Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Foreign Policy, Force, and Collectivism

Rate this topic


FieldMarshal

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I have been extremely disapointed by the attitude towards foreign policy expressed by the Ayn Rand Instutite (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_foreign_policy) as well as many of the members here at objectivism online. I do not think they are in-line with the philosophy of objectivism, which advocating non-aggression and indiviudalism. Instead, they offer a sort of national egoism substituting America's interest over the interests of the american citizen as an individual, and the dictators of foreign nations for the citizens of their countries. But most importantly, war requires taxes, and for these pro-war objectivists to pay for their invasions of Iran, it would require taxpayer money. And since involuntary taxation is an initiation of force and thus immoral, there can be no way for objectivists to hold pro-war policies of preemption and be complete, consistent advocates of laissez-faire advocates. These are some of the common views advocated:

1) Islam is a backwards philosophy that advocates violence and collectivism to one's religion that hates the rational, secular, western values and wants to destroy America.

The precise reason for the mideast's hatred of America and terrorism is not religious, but political, concerning America's presence in Saudi Arabia, intervention in Iraq, support of Israel, among other things. If America was completely non-interventionist, they would have no reason to attack us. Islam does have some war-like propoganda, because Mohammed himself was a warrior, but not anything significantly more than how the Judeo-Christian God acted like a brutal dictator. If the west rose out of the Catholic chruch moral domination of the middle ages to launch the scientific revolution, so can muslim countries. Take Malayasia and Singapore for example.

2) War should be carried out without regard to civilian casualties because they are willing participants in their countries' infrastructure. Bush has blundered because he has not been more brutal, and doing so will crush the enemy's resolve. http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1063

A person who happended to be born in a corrupt dicatorship is not evil. He has no choice but to live a normal life or be a refugee. Civilian casualties are the driving the propoganda main of radical terrorists. Without US intervention in their lives, most normal people in the mideast wouldn't be radical. It was the American-supported coup of 1953 in Iran that created the 1979. The mosque bombing in Iraq in 2005 triggered civil war.

3) America's soldiers are defending our individual rights, and freedom by fighting in the current wars in the mideast http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1063

There is no such thing as "collective rights". If an average american wanted to protect his own life and values, he would benefit much more by caring for his own safety and communal activism. Joining the military puts him in a more dangerous situation, and thus is not "rationally selfish". Objectivism contradicts the military's ethics of honor, duty, and sacrifice. A war could not be funded by taxes, only by private efforts. If everyone in american where rationally selfish, no one would volunteer to be on the front lines for his country's war.

Finally, for defenders of Peikoff and Schwarz's foreign policy (that which represents the modern face of Objectivism), I'd like to see some writing of Ayn Rand defending taxation in cases of "national interest" and disregard for civilians of enemy combatants. While Rand hated communism and totalitarianism, I doubt she would approve of stealing money from the american taxpayer to fund operations to overthrow these regimes. For Peikoff and co. to use Objectivism to support the War on Terror (actually a war on any mideast dicatatorship is contradictory to the basic tenets of Objectivism.

America's national interest can never replaced an individual's interest if it means taxes will fund the war. And if civilians are killed, it is an act of aggresion against the attacker. Peikoff and Schwartz are adovcating the same philosophy that justified Osama bin Laden's attack on 9/11: bombing indiscriminately. All Objectivists who adovocate bombing iran should first ask: who will pay for the bombs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I have been extremely disapointed by the attitude towards foreign policy expressed by the Ayn Rand Instutite (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_foreign_policy) as well as many of the members here at objectivism online. I do not think they are in-line with the philosophy of objectivism, which advocating non-aggression and indiviudalism.

...

2) War should be carried out without regard to civilian casualties because they are willing participants in their countries' infrastructure. Bush has blundered because he has not been more brutal, and doing so will crush the enemy's resolve. http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1063

A person who happended to be born in a corrupt dicatorship is not evil. He has no choice but to live a normal life or be a refugee. Civilian casualties are the driving the propoganda main of radical terrorists. Without US intervention in their lives, most normal people in the mideast wouldn't be radical. It was the American-supported coup of 1953 in Iran that created the 1979. The mosque bombing in Iraq in 2005 triggered civil war.

Generally speaking, you're confusing Objectivism with libertarianism. More specifically, AR really held the things you say she didn't. Here is an extended set of quotations from her on the topic of civilian innocents in war:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties

There are others besides these. And AR had good reasons for these views that derived from fundamental aspects of her philosophy. See Onkar Ghate's piece on innocents in war that explains the reasons.

