Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why Objectivism is culturally backward.

Rate this topic


Kate87
 Share

Recommended Posts

In a few threads, and in the chat, I have come across one of the following two arguments:

  1. Romney was the better candidate.

  2. Both were just as bad as the other.

The third option (Obama was the better candidate) does not seem to exist in Objectivist circles. If Objectivism is meant to be about freedom, the most basic freedom one can have is the freedom to do what you will with your own body. Romney would deny women abortion. He is a religious nut job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SE

He specifically says in this video that he has always voted against choice and always will. HOW DARE ANYONE VOTE FOR SUCH A FASCIST! How dare you equivocate between economic and political freedoms, between the ideas of Obama and Romney. One is clearly worse. One would shackle women. In a choice between instigating higher taxes and instigating the shackling of women you choose to shackle women? How DARE you. It makes me sick to the stomach.

There is a reason why you feel able to equivocate: most of you are white males. So culturally you subconsciously see economic freedom as THE freedom, and downplay abuses of freedoms that effect women. This cultural bias probably results from most of you residing in rural areas, but that is just my opinion. I hope you can see why my anger is justified.

Anyone who chooses to shackle women over paying higher taxes is a backward monster. And anyway who abstained from voting is a moral monster. And anyway who says "oh but we shouldn't have to make this choice" is a coward. The Objectivist community had to choose and it will be judged by it's backward choice.

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Obama ever been shown to be a liar? Probably a debatable point, it's just nice to see that you at least find him to be forthright, you are assured there is no conceivable circumstance where Obama may act against his stated position.

I just wonder how long abortions will be available when the APCA kicks all the way in. By that I mean if rationing of medical expenditures comes to pass, will curtailing abortions be seen as a possible cost saving measure. I'm pretty sure they have already written off those over 70 yrs age as it concerns neurosurgery when intercranial bleeding indicates emergency surgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who chooses to shackle women over paying higher taxes is a backward monster.

First of all, "Objectivism" is unambiguously pro-choice, so you’ve immediately gone way off the rails.

Second, notice that 8 years of Reagan and 12 of Bush couldn’t make a dent in the right to abortion. This is not to say that one shouldn’t be concerned about the religious conservative rhetoric, but there needs to be a sense of proportion.

Third, not all Objectivists supported Romney. A good number voted for Johnson, and I don’t doubt that some (very small) number even voted for Obama. My swing-state cast vote for Romney was motivated by his pledge to repeal Obamacare. How would you weigh the relative importance of one politician’s unfulfillable desire to deny one right, to another’s which is on the cusp of being implemented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a reason why you feel able to equivocate: most of you are white males. So culturally you subconsciously see economic freedom as THE freedom, and downplay abuses of freedoms that effect women. This cultural bias probably results from most of you residing in rural areas, but that is just my opinion. I hope you can see why my anger is justified.

I don't think that it's an issue based in people being white and/or male. I know of many women and non-whites who place more importance on economic freedom in today's world than on the abortion issue. The reason they place more importance on it is because government intrusion into economics is having a real and serious effect on their lives, where abortion is not. Basically, most people will never need to have the option of having an abortion, and the legality of abortion isn't currently threatened. Even if Romney had won, abortion would have remained legal. So those who vote for economic freedom over abortion freedom are simply voting against the real loss of their economic freedoms rather than against the potential but highly unlikely loss of your abortion freedoms.

Anyone who chooses to shackle women over paying higher taxes is a backward monster. And anyway who abstained from voting is a moral monster. And anyway who says "oh but we shouldn't have to make this choice" is a coward. The Objectivist community had to choose and it will be judged by it's backward choice.

I disagree. I think that your condemnation of others -- because they vote (or abstaining from voting) for the purpose of choosing to fight against the real government intrusions which affect them most, rather than choosing to fight against the merely potential and unlikely intrusions which affect you the most -- is what is morally corrupt. Your expectation that they surrender their interest in their freedoms in the name of yours is what is morally "monstrous."

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which Objectivist circles do you speak of? Based on your wording though, I suspect you're not after a discussion, you're just after venting anger. Personally, I have said Obama is marginally better, but his position on abortion is a reason I would say Obama is better than Romney in such a way that I didn't even contemplate voting Romney.

