Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

We aren't at almost-fascism, no one's breaking the rules of Constitution

That does not define what fascism is or isn't.

(I'm not making a case for ANTIFA. I have not studied what they are.)

But a constitution that permits forced taxation and does not have a separation of "economy and state" inevitably contains fascism elements.

In other words, we don't' have Capitalism as defined in Objectivism.

One way or the other it means we have some fascism, individual rights are not full respected.

There is a continuum, we are not as bad as China or Mussolini's Italy but there is a collusion of Business and Government against individual rights. "Almost-Fascism" can indicate authoritarianism, which does in fact exist in this nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

I have enough superstition about me not to want to declare that we've survived this, just yet. But despite everything, it looks better to me today than it did yesterday, and it's the first time in a w

Posted Images

Rand apparently expected Fascism rather than Communism in this nation. I have heard Yaron say that but this is the only quote that I have seen confirming it

I have stated repeatedly that the trend in this country is toward a fascist system with communist slogans. But what all of today’s pressure groups are busy evading is the fact that neither business nor labor nor anyone else, except the ruling clique, gains anything under fascism or communism or any form of statism—that all become victims of an impartial, egalitarian destruction.

http://cultureofreason.org/style/img/theaynrandletter.jpg

“The Moratorium on Brains,”

Edited by Easy Truth
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

That does not define what fascism is or isn't.

Oh I know, I was listing those are separate things that Necro mentioned. The (probably) Democrats in question haven't violated the Constitution, while he claimed that people somehow have violated the Constitution. He separately claimed that we are almost at fascism, but I don't think there's any evidence to say so.

As for you, I think you're being too loose about the term fascism if you say that any forced taxation has a fascist element. Forced taxation has existed much longer than fascism, it is a characteristic of almost all governments that have existed. They share a characteristic, but they fail to distinguish a concept like oligarchy from democracy from fascism from republicanism. Or at least if we are close to fascism, you'll probably find at least one similarity with the unique characteristic of fascism (but I don't think there is one). So I don't see why you would say we are at fascism. 

But if anything is approaching fascism, that started on January 6. The people who broke into the capitol building are in effect declaring that the US government is illegitimate. That the majority of the US Congress has no right to its claim of legislative authority and verifying the presidential election. I'm not saying because they said the government is illegitimate alone, but why they view this is necessary. They want to preserve or bring us back to a particular tradition and culture, and that immediate action is necessary. Nationalism to an extreme degree. Because these ideas have been betrayed in their eyes, they believe that the government has become illegitimate. 

The woman who was deservedly shot is one of those people. She was a Q believer, implying that Trump would be a savior rescue us from this grand betrayal. She wasn't misguided. She was unhinged, like all Q believers. The thing is, anyone who stormed the capitol, for the most part, thinks that the US government is illegitimate, and all of them think that the election has been stolen. The worst thing is, those people have abandoned any notion of philosophy. At least fascists based their ideas on rigorous philosophical thought, and they were pretty unhinged even. 

So actually, we are probably approaching something different than fascism. These people don't need standards of evidence, they don't even need evidence. If the election could vaguely be filled because it is possible, if they get upset when courts say the evidence is poor or absent so refuse to hear the case, if this is a false flag operation because you can create a convincing story, we approach something like mysticism. Those people have no problem with engaging in conspiracy theories with no basis in fact

But then again, some fascists have incorporated mysticism quite directly in no uncertain terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

As for you, I think you're being too loose about the term fascism if you say that any forced taxation has a fascist element. Forced taxation has existed much longer than fascism, it is a characteristic of almost all governments that have existed. They share a characteristic, but they fail to distinguish a concept like oligarchy from democracy from fascism from republicanism. Or at least if we are close to fascism, you'll probably find at least one similarity with the unique characteristic of fascism (but I don't think there is one). So I don't see why you would say we are at fascism. 

Fascism began in this country far before Jan 6th but I would not disagree that Jan 6th was a major manifestation.

You seem to imply that identifying fascism requires a starting date in history. Maybe the term was started/discovered at some point, but the behavior existed far before it was discovered/conceptualized.

"Socialism for big business", implies a privileged group that requires force. You inevitably will have forced taxation, either through monetary control or through a threatening agency. Bottom line why would a government use force against some of its own people. The enrich a particular privileged group.

The fact that forced taxation existed before fascism also does not define fascism. 