As for taxation and war, AR opposed taxation, but thought it was one of the last intrusions of statism to be eliminated, no the first. And one can't surrender national self-defense until one first has a perfect laissez-faire system (otherwise everyone dies).

NS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joining the military puts him in a more dangerous situation, and thus is not "rationally selfish". Objectivism contradicts the military's ethics of honor, duty, and sacrifice. A war could not be funded by taxes, only by private efforts. If everyone in american where rationally selfish, no one would volunteer to be on the front lines for his country's war.

A rationally selfish person recognizes that in order for his rights to be protected, SOMEONE has to assume to role of the protector. A person who values justice, who values their rights, and who values freedom can most certainly rationally choose to assume some risk, even increased risk, by taking on what reality dictates to him is a necessary role to preserve those values. He recognizes by reference to reality that you cannot just assume anyone or everyone else is going to do this for you.

It is a fallacy to assume that joining the military puts him in a more dangerous situation when you contrast it with the possibility of there being NO army and/or no police force to provide for the protection of his rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rational Biker put it well.

I just want to add that another rationally selfish reason to be in the military is that one may be fulfilled by the work. I love my job; protecting other people's freedoms is just a perk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rational Biker put it well.

I just want to add that another rationally selfish reason to be in the military is that one may be fulfilled by the work. I love my job; protecting other people's freedoms is just a perk.

For 21 years it was the productive work I was meant to do. :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She seems to have a ridiculously optimistic and naive picture of how much influence people have on choosing their government. In practice, there's very little (if not nothing) that an individual or small group of individuals can do to oppose an oppressive government which is going to have a significant effect- I cant really think of (m)any historical examples of a renegade group of people managing to overthrow an oppressive government which had popular support. Generally speaking, government is something that happens to people against their will - state institutions preexist individual people and theres only a very limited amount that a person can do to change them. In most cases where revolutions have been successful, its because widespread dissatistication with the government has created a situation where it only takes a push to topple the whole thing (and no revolutions have ever happened in countries which have strong systems of state surveillience such as in Nazi Germany or North Korea).

Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am an Objectivist veteran. (Navy)

(and no revolutions have ever happened in countries which have strong systems of state surveillience such as in Nazi Germany or North Korea).

East Germany and the Berlin Wall. Poland. Romania. Soviet Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She seems to have a ridiculously optimistic and naive picture of how much influence people have on choosing their government. In practice, there's very little (if not nothing) that an individual or small group of individuals can do to oppose an oppressive government which is going to have a significant effect- .......

"There's nothing more naive than a cynic." - Ayn Rand.

Likewise, you may contest the fact, but considering that people from all over the world have been breaking their necks to get into America, I would say that this country's revolutionaries were productive successes... as well as being quite popular to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rationally selfish person recognizes that in order for his rights to be protected, SOMEONE has to assume to role of the protector. A person who values justice, who values their rights, and who values freedom can most certainly rationally choose to assume some risk, even increased risk, by taking on what reality dictates to him is a necessary role to preserve those values. He recognizes by reference to reality that you cannot just assume anyone or everyone else is going to do this for you.

It is a fallacy to assume that joining the military puts him in a more dangerous situation when you contrast it with the possibility of there being NO army and/or no police force to provide for the protection of his rights.

Actually, the core value of the military is "service before self". Without this, no soldier would willing risk his life or kill other soldiers without hesitation. In the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the guruanteed way to win a Medal of Honor is for a soldier to throw himself onto a grenade to save his comrades. This encourages soldiers to sacrifice themselves, when they might've saved themselves too if they had just yelled "grenade" and jumped away from the grenade.

The current war in Iraq is not in the interest of protecting one's rights, but simply to overthrow Saddam. In a video by cropperb on Youtube, a self-described Objectivist, he claims that it didn't matter if Saddam had WMDs or not, and the simple fact that he was a brutal dictator demanded that America remove him with military force just because it was capable of doing so. To disregard the costs of war, both in cost and mortality, and to remove dictators without a clear path to stability can only lead to more violence.

