I find this action by America baffling

[Yes]

Why is America taking ths action?

But at an informal closed-door meeting on Thursday, the United States said it could not accept the declaration because of its concerns that the Beijing platform legalized the right to abortion as a human right, according to several participants. 

[BurgessLau]

Why is America taking ths action?

In the first place, "America" isn't taking this action -- the Bush administration of the U. S. government is taking the action.

The Bushites are anti-abortion. Why be surprised when they act on their beliefs?

I live in Oregon, USA. Here, by state law, I have a right to ask a physician to help me end my life if I am suffering from terminal illness. The Bushites are asking the U. S. courts to nullify that law. Conservative thugs at work again. I am not surprised.

[EC]

Conservative thugs at work again. I am not surprised.

Conservative thugs? Besides Objectivists, Conservatives are about the only group I trust in this country. (Just don't take that to mean I approve of every thing they do. Of course I don't, but think labeling them "thugs" is a little harsh.) If you want to label Liberals thugs I'm fine with that though.

[punk]

Because the Christian Right owns the Republican Party.

[softwareNerd]

Conservative thugs?  ...labeling them "thugs" is a little harsh.) If you want to label Liberals thugs I'm fine with that though.

An age old question: are conservatives more like Objectivists, or are Democrats more like us? As asked, I think it cannot be answered.

As for "thugs".... well, let's start with a definition.

A thug is a type of criminal, usually a thief who uses violence or the threat of violence to deprive someone of what is rightfully theirs.

Does this describe someone who seeks to deprive a woman of her right to an abortion?

[EC]

An age old question: are conservatives more like Objectivists, or are Democrats more like us? As asked, I think it cannot be answered.

As for "thugs".... well, let's start with a definition.

A thug is a type of criminal, usually a thief who uses violence or the threat of violence to deprive someone of what is rightfully theirs.

Does this describe someone who seeks to deprive a woman of her right to an abortion?

To me no, but that's because the abortion issue is the only issue where I disagree with Ayn Rand. If that doesn't make me a "pure" Objectivist in everyone's eyes here, so be it. I won't defend my position here because I respect Objectivism too much and don't want to spread an idea that is counter to it. But I will say one thing in this regard, the reason I personally dislike the Objectivist stance on abortion is that I challenge the premise that human life *at any stage* is just a "potential". If I had followed that line of reasoning on this issue I wouldn't have my son today. And that would be a shame.

[softwareNerd]

To me no, but that's because the abortion issue is the only issue where I disagree with Ayn Rand.

Far be it from me to start yet another thread on abortion.

So, let me ask this: if we were to ignore the conservative position on abortion, and only consider their other political positions, do they seek to deprive people of rights?

[EC]

Far be it from me to start yet another thread on abortion.

So, let me ask this: if we were to ignore the conservative position on abortion, and only consider their other political positions, do they seek to deprive people of rights?

Through their support of some taxation and some big government programs, yes they do. But I will take their version of this stuff anyday over most Democratic versions. But I'd say most of their values are like ours except that they come from a bad philosophic principles. Fix their philosophic base, and suddenly there will be a lot more Objectivists. And then you wouldn't have non-sense like faith-based innitiatives.

I'll put it this way, take away the religion and the willingness to use coercive government to achieve their ends and the Conservatives aren't far from our positions in most instances. On the other hand, there has never been an instance, on any issue that I can recall, where I've agreed with or even liked a Democrat, ever.

Think of Arnold Shwartzenneger's(sp?) speach during the RNC. His "You might be a Republican if speach," could have easily had Objectivist instead of Republican with little or no alteration to the speach. It made me tear up.

[the tortured one]

It seems what is traditionally republican and what is Republican are two different things nowadays.

Back in the day, Being a Republican ment you had your philosophical roots in Goldwater, and hinged on Reagan and Gingrich's promises of small government and less intrusion on personal liberties.

now it seems that being a Neo-con means you accept Bush's word as canon (though I think the Democrats have a large role in the development of that attitude) and that you favor conservative social issues and some weird sort of Keynesian system of economics.

I think your perception of the parties has a lot to do with your environment. I am sure if you live in a predominatly liberal area, the idea of a large group of conservatives is pleasing to you. But there are areas that are deep red republican, and trust me, they can get irritating fast. I live in a school where the Libertarian party has more members than that Democrat party. In 2000 cadets, I think there may be 15 liberals, no exaggeration.