Oligarchy, Republicanism and rule by consensus Democracy all have fascist elements. Doesn't matter if happened after WW2 or in the ancient Greek Period or in the ancient Japan period, or Trump before Jan 6th. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

it sounds like you're conflating freedom of speech and consequences of speech.

"You have the right to speak, and to pay the price" does away with the entire concept of rights. By that standard, you'd have all your rights in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, too, since you also have the right to speak there, and to "pay the price." You would also have a "right" to commit murder and to "pay the price" for it.

The talk now is that they're going to require companies to fire any people who have anti-Leftist views. They will say that this is not infringing your rights, since even under Capitalism you do not have a "right" to a job, and the requirement to fire people applies to the companies and not to you. Then again, maybe it won't be a formal requirement; maybe it will simply be explained to the companies that, if they cooperate, they will have an easier time with the IRS and with regulators. Do you still have freedom of speech in such a case?

The same thing applies when they make it illegal (or very unpleasant) for banks and other businesses to do business with anti-Leftists -- and they are already doing that to some extent. Even under Capitalism you don't have a "right" to a bank account. You don't have a "right" to food, so I guess they can prevent you from buying that, too. Physical cash will be illegalized and "digital cash" can be "turned off."

They can say your "rights" are not being infringed, but that you have to face the "consequences" of your speech.

Such consequences being, whatever the Left wishes to impose. I mean, the Constitution prevents them from throwing you in prison for speech as such, but they know there are other ways to get you into prison, or at least ruin your life. The "hate speech" laws increase the penalties on other crimes, if you have engaged in speech they don't like, so they can make "jaywalking" or "loitering" into 20-year prison sentences. All they have to do is cut you off from any legal form of trade -- which they can do, because it is not a "right" -- and wait for you to either commit a crime or die.

Once you've lost your job and your home and everything, there are homeless encampments full of unsavory people, and they aren't exactly going to welcome you, either, and it's likely that if you get involved in a "dispute" in such a place, it'll be deemed to be your fault, because you're the one with the "hate speech" record.

--

I am aware that the things I described above haven't happened yet, but they are certainly on the way. There is nothing to stop them -- except a good argument, not like "they aren't going to happen, that's just fantasy" but like "here's why those would actually be immoral infringements of people's rights." (Edit: Even better if it continues, "Here's the kind of law that would stop that sort of thing without infringing anybody's rights." Other than a Constitutional separation of state and economics, though, I'm not sure what to suggest here, myself.)

You might say that I'm "storytelling" but there's a moral to this story and the moral is that the "speech has consequences" line of thinking has some serious consequences of its own, and they are not good. It's easy to foresee the problems of that approach and I think it's arbitrary to claim that, because these problems are foreseen, none of them will happen in reality.

It is not improper to reason in the absence of complete information. You can't require omniscience. There is enough information to get a clear picture. Ayn Rand wasn't actually at the Berkeley student protests, but she was able to identify their philosophy and its consequences. That kind of thing can be done here, too.

I think that ARI has done some real damage to people's understanding of epistemology and Objectivism by permitting Trump Derangement Syndrome to supersede valid epistemological requirements. I see people's reasoning ability breaking down; they're saying, "well... we can't prove that our government is Fascist... we can't prove that the election was stolen... we can't prove that the Democrats won't be voted out later... we can't prove that anything bad will happen, because it hasn't happened yet... the only thing we can do is... keep spreading Objectivism... even though Objectivism can't prove anything is wrong... there is nothing wrong... it's just stories being told by Trump supporters... because Trump is evil... Trump makes the same gestures as Hitler during speeches, so he must be evil... there's not enough evidence to prove anything bad about the Democrats..."

However, maybe there is some good in this. As long as Objectivism can't solve anything, the Leftists will allow it. Until the wrong quote goes viral, I guess.

If anybody tried to present Objectivism as a solution, in a legislature or a court for example, I'm sure a bunch of thugs would show up wearing Ayn Rand T-shirts and trash the place, and then of course Objectivism would be blamed for it, and everybody would agree that Ayn Rand "incites violence" and her works would be banned.

Edited by necrovore
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Maybe the term was started/discovered at some point, but the behavior existed far before it was discovered/conceptualized.

This is true, or at least how long it has been around as a concept is not so important unless we want to talk about the historical development.