Lastly, if your reasoning is correct, it applies the same to enemy soldiers of tyrannical regimes. Was it noble for german soldiers in ww2 to fight to the last man to defend the evil Nazi regime against the allies invading their homeland and carpet bombing their cities? War itself can never be justified, because it will always result in people mindlessly sacrificing themselves to a higher ideal. A perfect, peaceful world would still take generations to achieve, but recognizing the inherent brutality and irrationality of war is neccessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War itself can never be justified, because it will always result in people mindlessly sacrificing themselves to a higher ideal. A perfect, peaceful world would still take generations to achieve, but recognizing the inherent brutality and irrationality of war is neccessary.

Although I have some general sympathy for some of your positions stated above, I have to take issue with this. If war is never justified, ever, what is the proper response to a premeditated act of aggression against you? Is evil to be condoned and allowed to traipse about unopposed? Let's say someone walks up and punches me in the face. I grimace, rub my face a bit, and then just walk away. What message do you think I've sent, what behavior encouraged? Alternately, let's say after he punches me, I collect myself and knock him on his ass. Do you think he will be more, or less inclined to hit me again, and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the core value of the military is "service before self".

That is utterly untrue. Are you, or have you ever been, in the military? I am, and I have never heard that phrase spoken as an oath, nor have I had to sign anything affirming anything similar.

The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.

- Gen. George S. Patton

FYI, the U.S. Navy's core values are "Honor, Courage, and Commitment". I don't keep abreast of the other services, but I hope they don't have any altruistic nonsense like "service before self" in their values/mottos.

Military service does not require sacrifice (not in the Objectivist sense of giving a greater value and gaining a lesser value). It is not military policy to send soldiers on true "suicide" missions. Every mission, including a peacetime/training mission, involves an element of risk, but training mitigates that risk. I'm willing to take the risks, because I want the best possible people (me and my peers) guarding my freedom.

In the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the guruanteed way to win a Medal of Honor is for a soldier to throw himself onto a grenade to save his comrades.

Only the worst soldiers are motivated by the possibility of receiving medals (a.k.a. "chest candy"). Shiny coins and presidential handshakes are not the primary motivations of the U.S. military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In practice, there's very little (if not nothing) that an individual or small group of individuals can do to oppose an oppressive government which is going to have a significant effect- [...] Generally speaking, government is something that happens to people against their will - state institutions preexist individual people and theres only a very limited amount that a person can do to change them.

Individuals are responsible for themselves, they possess freewill and they can choose under which government they will live. The choice is stay and live under your current government or leave for a better one. If you stay and choose to live under an oppressive government you may choose to try and overthrow it. But in any case everyone is responsible to accept the consequences of living under the government they have chosen to live under.

I cant really think of (m)any historical examples of a renegade group of people managing to overthrow an oppressive government which had popular support.

I can think of at least one, the one where the renegades overthrew their oppressors (which relatively speaking weren't so bad) on principle. They formed a government built on a moral premise. The greatest country in the world ... it has three initials starting with a U. and ending in an A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shiny coins .... are not the primary motivations of the U.S. military.

Not for me then. (sorry, I am a coin collector and I couldn't resist.)

On a more serious note, thank you for serving (I know you aren't doing it for me but there it is anyway). I hope at some point the military is allowed to focus on its true mission (stomping the bejeebus out of the enemy until they either disappear or stop being the enemy) rather than altruism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is utterly untrue. Are you, or have you ever been, in the military? I am, and I have never heard that phrase spoken as an oath, nor have I had to sign anything affirming anything similar.

The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.

- Gen. George S. Patton

FYI, the U.S. Navy's core values are "Honor, Courage, and Commitment". I don't keep abreast of the other services, but I hope they don't have any altruistic nonsense like "service before self" in their values/mottos.

Military service does not require sacrifice (not in the Objectivist sense of giving a greater value and gaining a lesser value). It is not military policy to send soldiers on true "suicide" missions. Every mission, including a peacetime/training mission, involves an element of risk, but training mitigates that risk. I'm willing to take the risks, because I want the best possible people (me and my peers) guarding my freedom.

Only the worst soldiers are motivated by the possibility of receiving medals (a.k.a. "chest candy"). Shiny coins and presidential handshakes are not the primary motivations of the U.S. military.

1) http://www.usafa.af.mil/core-value/service-before-self.html

There is no such thing as collective freedom, only individual freedom. But my point is, to be truly selfish, a war like the one in Iraq must be funded completely voluntarily, fought by volunteers, and thoroughly planned accomplish our nation's goals. To have $80 billion in taxpayer money pay for the war annually, out of the pockets of many of whom disaprove of the war, is travesty.

