Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivists for Obama?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

That is true; but, the Scalia's of the world are on the opposite extreme. One is presented with the choice between the subjectivists and the intrincists.

Exactly what do you mean here by "intrinsicist?" The justice who finds rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution is an intrinsicist, in that he sees intrinsic value in a right, and dismisses the need for its validation by the objective interpretation of the Constitution. What Scalia and the other Constitutional Conservatives do is evaluate laws based on the objective statement of rights and responsibilities spelled out in the Constitution. That is Objectivism, not intrinsicism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not well read in economics so it's easy for me to get tripped up in this area and I was talking about Obama's tax cuts on another forum. Someone said that "Obama's plan is what you call bottom up economics. Some people don't understand that when you ease the tax burden on the lower and middle class, they will spend more resulting in higher profits for small businesses, thus creating a larger upper class. This works much better than "trickle down" economics." Is what he is saying legitimate? I kind of got a hunch that it is not but like I said before I'm totally virgin to economics. I'm getting further and further away from Obama everyday.

Edited by dadmonson
Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone said that "Obama's plan is what you call bottom up economics. Some people don't understand that when you ease the tax burden on the lower and middle class, they will spend more resulting in higher profits for small businesses, thus creating a larger upper class. This works much better than "trickle down" economics." Is what he is saying legitimate?

Why don't you ask some of the Soviets? I'm sure they'll tell you all the glories of "bottom up" economics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not well read in economics so it's easy to trip me up and I was talking about Obama's tax cuts on another forum. Someone said that "Obama's plan is what you call bottom up economics. Some people don't understand that when you ease the tax burden on the lower and middle class, they will spend more resulting in higher profits for small businesses, thus creating a larger upper class. This works much better than "trickle down" economics." Is what he is saying legitimate? I kind of got a hunch that it is not but like I said before I'm totally virgin to economics. I'm getting further and further away from Obama everyday.

...the numbers don't add up in Obama's plan. You have to recognize that the top 5% of the earners in this country currently pay more than 60% of the income taxes that are collected, while the bottom 50% of earners pay less than 3% of the income taxes collected. Clearly if Obama is going to give a "huge" tax cut to 95% of America, then a good chunk of those people will have to receive some kind of a subsidy because as it sits now, they don't even pay income taxes.

The income tax cuts that work the best are across the board rate reductions for all income brackets. These kinds of cuts promote investment and long-term risk taking, both of which spur economic growth. If putting a little money in the hands of the lower classes was the best strategy to promote growth, why didn't we see a more favorable result from the recent tax rebates that were doled out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What Scalia and the other Constitutional Conservatives do is evaluate laws based on the objective statement of rights and responsibilities spelled out in the Constitution.

A quote from Scalia...

This is not the Old Testament, I emphasize, but St. Paul.... [T]he core of his message is that government—however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God.... Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral.... I attribute that to the fact that, for the believing Christian, death is no big deal. Intentionally killing an innocent person is a big deal: it is a grave sin, which causes one to lose his soul. But losing this life, in exchange for the next?... For the nonbeliever, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence. What a horrible act!... The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible. We have done that in this country (and continental Europe has not) by preserving in our public life many visible reminders that—in the words of a Supreme Court opinion from the 1940s—"we are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."... All this, as I say, is most un-European, and helps explain why our people are more inclined to understand, as St. Paul did, that government carries the sword as "the minister of God," to "execute wrath" upon the evildoer."

So, let me get this straight. You want the Supreme Court staked in favor of people who view the government as something akin to God on earth?

If so then this...

That is Objectivism, not intrinsicism.

Must surely be true. Didn't Rand say that the government derives it's authority from God? That it is carries the sword of God?

Does she say that anywhere? I'm sure she did. Because, as you claim -- that's what Objectivism is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Outside of abortion, are there any major issues where a liberal court is preferable to a conservative court?

More on Scalia...

What Mayor Bill Beck of Fredericksburg, Va., remembers most about the outdoor Religious Freedom Day ceremony last Jan. 12 was the temperature. "It was cold as blue blazes."

But Beck also vividly remembers being surprised at Justice Antonin Scalia's blunt criticism of how the courts and society have handled church-state issues in recent years.

"From what he said, it was clear that he thought anyone who did not want school children to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words 'under God' in it deserved a spanking," recalls Beck, who introduced Scalia at the event, which was sponsored by the local chapter of the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic fraternal and benevolent society.

Eight months later, Scalia's little-noted remarks on that frigid day resulted in his surprising decision Oct. 14 to recuse himself from the Pledge of Allegiance case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, No. 02-1624, a potentially landmark church-state dispute.

