Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anatole

Regulars
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Anatole

  • Birthday 04/11/1985

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Stuff.
  • Location
    Texas

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://

Previous Fields

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

Anatole's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  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 right of people to opt out of government entirely is functionally equivalent to anarchism. If a person "secedes," as you put it, they are no longer subject to the rules and restrictions of their State. However, this is not anarchism (except on a personal level), because the State can still take actions against these people in the name of law enforcement if the secessionist commits criminal acts against a non-secessionist (or non-secessionist's property, et al). Certainly, the secessionist themself would be an anarchist. But the State's recognition of their independence can hardly be construed as anarchistic, any more than Britain's recognition of America, India, and Australia's independence makes them an anarchy. Let us take an example of morality from the high seas. If a pirate ship attacks and sinks vessels flying under the American flag, one would surely grant that we would be correct in taking action against it. Even though we do not hold jurisdiction over that ship, we have the moral right to act in self-defense. Thus, because nations act with force to protect their constituents, piracy is kept low. And yet, private vessels (those without national affiliation) can still sail, as long as they do not initiate force against a ship sailing under another state. This is not anarchy, but voluntary cooperation of many indpendent entites. Explain how such maritime behavior is inconsistent with Objectivism, or, if it is not, why the analogy would break down if extended to land. First of all, you haven't answered my contention that a 5% minority for any third party (which is far from infeasible, as the Green Party proved last year) would do more to change American politics than a victory by either party. There's more to voting than just effecting political change over the immediate next term. Should a third party reach that matching number, not only would it qualify them for matching funds, but it would also result in increased media coverage, increased exposure, and a possible snowball effect, which could lead either to progressively stronger showings in subsequent elections, or an adoption of a portion their platform by one of the other major parties in an effort to lure voters. Second, I fail to see how a vote for the "real" parties fails to constitute a sanction. The only way your vote will be anything other than a statement is if the election totals in your state come out absolute dead even. Since Florida in 2000 was the closest election in a century, and yet the difference in votes was still on the order of hundreds, this prospect that is just as unlikely, if not moreso, than a third party capturing an election outright. Therefore how can you apply differing standards of sanction to political parties?
  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 political alignment of judges (as we saw in Bush v. Gore). So once again, your vote did not make a difference. Sure, a collective of votes can make a difference, but then a collective of votes could make a difference for any party. All we're talking about is a matter of degree. Claiming that people who vote outside the two major parties are "throwing their vote away" while still clinging to the fantasy that you're effecting some sort of individual-scale political change with a vote for Bush is blind equivocation. Apparently people here aren't good at reading. Let me post this again: I'd like a reconciliation that consists of something other than "Well, the basic principle of libertarians is anarchism." Never once in my interactions with other libertarians and reading of literature have I heard this position advocated. The vast majority of Libertarians use the non-initiation of force as their basic political principle, not anarchism. If anarchism is their root principle, then why does the Party website contain admonitions about getting tough on crime? "The Libertarian Party is the party of personal responsibility. We believe that anyone who harms another person should be held responsible for that action. By contrast, the Democrats and Republicans have created a system where criminals can get away with almost anything. Libertarians would do more than just punish criminals. We would also make them pay restitution to their victims for the damage they've caused, including property loss, medical costs, pain, and suffering. If you are the victim of a crime, the criminal should fully compensate you for your loss." Continuing to insist that the Libertarian platform is based on anarchism is a willful misrepresentation and exaggeration in order to reconcile an apparent contradiction in the Objectivist "canon." Also, you assert ex cathedra that advocating the right principles for the wrong reasons would be more damaging than the openly malevolent socialism or Christianity of the two major parties. I've wracked my brain, and I simply can't find a reason why that would be. Can you give a logical reason why a politician with a flawed philsophical base but principles closer to agreement with Objectivism than the Republicrats would somehow be a bigger distaster than Kerry or Bush, who posess neither?
  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 can.
  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 require a philosophical base. This is utterly ridiculous, intrinsicist, and inconsistent with Ayn Rand's (correct, im my opinion) view on judging political candidates. I know several self-described Objectivists who voted Bush in the last election. Am I to conclude that they are endorsing the unification of church and state, or the "right to life" of an embryo?
  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 expression, most ska bands tend to be rather shallow). As for classical, I enjoy the works of Liszt, Holst, and Bach more than any others. I also enjoy a few rap artists (not many), and some ambient electronica artists such as Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, Boards of Canada, etc.
  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 copyright or trademark a philosophy. Such an claim is absolutely asinine when you consider that the word "objectivism" had been used in philosophy for some time before Rand to describe a general metaphysical principle.
×
×
  • Create New...