Even then, your thread title isn't what you're talking about. Objectivism certainly advocates the right to have an abortion, so you *could* argue that voting for Romney is to contradict principles. That may be a discussion worth having. But not with anger involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting for Romney is a vote for 'shackling women'? That's a little dramatic- let's keep things in perspective.

Even if Romney had won, abortion would have remained legal. So those who vote for economic freedom over abortion freedom are simply voting against the real loss of their economic freedoms rather than against the potential but highly unlikely loss of your abortion freedoms.

This is the most important point. We all know that Romney is against abortion. So is Ron Paul. So are tons of other government employees. But does the president have the power to outlaw abortion? Absolutely not. And can a president overturn Roe v. Wade? No way. What he CAN do to affect abortion rights is:

  • Regulate medicaid. The president can block Medicaid funding to certain states that refuse to give money to organizations like Planned Parenthood. Obama has done this, but Romney probably wouldn't.
  • Affect funding for nonprofits that provide abortions overseas. Obama started this practice, but Romney would overturn it.
  • Pass federal abortion regulations (like the partial birth abortion ban act). Obama hasn't passed any federal regulations. Would Romney?
  • Appoint supreme court justices. Romney would have been able to appoint 1 or 2 new justices. Would one more conservative justice be enough to overturn Roe v. Wade? I don't think so. Only 2 justices (Scalia and Clarence Thomas) have made it clear they want to overturn Roe v. Wade because 'there's no right to abortion in the constitution.'

Overall, a Romney president would not have been able to make many changes in regards to abortion rights.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appoint supreme court justices. Romney would have been able to appoint 1 or 2 new justices. Would one more conservative justice be enough to overturn Roe v. Wade? I don't think so. Only 2 justices (Scalia and Clarence Thomas) have made it clear they want to overturn Roe v. Wade because 'there's no right to abortion in the constitution.'

And the odds are that Romney, in the name of reaching across the aisle, getting along, governing by consensus, kumbaya, etc., would have appointed moderate or even liberal justices rather than conservatives.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The third option (Obama was the better candidate) does not seem to exist in Objectivist circles. If Objectivism is meant to be about freedom, the most basic freedom one can have is the freedom to do what you will with your own body. Romney would deny women abortion. He is a religious nut job:

Your 3rd option is a non-starter in terms of basic freedoms. Obama's individual mandate trumps anything you want to do with your own body, and to claim that forcing healthcare is preferable to withholding healthcare, is also equivocal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a few threads, and in the chat, I have come across one of the following two arguments:

  1. Romney was the better candidate.

  2. Both were just as bad as the other.

The third option (Obama was the better candidate) does not seem to exist in Objectivist circles. If Objectivism is meant to be about freedom, the most basic freedom one can have is the freedom to do what you will with your own body. Romney would deny women abortion. He is a religious nut job:

He specifically says in this video that he has always voted against choice and always will. HOW DARE ANYONE VOTE FOR SUCH A FASCIST! How dare you equivocate between economic and political freedoms, between the ideas of Obama and Romney. One is clearly worse. One would shackle women. In a choice between instigating higher taxes and instigating the shackling of women you choose to shackle women? How DARE you. It makes me sick to the stomach.

There is a reason why you feel able to equivocate: most of you are white males. So culturally you subconsciously see economic freedom as THE freedom, and downplay abuses of freedoms that effect women. This cultural bias probably results from most of you residing in rural areas, but that is just my opinion. I hope you can see why my anger is justified.

Anyone who chooses to shackle women over paying higher taxes is a backward monster. And anyway who abstained from voting is a moral monster. And anyway who says "oh but we shouldn't have to make this choice" is a coward. The Objectivist community had to choose and it will be judged by it's backward choice.

The above is wrong. Romney is wrong about abortion; Obama is wrong about the ENTIRE role of government. Summing up Obama, you get a potential communist dictator. Summing up Romney, you get a mixture of Capitalism and socialism. Obviously, Romney is the lesser evil.

You don't judge a candidate on one issue; you judge them on how they stand on all the issues, and sum them up about how good or bad they are.

