Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

I Am Sickened

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

They are related. Their religion permeates into every aspect of their lives. Islam is a major part of who they are. When you attack Islam you attack the most stable and fundamental thing in their lives. Islam is inseperable from their race.

:)

I have no interest in arguing with you anymore about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If the majority of citizens desire a theocracy then they should have it.

No, they should not. A majority should not have a theocracy if that's what they want, because it will inevitably violate everyone's rights.

If it by chance begins to violate the rights of dissenting opinions then the people who wish to should leave.

This argument just does not hold up. Either the govt. defends rights, in which case it's not much of a theocracy, or it's a theocracy, and dissenters will more than likely end up in jail (or worse), and it loses its moral legitimacy and becomes a candidate for removal.

I know that this particular aspect of self-determination and democracy is looked down on by Objectivism but I don't really care. We live in the real world.

It's not self-determination. If it were, Objectivism would support it. It's the determination of one group over another, which is the exact opposite.

May this thread RIP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for not being more actively involved in the thread, but I do want to throw my two cents in.

I consider myself not specifically total war and not specifically pacifism. I do not like the "ra ra ra, hooray for war" types, nor do I consider myself a defeatist pacifist. In ways I am more anti-war, in other ways I am more pro-war. I am certainly not one of these "sensitive" half-war types. I think our attention should be devoted to more specific tasks. with the retrival of Osama Bin Laden being our top priority.

was Saddam a threat? possibly. Did removing him make the world slightly safer? probably. But then again, many immoral laws at least benefit some people. public schools do provide education and oppurtunity for some. So at least a little good comes from this immoral stain on the fabric of our moral society. But what we must ask, is that benefit worth the price paid? Did the ends justify the means? If you had a choice between Huissen, the Ayatollah, and Kim Jong-Il, which would you pick as the most dangerous? it reminds me of a Thoreau quote "there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking the root." Are we hacking at the branches by contenting ourselves with the capture of Saddam when more dangerous targets lurk and plot?

The three primary reasons cited for invading Iraq is to stop Terrorists, stop civil rights violations, and to stop crazy regimes from coming into possession of WMDs. The problem I have is this; why did we go looking for Terrorists in Iraq when Iran or even Saudi Arabia is a much more legitimate place to start looking? If we desired to stop the production of WMDs, why has the government done very little concerning Pakistan or North Korea, both countries have been more outspoken about using Nukes. If we are truly concerned about civil liberties, then why are we huge trading partners with the single bloodiest regime in the history of the world (China)?

A few questions for objectivists. These are honest inquiries, not attempts to derail your opinion, I just want to put forth a theoretical situation.

if one of your neighbors does heavy drugs, do you feel it is your moral necessity to stop him from doing these drugs (by force if necessary) in order to prevent him from doing something which might harm you? Do we punish drunk driving? On one hand, as long as that person doesn't do anything unlawful, then it shouldn't be punishable. On the other hand, what about the fact that driving drunk is exponentially more dangerous not only to the driver, but to those around him?

basically, I am trying to apply an inverse of Bastiat's idea of individual laws and collective laws. Bastiat argued that if a person had the individual right to do something (defend their property from attack) then a group of people had the right to organize for the sake of that right (defense.) The inverse of his law would ask that if the U.S had the right to remove Iraq because it posed a certain level of threat, does that give the individual the right to remove his neighbor from his house because he possessed a degree of threat? (perhaps the man was making explosives in his basement.)

I am looking for a universal moral justification for the use of offensive force, whether it is the U.S deposing Iraq or if it is a man expelling his neighbor from his house. I have Read Dr. Peikoff's and Yaron Brook's essays, and well, to be frank, none of their essays answer my questions. This conversation will probably enter into the realm of ethics more than political philosophy now (fitting, since I just wrote an English paper blasting the contradiction of Ethics in Milton's classic Paradise Lost.)

(man, what I would give to have an extended conversation with Dr. Peikoff, what a stimulating intellectual experience that would be)

Please do not write me off as some random fool who wants to smoke weed so he votes Libertarian. Objectivism is a very important part of my life, and I have read many of Ayn Rand's works (including going into her deeper subjects, such as metaphysics and Epistemology) and have even begun to read Aristotle (and even a little bit of Nietzche, but so far I do not like what I am reading.) I have simply read some of her thoughts on the Vietnam war and I can't help but draw at least certain parallels. If you disagree with something I said, by all means let me know, but for pete's sake, please be civil about it (it seems the word "libertarian" is a four letter word, and anyone who associates with them immediatly draws contempt from certain people.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prae displays troll-like behavior and, as such, I'm surprised s/he hasn't already been banned. I will no longer engage this person in any discussion.

That said, Prae did actually hit the nail on the head by inadvertently naming the cause of Theo Van Gogh's murder when she called me a racist. The cause isn't racism, of course, but that which made Prae call me a racist. This is an important topic and ought to be further discussed among the serious people on the forum.