2) Medals are symbolic of the achievements a soldier makes and "distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States" (MOH citation).

Although I have some general sympathy for some of your positions stated above, I have to take issue with this. If war is never justified, ever, what is the proper response to a premeditated act of aggression against you? Is evil to be condoned and allowed to traipse about unopposed? Let's say someone walks up and punches me in the face. I grimace, rub my face a bit, and then just walk away. What message do you think I've sent, what behavior encouraged? Alternately, let's say after he punches me, I collect myself and knock him on his ass. Do you think he will be more, or less inclined to hit me again, and why?

Usually, walking away is the most practical solution because retaliation might encourage more violence. Since we don't know what caused the random act of violence, it'd be wrong to suggest whether retaliation would encourage, discourage, or not affect at all what type of behavior the person exhibits (though the latter is more possible).

The "Objectivist" principles of Leonard Peikoff and Peter Schwarz of bombing Iran, disregard for civilian casualties, and war at the involuntary expense of taxpayers can hardly be considered "the philosophy of Reason". You can't support such positions if you didn't believe in the collective right of the state to tax citizens in order to pre-emptively attack anyone who appears to be a threat, and expect such actions to create lasting peace. An ARI foreign policy would lead to worldwide hated of the USA,

Even the Christian Just War Theory is more selfish than ARI's pre-emptionism. At least it takes into account the cost in lives, trauma, and money war causes, and seeks less harmful options first. Objectivist kind of "national selfishness" is no different than Hitler's philosophy of individualism for the german race. In reality, it is collectivist because "germany" and "america" are both arbitrarily constructed groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, you're confusing Objectivism with libertarianism. More specifically, AR really held the things you say she didn't. Here is an extended set of quotations from her on the topic of civilian innocents in war:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties

There are others besides these. And AR had good reasons for these views that derived from fundamental aspects of her philosophy. See Onkar Ghate's piece on innocents in war that explains the reasons.

As for taxation and war, AR opposed taxation, but thought it was one of the last intrusions of statism to be eliminated, no the first. And one can't surrender national self-defense until one first has a perfect laissez-faire system (otherwise everyone dies).

NS

Reading the Onkar Ghate piece (link), he mangles the concept of "defense" with invading Iraq. America had been bombing Iraq ever since the Gulf War and crippling its economy with sanctions, killing thousands of Iraqi children. Iraq couldn't even shoot down a single American plane in the no-fly zone, yet Bush was convinced that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat. Even if they did, it would be pointless to attack the USA because of it would lead to their own destruction. In all instances, Bush didn't exhaust all efforts of diplomacy, and because of the war, Americans have to pay $500 billion to fund it, a far cry from the original $50-60 billion Rumsfeld predicted.

My proposal is this: if America wants to start another Iraq like invasion, fine. But the taxpayers have to voluntarily come up with the funding. Pro-war politicians are free to use whatever propoganda and fear tactics they want, but average Americans have to chip in in a voluntary attempt to defend their security. If pro-war logic is correct, people will donate in billions because they want to protect their freedom. You can't tax people who don't want to go to war if their judgement of the situation is different. How do we know who is correct?

The only situation in which your philosophy would work is if you were a belgian in 1940 fighting against Nazi Germany, or some other situation. "National self-defense" via the War on Terror is a misnomer. Iraq was 100% about creating a new Iraqi government at the expense of American taxpayers. If taxpayers want to overthrow Iran because they are convinced it will eminently threaten them, they must fund the invasion themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had started to form a reply to you when I got to this line:

Objectivist kind of "national selfishness" is no different than Hitler's philosophy of individualism for the german race.

To compare Objectivism to Nazism is beyond contemptible. It is intellectually dishonest at best, troll bait in the middle and a banning offense at worst.

If you actually want to be engaged your next post better start with an apology.

The moderators should be aware: this troll deserves watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the core value of the military is "service before self".

And? The core value of the military is not necessarily the core value of every individual in the military. Likewise, it doesn't change the facts I pointed out above, unless you are asserting that a country could maintain it's borders from foreign invaders without a military and protect individual rights domestically without a police force.

Without this, no soldier would willing risk his life or kill other soldiers without hesitation.

Good, because hesitation rather than mindless action may be in order sometimes.

This encourages soldiers to sacrifice themselves, when they might've saved themselves too if they had just yelled "grenade" and jumped away from the grenade.

Again I ask, and? Welfare could encourage people to not work and leech off the government and yet many people still choose not to go on welfare. A man does not have to act on what is encouraged of him.