Objectivism isn't backwards. The above statement is.

I find it amusing that the writer thinks Obama - who wants to shackle EVERYONE - men and women - the healthcare compulsion mandate is shackling everyone, men and women - is a better person than Romney, who wants to shackle women's abortion rights (which is wrong too - but clearly not as bad as heading in the direction of controlling everything about everyone). The writer is not rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You do not define "culturally backward."

2. Whatever the expression means, you do not present an argument that it applies to Objectivism (or for that matter, to Objectivists who supported Romney).

So why some were willing to overlook Romney's position on abortion? I think one reason is that they see it as a bumper-sticker issue - one that's good for firing up the hard core and shaking money out of them but which has no prospect of enactment. In the 50s and 60s Taft-Hartley repeal was such an issue for the Democrats. Proposed constitutional amendments are often of this nature: the ERA (after the first year or two), abortion, flag-burning, same-sex marriage and messing with the first amendment would all be cases in point. Thus a lot of people, including Objectivists, were able to overcome their dislike of Romney's position on abortion because they figured nothing would come of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of you are all confirming your cultural biases to me. For those under the delusion that abortion rights were not at risk - http://tpmdc.talking...preme-court.php One more conservative judge would have tipped the scales.

The above is wrong. Romney is wrong about abortion; Obama is wrong about the ENTIRE role of government. Summing up Obama, you get a potential communist dictator. Summing up Romney, you get a mixture of Capitalism and socialism. Obviously, Romney is the lesser evil.

Will an Objectivist here please confirm to Darrell how absurd this statement is. First of all, learn what communism is. What Fox News calls communism isn't communism. Obama is not a communist. Obama is a centrist, and he supports a mixed economy. Romney is centre right and supports a mixed economy.

I find it amusing that the writer thinks Obama - who wants to shackle EVERYONE - men and women - the healthcare compulsion mandate is shackling everyone, men and women - is a better person than Romney, who wants to shackle women's abortion rights (which is wrong too - but clearly not as bad as heading in the direction of controlling everything about everyone). The writer is not rational.

Perhaps your most absurd paragraph. Obamacare was Romney's policy that he enacted in MA. There is a reason people refer to it as Obamneycare. In fact originally, the policy was dreamt up by the Heritage Institute a well known free market supporter.

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of you are all confirming your cultural biases to me.

What are you talking about? No one has confirmed any cultural biases. You've only gone out looking for cultural biases and have decided to find them whether they exist or not.

For those under the delusion that abortion rights were not at risk - http://tpmdc.talking...preme-court.php One more conservative judge would have tipped the scales.

Why should we assign any weight to the predictions and opinions of Sahil Kapur and the Talking Points Memo?

Anyway, I'm currently being taxed and mandated under Obama. You're currently not being denied the right to have an abortion. Understand? In voting for Obama, you have sanctioned the confiscation of my wealth. In not voting for Obama, I have not sanctioned state control over your body.

Will an Objectivist here please confirm to Darrell how absurd this statement is. First of all, learn what communism is. What Fox News calls communism isn't communism. Obama is not a communist. Obama is a centrist, and he supports a mixed economy.

I don't think that's true. Obama sometimes talks centrism to certain audiences, but I think ultimately, he'd prefer complete government ownership and control of everything.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm…. Let’s see. Do I vote for the man who wanted to control one kind of medical procedure, or do I vote for the man who already has indicated he wants the government to control ALL medical procedures and has signed into law the process of forcing people into that kind of system.

Hmmm… Protect one tree while watching the forest burn or protect the forest and return to the single tree to play defense once that tree and every other one has been saved?

Must me a backward white male monster thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are rural and urban actually relevent terms in the modern sense? At some point historians will probably refer to the common era as the age of dissemination instead of information. Those terms connote the difference between the cosmopolitan nature of cities with access and dissemination of information at a rate higher than in rural populations given the inability of access to the 'newsest' information. Given current technological advances those distinctions seem moot.

Actually Romney would be a communist and Obama would be a Stalinist given the poster's reasoning. A communist (marxist) would leave the capitalists to their druthers in the hope they would impliment the apex of industrialization to then allow the proliteriat to eventually take over, of course after the state was done showing the workers how to survive after the point where it would be ok for the state to wither away.