I remember the uproar people were in when the Ten commandments were taken from that state capitol building in Kentucky. They were saying things like "those damn liberals want to supress our freedom to pray" or other tripe like that. I was called a stinking liberal for agreeing with the secularists on the decision. I was also called a liberal when I pointed out some of Bush's shortcomings. Nothing debase, just an objective look at the man.

Trust me, there are positive things about the conservatives, especially compared to the liberals, but that doesn't make them any less prone to pushing their own agenda.

Edited February 28, 2005 by the tortured one

[AisA]

Conservative thugs?  Besides Objectivists, Conservatives are about the only group I trust in this country.  (Just don't take that to mean I approve of every thing they do. Of course I don't, but think labeling them "thugs" is a little harsh.) If you want to label Liberals thugs I'm fine with that though.

What is the conservative agenda today?

1) The biggest increase in Federal entitlement programs since the New Deal.

2) Enacting a constitutional amendment to make marriage an issue of federal law.

3) Denying a woman's right to control her own bodily functions.

4) Direct grants of federal dollars to religious groups.

5) Support for prayer in government schools.

6) Censorship of the media through the so called campaign finance reform act.

7) Supporting more censorship by proposing to silence the so called "527 groups".

8) Sacrificing American troops and treasure for the sake of protecting the citizens of foreign nations.

9) Denying the right to terminate one's own life.

10) Negotiating with nations hell bent on our destruction.

11) Pushing the notion that our legal system should be based on the 10 commandments.

12) Prohibiting scientific research into such areas as cloning and stem cells.

Those are a few of the recent conservative initiatives. What, then, is it that you trust conservatives to do? I voted for Bush because I thought that Kerry was worse, but as an advocate of freedom, I would never characterize a conservative as trustworthy.

[Yes]

An age old question: are conservatives more like Objectivists, or are Democrats more like us? As asked, I think it cannot be answered.

As for "thugs".... well, let's start with a definition.

A thug is a type of criminal, usually a thief who uses violence or the threat of violence to deprive someone of what is rightfully theirs.

Does this describe someone who seeks to deprive a woman of her right to an abortion?

YES!

[EC]

YES!

NO!

[Iakeo]

What is the conservative agenda today?

1) The biggest increase in Federal entitlement programs since the New Deal.

2) Enacting a constitutional amendment to make marriage an issue of federal law.

3) Denying a woman's right to control her own bodily functions.

4) Direct grants of federal dollars to religious groups.

5) Support for prayer in government schools.

6) Censorship of the media through the so called campaign finance reform act.

7) Supporting more censorship by proposing to silence the so called "527 groups".

8) Sacrificing American troops and treasure for the sake of protecting the citizens of foreign nations.

9) Denying the right to terminate one's own life.

10) Negotiating with nations hell bent on our destruction.

11) Pushing the notion that our legal system should be based on the 10 commandments.

12) Prohibiting scientific research into such areas as cloning and stem cells.

Those are a few of the recent conservative initiatives. What, then, is it that you trust conservatives to do? I voted for Bush because I thought that Kerry was worse, but as an advocate of freedom, I would never characterize a conservative as trustworthy.

Cool. When you see an act that you find irrational, you say so in public.

Presumably to try to show it as irrational.

It would be good if you would also give your reasoning as to why you think these

things are irrational, as otherwise you're asking us to just "believe" you that these

things are irrational.

Please follow your own principles, please, and give your reasoning.

-Iakeo

[TomL]

NO!

YES! And here's WHY:

What happens to a woman who gets an abortion if it becomes illegal? Jail?

What happens if she refuses to go to jail?

That's right ... the cops point a gun at her. That is force, pure and simple. Any law by the goverment is reducible to force through law enforcement. That's why force is the main component of the word enforcement.

Edit to fix imbalanced quote tags.

Edited March 15, 2005 by TomL

[EC]

Cool. When you see an act that you find irrational, you say so in public.

Presumably to try to show it as irrational.

It would be good if you would also give your reasoning as to why you think these

things are irrational, as otherwise you're asking us to just "believe" you that these

things are irrational.

Please follow your own principles, please, and give your reasoning.

-Iakeo

Are you talking to me or AisA? He is the one that made that list. If you're talking to me I've already stated why I disagree with the Objectivist stance on abortion (which is also the only area where I've ever found myself in disagreement). I challenge the premise that humans are ever just a "potential" in any stage of their development. Don't take that to mean that I don't understand why that argument is made. I just personally[/] reject it as wrong.

[AisA]

Cool. When you see an act that you find irrational, you say so in public.