In a video by cropperb on Youtube, a self-described Objectivist, he claims that it didn't matter if Saddam had WMDs or not, and the simple fact that he was a brutal dictator demanded that America remove him with military force just because it was capable of doing so.

I'm not familiar with a user on this board named cropperb. If you find him, you might ask him why he holds the position he does. I'm not his keeper.

I won't address your last paragraph there because it has absolutely nothing to do with my statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had started to form a reply to you when I got to this line:

To compare Objectivism to Nazism is beyond contemptible. It is intellectually dishonest at best, troll bait in the middle and a banning offense at worst.

If you actually want to be engaged your next post better start with an apology.

The moderators should be aware: this troll deserves watching.

I apologize for the comparision.

I referred to "national selfishness" was tantamount to nazism, to show that Hitler's references to national self determination (e.g. in Triumph of the Will) were actually collectivist. Objectivism as a consistent philosophy is not. However, ARI, supposedly the voice of Objectivism today, supports such a position. You can't have wars without forceful taxation to fund wars. Killing civilians in wars is an undue initiation of force against an innocent bystander. Under this logic any statist, militarist policy can be justified, especially since a lot of the time, states lie about what foreign power really is a threat. And if forceful taxation can be justified in cases of war, the government "perceived" threats to national security such as iran or russia or the ongoing occupation of Iraq, the government can be involved endless war, at the expense of its citizens. For an Objectivist to support this leaves a fuzzy logic gap under which militarism and non militarism can be supported.

Objectivists should strongly condemn the War and Terror, the Bush Doctrine, and hawkish foreign policy. They should not advocate invading iran, supporting the war in Iraq, or any hawishness in general. For ARI to support it, as well many objectivists on this forum and other places on the web, gives the impression that this is an official objectivist position. A taxpayer-funded, pre-emptive war in a foreign to protect civil liberties is an oxymoron in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing civilians in wars is an undue initiation of force against an innocent bystander.

In an all-out war, there is no such thing as innocent civilians. We killed plenty of German civilians in WWII, and were perfectly justified in so doing. The civilian population during wartime is the means of support of the Army opposing us in the field. Attacking and neutralizing the enemy's means of resupply is the best way to end things as quickly as possible.

Objectivists should strongly condemn the War and Terror, the Bush Doctrine, and hawkish foreign policy. They should not advocate invading iran, supporting the war in Iraq, or any hawishness in general. For ARI to support it, as well many objectivists on this forum and other places on the web, gives the impression that this is an official objectivist position. A taxpayer-funded, pre-emptive war in a foreign to protect civil liberties is an oxymoron in itself.

Radical Islamic fundamentalism is a direct threat to the national security interests of the US. To ignore such threats would constitute an abrogation of the President's duty to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, forign and domestic, and his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief. If a country constitutes a clear threat to the US, we are fully justified in pre-emptively neutralizing the threat.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't have wars without forceful taxation to fund wars.
That's true only if you believe that men are by nature so irrational and suicidal that they will not bother to voluntarily take action in their own self-defense. I don't believe that this is the case, and you certainly have not provided any evidence to support that implication.
Killing civilians in wars is an undue initiation of force against an innocent bystander.
No, the initiation of force comes from his own government. Retaliation sometimes has unfortunate consequences, but they are the responsibility of the nation that initiated force in the first place, e.g. Iran, North Korean.
Under this logic any statist, militarist policy can be justified, especially since a lot of the time, states lie about what foreign power really is a threat.
Again that's untrue since lies don't justify anything, only facts do.
And if forceful taxation can be justified...
Which it can't so you might as well stop there.
For an Objectivist to support this leaves a fuzzy logic gap under which militarism and non militarism can be supported.
"This"? What is "this"? Try thinking about what is being supported. Not taxation, you will notice.
Objectivists should strongly condemn the War and Terror, the Bush Doctrine, and hawkish foreign policy.
Why? Do you mean that we should oppose slogans? Or are you talking about policies, and if so, what exact policies? Objectivists generally support strong national defense with voluntary funding of the military, and eliminating foreign terrorists is part of that. Objectivism is not pacifism so we do not support the Paul Doctrine of waiting until the US has been reduced to ashes before bothering to defend our existence.
They should not advocate invading iran, supporting the war in Iraq, or any hawishness in general.
On the contrary, they should support the nuking of strategic sites in Iran because Iran is an aggressor (however, I don't know of many, indeed any Objectivists who consider current policy in Iraq to be defensible. Do you believe that ARI supports the current policy of self-sacrifice, and if so, based on what?).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should not advocate invading iran, supporting the war in Iraq, or any hawishness in general.