Obama is more a Stalinist in that he feels it would be better to throttle the current capitalists and then I guess basically do whatever he felt like ,justified by whatever social engineering theory seemed appropriate.

But thats just keepin it real

urban enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate, you're from the UK, correct?

The American separation of powers doesn't allow for one president - even a president and congress combined - to simply outlaw abortion. Romney could appoint anti-choice justices to the Supreme Court, but that's about as much power as a president has in regards to abortion. He'd still have to convince legislators to approve his appointments. Also, if you want to remain objective, you can't pretend the differences are limited to only one issue. It's fine to decide that one issue is most important for you based on your own hierarchy of values, but it's absurd to claim that people are depraved if people don't agree with your values as they pertain to a choice between two statists.

With regard to your generalization about Romney voters being white rural males, consider this: I am a white urban male and I voted for Johnson. My baby-mama is a mixed-race pro-choice urban female and she voted for Romney. Your generalizations in this thread combined with my experience in the gun control thread make me think that confirmation bias is normal for you. I am sincerely not trying to be dismissive of you; rather, I'm trying to draw your attention to the possibility so you can guard against it when you consider what comes next.

I'm going to be as forthcoming as I can about why I chose to vote for Johnson. As I wrote earlier, I don't think that it's appropriate to think of one issue in a vacuum. I thought it was important to try to take in as broad a picture about this election as I could without losing focus of how important each individual issue is for me. I started by comparing direct policies: Obama won big on abortion and gay marriage, even though I consider his actions on the latter issue to be relatively weak. He would have won on the issue of the drug war, except he completely betrayed his campaign promises on this issue - so that was a wash. Obama delivered the specter of the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial, something I expect Romney to do nothing about - again, a wash. Romney won by a clear but small margin on foreign policy (this nonsense about a trade war with China was a mark against him). Romney won by the smallest margins on healthcare, but Obama's energy policy is something out of dystopian fiction - Romney is orders of magnitude better than Obama on this.

But that only scratches the surface of presidential politics. What about experience, budgeting, pressure from core constituents, etc.? I didn't feel like I could possibly do accurate accounting and apples-to-apples comparisons on every issue. So I decided to consider what I knew about the two candidates' guiding principles. Obama seemed to delegate at every opportunity and bow to his handler's assessments regarding big issues. His handlers came out of the Chicago political environment (notorious for hard-nosed intimidation politics), but are ultimately accountable to a very committed ("extreme") base that adhere to a need-based view of rights. Romney is also a political opportunist and ultimately accountable to a different constituency that have a theistic "natural rights" political philosophy.

The need-based view of rights could never overcome the economic fact of limited resources; it always returns to some variety of class warfare. In this election it was "the war on women" and the "[enter number here]%" economic war. The "natural rights" view is more in line with Objectivist principles in the sense that it views rights as rights to actions instead of material things. But because the foundation is non-objective (theistic), the consequences are awful conclusions about abortion, rape, LGBT issues, science education, etc. In the short term this meant that Romney was much better, but in the long term? The choice was too awful to contemplate, and there was no way of determining how much time could be bought with a short-term voting strategy. So I hunkered down for the long-term, and voted for a guy who had more executive experience than both major-party candidates combined and had a non-theistic action-oriented view of rights, but no chance of winning this time.

Edited by FeatherFall
grammar, clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting for Romney is a vote for 'shackling women'? That's a little dramatic- let's keep things in perspective.

This is the most important point. We all know that Romney is against abortion. So is Ron Paul. So are tons of other government employees. But does the president have the power to outlaw abortion? Absolutely not. And can a president overturn Roe v. Wade? No way. What he CAN do to affect abortion rights is:

  • Regulate medicaid. The president can block Medicaid funding to certain states that refuse to give money to organizations like Planned Parenthood. Obama has done this, but Romney probably wouldn't.
  • Affect funding for nonprofits that provide abortions overseas. Obama started this practice, but Romney would overturn it.
  • Pass federal abortion regulations (like the partial birth abortion ban act). Obama hasn't passed any federal regulations. Would Romney?
  • Appoint supreme court justices. Romney would have been able to appoint 1 or 2 new justices. Would one more conservative justice be enough to overturn Roe v. Wade? I don't think so. Only 2 justices (Scalia and Clarence Thomas) have made it clear they want to overturn Roe v. Wade because 'there's no right to abortion in the constitution.'