Edit: Source

If he hadn't rescued himself, how do you think he would of voted? What if we had 9 like-minded people or further-minded in that direction.

Scalia has repeatedly said that his relgious views don't effect his voting. For one, I find it hard to believe, religion is philosophy and philosophy dictates everything you do. And thats fine for right now. But what if we go with agrippa's suggestion and get 9 of these people together? And keep getting them? How long will the wall between Church and State stay then?

Edited by Mammon
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think so. I think the more justices one any one side, the more willing they will be to set new precedents for their side.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Did you mean that justices would be less willing to hear a case that was set by 9:0 than one that was set by 5:4?
Are you considering the question abstractly, or with reference to the current SCOTUS; because, I'm talking about the latter. While 5:4 is a convenient way to summarize the essence of the court, the 5's and the 4's don't always vote exactly the same way. They do not think of themselves primarily as party-members, but more as intellectuals. So, even among the "4" or among the "5", one has individuals who have slightly different philosophies of morality, government, law, and constitutional interpretation. Even while holding a certain legal philosophy, each individual judge has different thoughts on the role of precedent, and has a different willingness to overturn past judgments. So, a 6:3 for any one side (as opposed to a 5:4) makes it slightly more likely that a particular decision will be decided one way rather than the other. Just as important, a 6:3 (over 5:4) makes it more likely that the decisions that are decided for the winning side are also worded more broadly, therefore having a larger scope.

For a discussion of originalism, see Tara Smith's article in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What if we had 9 like-minded people or further-minded in that direction.
Do you think there has never been such a situation in US history. I think that you would find the religious beliefs of John Jay, Founding Father and first Chief justice of the Supreme Court, to be virtually indistinguishable from those of Scalia. The US was not founded, lead, nor inhabited by atheists. The idea of individual rights has always co-existed with enlightened Christianity. Gov. Palin demonstrates that in this clip:

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

You may not like Christianity, but it is nothing new.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The income tax cuts that work the best are across the board rate reductions for all income brackets. These kinds of cuts promote investment and long-term risk taking, both of which spur economic growth. If putting a little money in the hands of the lower classes was the best strategy to promote growth, why didn't we see a more favorable result from the recent tax rebates that were doled out?

But don't you think it would be in "MY" best interest to vote for Obama since I will not be making $250,000 anytime soon?

Edited by dadmonson
Link to post
Share on other sites
But don't you think it would be in "MY" best interest to vote for Obama since I will not be making $250,000 anytime soon?

If you believe that robbing from the rich is in your interest, then do it. It will not, however, become moral just because you elect into office a person who will do it for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think there has never been such a situation in US history.

No, you should of understood the context. A fully stacked bench of Scalias (or something along those lines) is what agrippa1 was pushing for.

The US was not founded, lead, nor inhabited by atheists.

Your right. When the U.S. was still young and fresh, many Christians felt that atheists should be killed or jailed. A lot of people felt the U.S. was founded for Christians only, you only had rights if you were a Christian.

The idea of individual rights has always co-existed with enlightened Christianity.

Tell that too the people burned at the stake in the British colonies, or people branded with scarlet letters, or the slaves whose masters read them Bible quotes to justify their slavery, or the black men beat by the KKK members who read Bible verses to justify their actions, or the abortion doctors whose lives were threatned...

Plus, "enlightened Christianity"? Contradicitions can't exist sir, please check your premises.

Gov. Palin demonstrates that in this clip:

The only think Gov. Palin demonstrates is that she is incompetent and we shouldn't elect her ilk to office.

You may not like Christianity, but it is nothing new.

Your right, it's been hendering civilization since it's birth. Oh well, if you can't beat them... join them right? That seems like your attitude.

If you believe that robbing from the rich is in your interest, then do it. It will not, however, become moral just because you elect into office a person who will do it for you.

Well, sir would care to explain what we should do.

We can either

A.) Raises taxes

B.) Print more money

C.) Borrow more money.

Which way would you suggest we finance our government in the next 10-20 years?

Edited by Mammon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, sir would care to explain what we should do.

We can either

A.) Raises taxes

B.) Print more money

C.) Borrow more money.

Which way would you suggest we finance our government in the next 10-20 years?

How about cutting government spending and living within our means?

Link to post
Share on other sites
How about cutting government spending and living within our means?

That's not a valid option. Both parties who control the spending have shown time and time again that they refuse to do the following, example -- the last eight years.

Edit: And judging all the different responses on the board, the options we have are to encourage it (vote) or do nothing about it (don't vote).

Edited by Mammon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus, "enlightened Christianity"? Contradicitions can't exist sir, please check your premises.

Please check your history.

The only think Gov. Palin demonstrates is that she is incompetent and we shouldn't elect her ilk to office.