Fieldmarshal, are you a pacifist?

No hawkishness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true only if you believe that men are by nature so irrational and suicidal that they will not bother to voluntarily take action in their own self-defense. I don't believe that this is the case, and you certainly have not provided any evidence to support that implication.

In fact, an easy counter-example to FieldMarshal's mistaken idea is anyone who has joined the military voluntarily. We may have compulsory taxation, but the U.S. does not (currently) use conscription for defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for the comparision.

1. I referred to "national selfishness" was tantamount to nazism, to show that

2. Hitler's references to national self determination (e.g. in Triumph of the Will) were actually collectivist. Objectivism as a consistent philosophy is not.

3. However, ARI, supposedly the voice of Objectivism today, supports such a position.

4. You can't have wars without forceful taxation to fund wars.

5. Killing civilians in wars is an undue initiation of force against an innocent bystander.

5.1 Under this logic any statist, militarist policy can be justified, especially since a lot of the time, states lie about what foreign power really is a threat.

6. And if forceful taxation can be justified in cases of war, the government "perceived" threats to national security such as iran or russia or the ongoing occupation of Iraq, the government can be involved endless war, at the expense of its citizens.

7. For an Objectivist to support this leaves a fuzzy logic gap under which militarism and non militarism can be supported.

8. Objectivists should strongly condemn the War and Terror, the Bush Doctrine, and hawkish foreign policy. They should not advocate invading iran, supporting the war in Iraq, or any hawishness in general.

9. For ARI to support it, as well many objectivists on this forum and other places on the web, gives the impression that this is an official objectivist position.

10. A taxpayer-funded, pre-emptive war in a foreign to protect civil liberties is an oxymoron in itself.

Your sentences are not really grouped into paragraphs based on their subject. You have unrelated statements bunched together into a single paragraph.

I took the liberty to number the different, unrelated ideas you had, and answer them one by one. Before that, I would like to point out though that you are making a series of statements, but you are not providing any type of arguments, or at least analogies, comparisons, something to support what you are declaring here. In fact I don't see the words "because, then, or than" appear even once in your post. What I do see are a lot of "is, can, can't should". If you look at some of the more substantive posts on this forum, you'll see that at least the words "should" and "can't" are almost always closely followed by a "because". That is telling of the way the authors' minds work. My advice is to make an effort and try to argument your statements more often.

And now, for the really easy part. The anwers:

1. "national selfishness" would be I, suppose, a nation(represented by it's government) acting in it's own interest.

How is that tantamount to "national socialism" (like the National Socialist German Workers or Nazi Party)

2. true

3. No it doesn't. Wanna know how I know?

To support someone means to come out in their favor. Please point me to an article at ARI that states any type of support for anything Hitler wrote, said or did. I know there is no such article, therefore by definition there is no such support.

4. Sure you can. Plenty of Americans would flock to fund a war against Iran right now. Not that it would cost that much anyway.

5. Undue by what standards? I can only think of two: religion and pacifism.

5.1 If by "this logic" you mean ARI's viewpoints, that is ridiculous: ARI clearly states that we should only go to war against country's that threaten us directly, and they definitely are against statism.

6. The government is elected by the people. Even if ARI would support forceful taxation in case of war(I have no idea if they do, but since Ayn Rand said that form of taxation will have to go too eventually, I assume they aren't either), such a taxation would not mean endless war. There are plenty of countries that never went to war, let alone endlessly, even though they all tax. This statement is the most ridiculous yet.

7. What does "this" mean. For an Objectivist to support what? If you mean the things ARI stands for, I see answer 5.1.

8. Fuck you. Let me worry about what I should and shouldn't do.:lol:

9. Objectivism is not a person, or a group of people, it's a philosophy defined by Ayn Rand in her many works. As a result, "it" does not have a publicist, agent, spokes-person or PR specialist.

The things that should give you any impression about objectivism are Ayn Rand's books.( I personally also don't see any "fault" in dr Peikoff's work -- in the sense that they reflect Rand's philosophy)

10.Sure it's not. Well, I don't think wars are for protecting civil liberties, but people's lives.

But without people, there are no civil liberties, are there?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...