Presumably to try to show it as irrational.

It would be good if you would also give your reasoning as to why you think these

things are irrational, as otherwise you're asking us to just "believe" you that these

things are irrational.

Please follow your own principles, please, and give your reasoning.

-Iakeo

The list was offered to demonstrate to another person (whose positions largely overlap Objectivism) why conservatives cannot be trusted to defend freedom. I did not offer the list in a vacuum, but rather in a forum dedicated to Objectivism, with an audience comprising (mostly) individuals who would immediately see why these acts are improper.

Objectivism holds that no one, including the government, may initiate the use of force. The only proper use of force is in retaliation against those who initiated it, and the use of retaliatory force to protect the rights of the citizens is the only valid function of government.

Each of the acts listed above represents an attempt to limit freedom by either having the government initiate the use of force to achieve the stated goal, or by a failure to use retaliatory force in protecting us.

What is your position on the use of force and the function of government? Which of the items on the list do you regard as proper, and why? If Objectivism is not your philosophy, what is?

[Iakeo]

Are you talking to me or AisA? He is the one that made that list. If you're talking to me I've already stated why I disagree with the Objectivist stance on abortion (which is also the only area where I've ever found myself in disagreement). I challenge the premise that humans are ever just a "potential" in any stage of their development. Don't take that to mean that I don't understand why that argument is made. I just personally[/] reject it as wrong.

Let's see how many levels of quote-imbedding we can do here.. (That's a..

that's a joke son..! <- Foghorn)

I was talking to AisA. The list maker.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as an "objectivist stance". Only the typical

stance of individuals who have some level of understanding of objectivism.

For an utterly anti-dogmatist philosophy to have a dogma is a GREAT example of

A<>A.

-Iakeo

[Iakeo]

The list was offered to demonstrate to another person (whose positions largely overlap Objectivism) why conservatives cannot be trusted to defend freedom. I did not offer the list in a vacuum, but rather in a forum dedicated to Objectivism, with an audience comprising (mostly) individuals who would immediately see why these acts are improper.

Objectivism holds that no one, including the government, may initiate the use of force. The only proper use of force is in retaliation against those who initiated it, and the use of retaliatory force to protect the rights of the citizens is the only valid function of government.

Each of the acts listed above represents an attempt to limit freedom by either having the government initiate the use of force to achieve the stated goal, or by a failure to use retaliatory force in protecting us.

What is your position on the use of force and the function of government? Which of the items on the list do you regard as proper, and why? If Objectivism is not your philosophy, what is?

My philosophy coincides with objectivism to an amazing extent. Apparently so

does yours. But if you accept ANYTHING (any one thing) from a developed

philosophy that you didn't develop yourself simply because it's "part of the canon",

then you aren't DOING objectivism.

Each of the items in your list would require further breakdown into their

constituent "parts" to discuss in terms of whether they are ethical actions, or

moral positions, according to my understanding of objectivism.

I'm merely stating that to use a list of "offences" (are they?) commited by a

plethora of people who are grouped as "conservatives" (a collectivized group of

individuals, ie and un-real "thing") to make an attack on a statement of fact ("I

trust conservatives") for the purpose of making a blanket statement that you

know your can't support as stated ("I would never characterize a conservative as

trustworthy").

NEVER trustworthy..? Trustworthy to do what? Trustworthy to whom?

I would trust a conservative waiter to get me my iced-tea refill. And there MUST

be some conservative waiters out there somewhere.

-Iakeo

[AisA]

My philosophy coincides with objectivism to an amazing extent. Apparently so

does yours. But if you accept ANYTHING (any one thing) from a developed

philosophy that you didn't develop yourself simply because it's "part of the canon",

then you aren't DOING objectivism.

Each of the items in your list would require further breakdown into their

constituent "parts" to discuss in terms of whether they are ethical actions, or

moral positions, according to my understanding of objectivism.

I'm merely stating that to use a list of "offences" (are they?) commited by a

plethora of people who are grouped as "conservatives" (a collectivized group of

individuals, ie and un-real "thing") to make an attack on a statement of fact ("I

trust conservatives") for the purpose of making a blanket statement that you

know your can't support as stated ("I would never characterize a conservative as

trustworthy").

NEVER trustworthy..? Trustworthy to do what? Trustworthy to whom?

I would trust a conservative waiter to get me my iced-tea refill. And there MUST

be some conservative waiters out there somewhere. 

-Iakeo

You are dropping context here. We were speaking of whether or not conservatives can be trusted to be defenders of freedom, not trustworthy to refill our tea.