Overall, a Romney president would not have been able to make many changes in regards to abortion rights.

While I agree the OP is overly dramatic, these bullet points are factually wrong.

  • Regulate medicaid. Medicare/Medicaid don't provide abortions due to long-standing Republican opposition. Anyway, this bullet is a little odd since, as I understand it, Objectivists are against Medicare/Medicaid altogether..
  • Affect funding for nonprofits that provide abortions overseas. Obama did not start this practice. Again it was Republican legislators who started it long ago. Obama has not had the power to overturn it.
  • Pass federal abortion regulations (like the partial birth abortion ban act). If I'm not mistaking, Romney supported the so-called partial birth abortion ban (and Obama did not). As to whether Romney would support/sign further regulations, yes, he probably would have. He has expressed support for Personhood begins at Conception legislation.
  • Appoint supreme court justices. This is the most important point. Actually, if he can appoint 1 or 2 new justices, Romney probably could tip the balance (if the Senate doesn't stop him) and he certainly would try to. Supreme Court justices make it a policy not to discuss how they will handle future cases, so you can't go by their public statements. The best you can do is read the tea leaves. In addition to Scalia and Thomas, it is extremely likely Alito would vote to overturn Roe. Roberts is more of a wild card ... as his Obamacare decision proved. So, one appointment might be able to overturn Roe, but two almost certainly would.

So, yes, if you voted for either Romney or Obama, it should be on your conscience how you weighed abortion rights versus all other issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

these bullet points are factually wrong.

Which part, exactly?

  • Regulate medicaid. Medicare/Medicaid don't provide abortions due to long-standing Republican opposition. Anyway, this bullet is a little odd since, as I understand it, Objectivists are against Medicare/Medicaid altogether..

My point was not to say 'this is the objectivist position on these issues' - it was to outline the power that the president actually has in regards to abortion.

Fact: "Last year the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Texas law, affirming that the state could withhold funding from Planned Parenthood. “Since then, the Obama Administration has withheld federal Medicaid dollars from the state until it agrees to restore Planned Parenthood’s funding,” reported Focus on the Family's CitizenLink.com. “The case is again making its way through the federal court system, as is Indiana’s.”" [1]

Fact: "Today the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, ruling that a 2011 Indiana state law (Ind. Code 5-22-17-5.5) banning “abortion providers from receiving any state-administered funds, even if the money is earmarked for [services other than abortion]” is unconstitutional." [2]

  • Affect funding for nonprofits that provide abortions overseas. Obama did not start this practice. Again it was Republican legislators who started it long ago. Obama has not had the power to overturn it.

Fact: "President Obama signed an executive order today reversing the ban that prohibits funding to international family planning groups that provide abortions." (The ban was originally put in place by Reagan.) [3]

  • Pass federal abortion regulations (like the partial birth abortion ban act). If I'm not mistaking, Romney supported the so-called partial birth abortion ban (and Obama did not). As to whether Romney would support/sign further regulations, yes, he probably would have. He has expressed support for Personhood begins at Conception legislation.

Yes, Obama was against that act. As for Romney, he recently said that "“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney said, according to the paper." [4] I have no idea if he would stick to that decision or not.

  • Appoint supreme court justices. This is the most important point. Actually, if he can appoint 1 or 2 new justices, Romney probably could tip the balance (if the Senate doesn't stop him) and he certainly would try to. Supreme Court justices make it a policy not to discuss how they will handle future cases, so you can't go by their public statements. The best you can do is read the tea leaves. In addition to Scalia and Thomas, it is extremely likely Alito would vote to overturn Roe. Roberts is more of a wild card ... as his Obamacare decision proved. So, one appointment might be able to overturn Roe, but two almost certainly would.

That is debatable. (Edit: Personally, I don't think he has it in him.)

Edited by mdegges
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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