This murder is a concrete example of what happens when people embrace the wrong philosophy. The problem lies with the philosophy of multiculturalism and political correctness -- at least, the philosophy which underlies these views. This isn't just a problem in Europe. It is a problem here in the US. It has caused us to block policies which are needed if we are to keep the country secure.

For example, we are not allowed to profile people boarding airplanes, thereby wasting time and money while they profile little old ladies while young men of Middle Eastern decent stroll onto our planes. Immigration is not allowed to do their job because of politically correct regulations imposed from above. We do this because people like Prae scream "racism". Of course, such people will be the first to scream that the government failed to protect us the next time we are hit by terrorists.

If you haven't done so, please check out the link I provided in my post to erik. Read what is happening in the Netherlands as a consequence of this murder. Since the Dutch government has tied its own hands, they are now powerless to handle their unintegrated Muslim population. Instead, they are clamping down on the freedom of speech of citizens who protest against what is happening to their country.

Can it happen here? You bet. And we need to think about these things and know what arguments we need to make to work against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ex-banana eater, thats a pretty nice website. I may just have to examine it a bit more indepth, to see if I can find the answers to my questions.

My reasons for my beliefs are largely based off of the chapter in Capitalism: the unknown ideal titled The Wreckage of consensus. I oppose the Iraq war, but not for the reasons the peaceniks and the Michael Moores do.

I draw parallels from vietnam from an idealogical standpoint, This paragraph in WotC is particularly eloquent about it: "No, there is no proper solution for the war in Vietnam[iraq]: it is a war we should never have entered. To continue it, is senseless - withdraw from it, would be one more act of appeasement on our long, shameful record. The ultimate result of appeasement is a world war, as demonstrated by World War II; in today's context, it may mean a nuclear world war"

it does not serve any national interest of the United States

I also liked this paragraph: "This is the ugliest evil of the Vietnam war, that it does not serve any national interest of the United States - that it is a pure instance of blind, senseless, altruistic, self-sacrificial slaughter. This is the evil - not the revolting stuff that the Vietniks are howling about."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem lies with the philosophy of multiculturalism and political correctness -- at least, the philosophy which underlies these views. This isn't just a problem in Europe. It is a problem here in the US. It has caused us to block policies which are needed if we are to keep the country secure.
And this stems from the collapse of modern philosophy into skepticism.

Since, according to skepticism, there is no way to know anything for certain, there is no way to pronounce judgment -- there is no such thing as right and wrong, and all cultures must be treated equally. This is the ultimate act of unilateral disarmament. It amounts to a declaration that we will oppose nothing.

I agree that it places us in grave danger. Shortly after 9/11, I flew to Sand Diego several times. There were National Guardsmen with M-16 rifles all over the airport. However, none of them had ammunition. They told me the Governor wanted them deployed but considered it too risky to allow them to carry bullets! This is pure primacy of consciousness idiocy – the belief that all that matters is making people think they are safe.

The good news is that the bulk of Americans do still believe that America is worth fighting for, and that is an implicit rejection of skepticism and its cultural manifestations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prae displays troll-like behavior and, as such, I'm surprised s/he hasn't already been banned.

I guess none of us mods has been following this thread. Prompted by a report from erik, I have read Prae's posts and put him on moderator preview.

That said, Prae did actually hit the nail on the head by inadvertently naming the cause of Theo Van Gogh's murder when she called me a racist.  The cause isn't racism, of course, but that which made Prae call me a racist.

And that's where you hit the nail on the head! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking for a universal moral justification for the use of offensive force, whether it is the U.S deposing Iraq or if it is a man expelling his neighbor from his house.

In the case of states such as Iraq, the moral basis is both that there is no moral barrier stopping us (because a dictatorship has no rights), and because the state does pose a danger to us.

I would agree that Iran, N. Korea, and other countries pose a threat, probably even a greater one. As far as I know, the administration did not make a point of explaining their decision process in choosing between the various candidates. Frankly, I think it is both that we could do it and succeed, and because it is a strategically placed country whose makeover would improve the state of the region in general (i.e. perhaps as a military base of operations for the Iran war, or simply as a way to pressure Iran in hopes of starting reform. Hard to say). It certainly sets an example saying that we mean business.

Based on this and the Bush administration's premises, I disagree that the Iraq invasion does not serve our national interest. I just think the Bush administration did a poor job of explaining that interest, and on the eve of the war, I was not convinced. The posters here (and in other threads also) do a better job.

As for expelling your neighbor, I'm sure there are many who wish they could. I know of two, if I count John Belushi. However, our government has jurisdiction over that. There is no similar authority between countries except the Useless Nations, and they don't have a good track record regarding individual rights or decisive action. How can they, when there are so many rights-violators sitting on the board? So, it's up to us and our allies.

Link to comment
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...