As defenders of freedom, conservatives have a terrible track record. If you are aware of evidence to the contrary, I will gladly hear it.

But if you accept ANYTHING (any one thing) from a developed

philosophy that you didn't develop yourself simply because it's "part of the canon",

then you aren't DOING objectivism.

I agree that one must have a first-hand understanding of philosophical principles. I don't think you will find many people here who accept Objectivism simply as "part of the canon".

By the way, since Objectivism is the proper name for Miss Rand's philosophy, it should be capitalized.

[Iakeo]

You are dropping context here. We were speaking of whether or not conservatives can be trusted to be defenders of freedom, not trustworthy to refill our tea.

As defenders of freedom, conservatives have a terrible track record. If you are aware of evidence to the contrary, I will gladly hear it.

What does "defenders of freedom" mean? Actually, what does "conservatives"

mean? And "track record"..? Of whom..? For what period..?

My observation: You just don't like "conservatives". Period. Whatever that means

to you.

I agree that one must have a first-hand understanding of philosophical principles. I don't think you will find many people here who accept Objectivism simply as "part of the canon".

Cool. Excellent. That's what I've found too..!

By the way, since Objectivism is the proper name for Miss Rand's philosophy, it should be capitalized.

The meaning of "Objectivism" (big "O") as a proper name, is a "thing" that

is "owned", as you imply by saying it's "her's", and is not what I mean

by "objectivism".

The concept, "objectivism" (little "o") is that which is pointed at by AR's vast

accumulation of recorded words (or anyone else's words), is what I refer to when

I say "objectivism" (little "o").

In other words, the difference between a piece of art, and the beauty of that art.

Or,... it could be I merely got lazy.

I'll leave it to you to decide which.

-Iakeo

Edited March 16, 2005 by Iakeo

[AisA]

What does "defenders of freedom" mean? Actually, what does "conservatives"

mean? And "track record"..? Of whom..? For what period..?

My observation: You just don't like "conservatives". Period. Whatever that means

to you.

If I have to explain the meaning of terms such as, "defenders of freedom" and "track record", then I will spend my time doing something else.

The meaning of "Objectivism" (big "O") as a proper name, is a "thing" that

is "owned", as you imply by saying it's "her's", and is not what I mean

by "objectivism".

The concept, "objectivism" (little "o") is that which is pointed at by AR's vast

accumulation of recorded words (or anyone else's words), is what I refer to when

I say "objectivism" (little "o").

In other words, the difference between a piece of art, and the beauty of that art.

Or,... it could be I merely got lazy. 

I'll leave it to you to decide which.

Why are you here?

[Iakeo]

If I have to explain the meaning of terms such as, "defenders of freedom" and "track record", then I will spend my time doing something else.

And that's my point. The inability of, or disinterest in, bringing fuzzyheadedness

like making blanket statements about "imagined" groups of people is the passtime

of those who are simply interested in bashing people (for emotional reasons) that

they (emotionally) disagree with.

You appear to have a gripe of some sort with "conservatives". That's cool. But if

you can be as irrational as assume that everyone "just knows" what your talking

about when you say things like "defenders of freedom", then my pointing out that

that IS irrational should be of no surprise to you.

Why are you here?

I'm here to converse with interesting people.

You happen to be one of them.

-Iakeo

[Bold Standard]

A prerequisite of engaging in a rational discussion is *not* a comprehensive definition of all terms to be used in the discussion- assuming those terms are used consistently and objective definitions are *available* to the conversants. If it were so, every new discussion would be as two infants meeting each other for the first time, each holding the other responsible for the authoring of a complete dictionary before any discourse can begin.

This practice does not belong in civilized communications but should have vanished with the myth of the Tower of Babel.. and the philosophical system under scrutiny would not be Objectivism but that which should have vanished with the myth of Linguistic Analysis (though it's quite an overstatement to call that a "system").

That is what I assume AisA means when he says he is not speaking in a vacuum. Given this is an Objectivist forum, it should be assumed that words are used the way they are used by Ayn Rand and other Objectivists. There is scarcely an article by Ayn Rand in which her definition of "freedom" is not given, and it can be gathered from context that AisA means this definition, so I will give it (since he is evidently uninterested in doing so): "Freedom" means, in this context, *political* freedom, ie, freedom from force. That means- a political system based on rights (the rights of individuals- life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness), in which the initiation of force is banished from human relationships and the government holds a monopoly on the retaliative use of force- in other words, "laissez-faire capitalism."