Incompetent? Hardly. She worked her way from PTA to Governor. In a political world filled with lawyers, intellectual elites and limousine liberals, she is one of the most 'All-American' candidates I have seen. You may not like her politics, but she is not incompetent.

Your right, it's been hendering civilization since it's birth. Oh well, if you can't beat them... join them right? That seems like your attitude.

Unless you plan to live for another thousand years, Christians arent going anywhere. So you might as well learn to live with them. They are no threat to me. In fact, if they want to believe that my rights are a gift from God, great. That makes them less likely to violate them.

Well, sir would care to explain what we should do.

We can either

A.) Raises taxes

B.) Print more money

C.) Borrow more money.

Which way would you suggest we finance our government in the next 10-20 years?

Dadmonsons question was not about the proper way to fund the government, but whether raising someone elses taxes was in his interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not a valid option. Both parties who control the spending have shown time and time again that they refuse to do the following, example -- the last eight years.

And what's your proposed solution? It seems that you plan to vote in the man who has unequivocally committed to raising taxes so that the clowns in Washington can just keep on spending. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
And what's your proposed solution? It seems that you plan to vote in the man who has unequivocally committed to raising taxes so that the clowns in Washington can just keep on spending. :)

And as important is the rationalization necessary to make doing so seem like The Right Thing. <_<

Edited by utabintarbo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cases involving "obscenity" laws.

As well as gay marriage and separation of church and state.

Maybe privacy rights as well. Does anyone remember Ayn Rand stating somewhere in "Censorship: Local and Express" that the Supreme Court is like the voice of philosophy in America?

Edited by 444_4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
How about cutting government spending and living within our means?

We can do that but such cuts have to result in a quality government- one whose objectives are clearly to protect our rights.

McCain's proposal for across the board cuts is a time-worn solution to a real problem that has proven itself to be wrong, since it makes cuts in defense spending and law enforcement, when it should be aimed at transferring socially oriented services to the private sector.

Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain's proposal for across the board cuts is a time-worn solution to a real problem that has proven itself to be wrong, since it makes cuts in defense spending and law enforcement, when it should be aimed at transferring socially oriented services to the private sector.

If I remember correctly, McCain exempted defense and homeland security from his proposed across the board freeze in spending. I don't think anyone who knows Washington should be deceived by the claims that somehow McCain will balance the budget in 4 years or that Obama will give 95% of Americans a tax cut while magically being able to expand all sorts of social and healthcare spending. On the other hand, at least McCain has a record of showing some opposition to excessive government spending. I don't think one can say the same about Obama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Oists would vote for Obama in a sort of attempt to manipulate, as previous posts have cited usually after a democrat president the country swings way right. Not that a swing way right helps much in the 'rights' area, but the economy at least gets a bit better.

Also from earlier, if you think it is in your -rational- self interest to vote for someone who will increase taxes, just not on you, then I contend that you're not thinking rationally, and rather shortsightedly. An increase in taxes will affect you, even indirectly.

I have considered voting for both candidates for various reasons, but each time I do I come back to my original conclusion. I am tired of choosing the least of two evils, and without my help, the country may go to hell in a handbasket, but I will have the right to say I did not vote for the candidate that wins. As far as the idea that not voting for president = doing nothing, I contend that yes indeed it is doing nothing about the president, but there are other ways to act and speak in defiance of the current trend.

Given the choice between religious irrationalism and collectivist irrationalism, I choose neither.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember correctly, McCain exempted defense and homeland security from his proposed across the board freeze in spending. I don't think anyone who knows Washington should be deceived by the claims that somehow McCain will balance the budget in 4 years or that Obama will give 95% of Americans a tax cut while magically being able to expand all sorts of social and healthcare spending.

Well, then it's not "across the board" spending cuts that McCain proposes, then is it?

I heard McCain state his proposed cuts were going to be across the board. That's how I interpret it. That no government agency is safe, no mater what its virtue.

I do agree that neither candidate has an acceptable solution to the government budget crisis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will probably still abstain from voting for President, but two arguments I heard this past weekend (at a John Lewis lecture) that made me think about an Obama vote were:

1.) If the Democrats control all three branches of government (and it's looking like the next President will get at least one or two Supreme Court appointments), then no one can blame capitalism (or the mixed economy of the right.) They will only have socialism to blame.

2.) Obama will probably end up like Clinton, and just about every other President in recent history...despite all their campaign promises, they won't be able to get too much done. Clinton had to move to the middle to get anything done, and Obama will likely not be nearly as leftist as he promises to be. He will want to get re-elected after all, so he can't piss off too many people.

I still don't think my stomach is strong enough to actually push the button for Obama, but these were two points to ponder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...