I would fix what is said to the idea that forced taxation is not a characteristic of specifically fascist governments. I would say we should look at characteristics which only fascism has. Anyway, I'm concerned about going forward, whether people will even notice the clearly creeping authoritarianism all around. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, necrovore said:

"You have the right to speak, and to pay the price" does away with the entire concept of rights.

Consequences, like somebody getting angry at you for something you said. I was suggesting that whatever denial of freedom of speech you are talking about, you're actually just talking about things like getting banned from a website for something you said. 

7 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Do you still have freedom of speech in such a case?

Absolutely. 

14 minutes ago, necrovore said:

There is nothing to stop them -- except a good argument, not like "they aren't going to happen, that's just fantasy" but like "here's why those would actually be immoral infringements of people's rights."

You did it again. You give me a hypothetical, so you had that going for you, a pretty realistic one, and asked me what I thought. Fine. It is good to think about the future and think about why we want to care about how beliefs are treated. I would want to prevent any abusive scenarios.

But what you did again is using an imagined story and the mere possibility as evidence for your claim that freedom of speech is regularly being infringed and violated. You are making a claim about now, not a claim about what we need to be careful of. I think you shifted the goalpost to talk about philosophical consequences and what we should be careful of. Of course there are. It's not the same as saying that rights are being violated regularly. 

52 minutes ago, necrovore said:

I think that ARI has done some real damage to people's understanding of epistemology and Objectivism by permitting Trump Derangement Syndrome to supersede valid epistemological requirements. I see people's reasoning ability breaking down; they're saying, "well... we can't prove that our government is Fascist... we can't prove that the election was stolen... we can't prove that the Democrats won't be voted out later...

Oh man. Do you really think this is a breakdown of reasoning ability? We can't prove the election was stolen because it wasn't. We can't prove that our government is fascist, because it isn't (or at least, the characteristics you picked are poor examples and weak evidence). And what little evidence you have about any controversial thing that you have brought up is easy to refute. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

...

The woman who was deservedly shot ...

...

Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman, trespassed on what people who go in for hypocrisy call “the sacred temple of democracy” (Wesley Widmaier).   For this misdemeanor she got what she deserved, shot through the neck and killed.  It was just and right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

 

They were voted out in 2000, in 1980, and in 1968.  They can be voted out again.

My god. Even from where I sit I know something about the moderate nature of the DNC back then - and what they are now.

This is a different kind of beast.

"How can they be voted out?"

Count the ways.

As of now,

Almost total control of the mainstream media

Almost total control of ideology through education, colleges, universities

Total control of social media platforms

A vaster reservoir of wealth through Silicon Valley and Leftist billionaires

Almost total control of the movie industry--

What there exists already, is a "totalitarian" grip upon propaganda and of people's speech and minds.

Add in the latest developments: almost total power. A tight hold on: The US Congress; The Executive; and eventually "packing" the Supreme Court as they are looking towards.

There can be little limit on moving as radical Left as they can. They crave control. These are not people who take, nor will take, democratic defeat graciously.

To ask again. HOW are they, with everything stacked in their favor - and open immigration on the cards, bringing in further favorable voters - and making Washington DC another (Dem stronghold) state - ever going to be voted out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, necrovore said:

The talk now is that they're going to require companies to fire any people who have anti-Leftist views. They will say that this is not infringing your rights, since even under Capitalism you do not have a "right" to a job, and the requirement to fire people applies to the companies and not to you. Then again, maybe it won't be a formal requirement; maybe it will simply be explained to the companies that, if they cooperate, they will have an easier time with the IRS and with regulators. Do you still have freedom of speech in such a case?

The same thing applies when they make it illegal (or very unpleasant) for banks and other businesses to do business with anti-Leftists -- and they are already doing that to some extent. Even under Capitalism you don't have a "right" to a bank account. You don't have a "right" to food, so I guess they can prevent you from buying that, too. Physical cash will be illegalized and "digital cash" can be "turned off."

They can say your "rights" are not being infringed, but that you have to face the "consequences" of your speech.

By "you" you mean you and fellow right wingers. What's the downside?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dupin said:

Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman, trespassed on what people who go in for hypocrisy call “the sacred temple of democracy” (Wesley Widmaier).   For this misdemeanor she got what she deserved, shot through the neck and killed.  It was just and right.

I trust Eiuol would have second thoughts about her deserving to be shot. That is some crazy statement.

It is immaterial if she'd have been a Black Lives Matter or Democrat supporter (say) showing her displeasure at Trump's re-election - she apparently did nothing to "deserve" being fired upon leave alone killed. 