Defenders of freedom are, therefore, those who are working and fighting for the establishment of a system of laissez-faire capitalism. The term "conservative" can also be assumed to be of the same meaning Ayn Rand attached to the term. You will find many interesting entries in the Ayn Rand Lexicon under the word "conservative". But, for practical purposes, let it be assumed that AisA means "conservative" as it is defined in popular usage. Nothing he said contradicts this, and he has provided a list of goals of many contemporary self-proclaimed conservatives. If you are unaware of the meaning of the term in popular usage, then he has given you an alternative definition right there! "Conservatives" means the people who advocate the things he posted- which do not promote capitalism, but a mixed economy/theocracy and ultimately a statist dictatorship (if taken to their logical ends, rather than existing in some "middle of the road" which isn't possible for long).

And that's my point. The inability of, or disinterest in, bringing fuzzyheadedness

like making blanket statements about "imagined" groups of people is the passtime

of those who are simply interested in bashing people (for emotional reasons) that

they (emotionally) disagree with.

You appear to have a gripe of some sort with "conservatives". That's cool. But if

you can be as irrational as assume that everyone "just knows" what your talking

about when you say things like "defenders of freedom", then my pointing out that

that IS irrational should be of no surprise to you.

-Iakeo

(edited to include "based on rights" in the definition of "capitalism")

Edited March 17, 2005 by Bold Standard

[AisA]

Thank you, Bold Standard, for that excellent explanation.

[Iakeo]

A prerequisite of engaging in a rational discussion is *not* a comprehensive definition of all terms to be used in the discussion- assuming those terms are used consistently and objective definitions are *available* to the conversants.  If it were so, every new discussion would be as two infants meeting each other for the first time, each holding the other responsible for the authoring of a complete dictionary before any discourse can begin.

This practice does not belong in civilized communications but should have vanished with the myth of the Tower of Babel.. and the philosophical system under scrutiny would not be Objectivism but that which should have vanished with the myth of Linguistic Analysis (though it's quite an overstatement to call that a "system").

That is what I assume AisA means when he says he is not speaking in a vacuum. Given this is an Objectivist forum, it should be assumed that words are used the way they are used by Ayn Rand and other Objectivists.  There is scarcely an article by Ayn Rand in which her definition of "freedom" is not given, and it can be gathered from context that AisA means this definition, so I will give it (since he is evidently uninterested in doing so): "Freedom" means, in this context, *political* freedom, ie, freedom from force.  That means- a political system based on rights (the rights of individuals- life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness), in which the initiation of force is banished from human relationships and the government holds a monopoly on the retaliative use of force- in other words, "laissez-faire capitalism."

Defenders of freedom are, therefore, those who are working and fighting for the establishment of a system of laissez-faire capitalism.  The term "conservative" can also be assumed to be of the same meaning Ayn Rand attached to the term.  You will find many interesting entries in the Ayn Rand Lexicon under the word "conservative".  But, for practical purposes, let it be assumed that AisA means "conservative" as it is defined in popular usage.  Nothing he said contradicts this, and he has provided a list of goals of many contemporary self-proclaimed conservatives.  If you are unaware of the meaning of the term in popular usage, then he has given you an alternative definition right there!  "Conservatives" means the people who advocate the things he posted- which do not promote capitalism, but a mixed economy/theocracy and ultimately a statist dictatorship (if taken to their logical ends, rather than existing in some "middle of the road" which isn't possible for long).

(edited to include "based on rights" in the definition of "capitalism")

Very good..!

I agree that my questions were formed by rather overstripping the context from

around what AisA had said. And I did that specifically to elicit more information

about that context. And more information about the "motives" of the speaker.

The reason I did so was because I'm interested in finding out the specific

definitions used for many of the terms which "everyone knows", but are generally

left AS unsaid context. Sometimes restatement is not a bad thing, and

the "emotions" tied to having to restate your terms is an indicator of whether the

original statements were "preaching to the choir", simple invective directed at

the "bad guys" (emotional outburst), or an attempt to point out evil.

Perhaps it is some combination of those. Most probably that.

Clearly, AisA is "unsympathetic" toward "conservatives", however AisA defines

them, and takes issue with many of "their" acts.

Thanks also for the method for which to deduce the meaning of "conservative"

from the examples of acts that "they do".

I have more information now than I had before, though perhaps not as much as

I'd like,.. but you get what you get, eh?

Thanks!

-Iakeo

Edited March 17, 2005 by Iakeo