mis-used in the probe (unrelated to terrorism) of a Las Vegas strip club owner.
  9. sup Brown v. Board of Education
  10. "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I don't empathize too much with liberal war protestors. Nevertheless, the precedent that one's records can be subpoenaed purely based on appearances at a protest rally is not one I would like to see set.
  11. I have yet to meet a self-described libertarian who espouses the abolition of the state. Perhaps I've just had a run of good luck, but I'm more inclined to believe that you're grossly exaggerating the problem. At any rate, what I was referring to by that Ayn Rand quote is that it directly refutes the main point that Schwartz made in his essay. Schwartz concedes that some libertarians have rational bases for their beliefs (as opposed to subjectivism/nihilism) but that by associating themselves with people who do not, they are in fact advocating the position that libertarianism does not requi
  12. I don't find the philosophical principles of music to be relevant to my appreciation of it. The fact that Rage Against the Machine espouses a double hypocrisy by promoting socialism as the ideal of freedom and doing so with the backing of a major corporate label doesn't detract from the fact that Zack de la Rocha is an extremely talented lyricist and performer, and Tom Morello's solos are badass. By the same token, although I know of their association with Objectivism, I cannot stand Rush. I listen to punk, reggae, and some ska (although the first two genres often convey incredible depth of
  13. Funny, I thought it was the non-initiation of force.
  14. I am utterly speechless at the fact that rhetorical, emotive trash can be espoused and stand unchallenged within a philosophy which claims to embrace reason over emotion. Also, I'd like to see a reconciliaion of Schwartz's LTPOL with this:
  15. Wow, you really piled on those Bad Guy adjectives. I'll agree with all of those labels, but his identity is not the issue in question. What I would ask you to answer is his specific arguments that anarchy is the inexorable derivative of Ayn Rand's basic philosophical tenets, rather than Rand's own form of minarchist statism. I'd be interested to hear the passage where he "condemns" the moneylenders. All I read was a man making the free choice to not do business with an agency whose terms he finds unsatisfactory, and advising others to do the same. A) I wasn't aware one could copyri
  • Create New...