Let's not have one moral standard for one and not the other.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a free society, the only "consequence" of free speech is that some people might not agree. And that's fine. They don't have to agree. They don't have to publish or support or endorse stuff they disagree with, either. (However, they are free to publish stuff they disagree with if they want to. You can't assume a publisher agrees with everything they publish!)

In a free society, you would not have to fear being "punished" for your opinion. You wouldn't have to worry that all the stores in the country would refuse to sell you food because of what you said.

If you do have to worry about it, you don't really have free speech, or a free society.

"In a civilized country, it is safe to be unpopular."

Edited by necrovore
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

As of now,

Almost total control of the mainstream media

Almost total control of ideology through education, colleges, universities

Total control of social media platforms

A vaster reservoir of wealth through Silicon Valley and Leftist billionaires

Almost total control of the movie industry--

What there exists already, is a "totalitarian" grip upon propaganda and of people's speech and minds.

Made no difference in California.

What happened in California, our great Socialist state with all those the characteristics you mention is that they gained Republican House seats and got their left leaning initiatives voted down.

Also, if Trump had not divided the Republicans they most likely would have won Georgia and the Senate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, necrovore said:

In a free society, the only "consequence" of free speech is that some people might not agree. You would not have to fear being "punished" for your opinion. You wouldn't have to worry that all the stores in the country would refuse to sell you food because of what you said.

False.

There would be no consequence from the government. You could be boycotted privately, not interacted with, shunned, not given a job etc. That is not aggression.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, necrovore said:

I think that ARI has done some real damage to people's understanding of epistemology and Objectivism by permitting Trump Derangement Syndrome to supersede valid epistemological requirements. I see people's reasoning ability breaking down; they're saying, "well... we can't prove that our government is Fascist... we can't prove that the election was stolen... we can't prove that the Democrats won't be voted out later... we can't prove that anything bad will happen, because it hasn't happened yet... the only thing we can do is... keep spreading Objectivism... even though Objectivism can't prove anything is wrong... there is nothing wrong... it's just stories being told by Trump supporters... because Trump is evil... Trump makes the same gestures as Hitler during speeches, so he must be evil... there's not enough evidence to prove anything bad about the Democrats..."

.

There is quite some truth here. It appeared strongly to me, after considering many sightings and articles, that many Objectivists reacted to Trump in the same way as did all his other opponents at large.

Viscerally.

Ad hominems to the man, less his doings.

Feelings as tools of cognition.

And then justified their initial reactions with "his economic nationalism"; etc. etc.

Objective standards, I must add, which were not as rigorously or hardly applied to previous incumbents.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

False.

There would be no consequence from the government. You could be boycotted privately, not interacted with, shunned, not given a job etc. That is not aggression.

There's no reason for an individual to fear a boycott or a shunning unless it's 100%.

If it's not 100% then there's always some place the individual can continue to buy food or what-not, so the boycott or a shunning wouldn't be an effective "punishment."

In order to be 100%, everybody else has to be coerced into participating in the boycott or shunning.

That's not a free society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Also, if Trump had not divided the Republicans they most likely would have won Georgia and the Senate.

Possibly, ET. I make no claims that he is and was a savvy political tactician.

In a funny way, I saw that lack in a positive light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dupin said:

For this misdemeanor

She wasn't merely trespassing. She tried to forcibly enter an area which she was not allowed to enter, an area that was blocked off. We don't know if she was told to back off, but she probably was. On top of that, I said unambiguously that anyone who entered or tried to enter is guilty of treason. All in all, she got exactly what she deserved, for exactly what her intention was. Or more precisely, anyone may respond with force to her in a way proportional to what she was doing. She probably didn't deserve to die, but I think she deserved to get shot at and forcibly pushed back. Plus we don't know if she was armed. 

Trespass, commit treason, attempted assault, and/or property damage -> get shot at -> die

Very clear case of retaliatory force when she got shot. 

35 minutes ago, necrovore said:

"In a civilized country, it is safe to be unpopular."

Oh okay, you want a safe space.

 

18 minutes ago, necrovore said:

In order to be 100%, everybody else has to be coerced into participating in the boycott or shunning.

But that's not the case, and it is already initiation of force to coerce someone... You talk about consequences from coercion here, but before you were talking about consequences that are not coercion (being fired from a job, not being hired, etc). I guess you think that consequences besides simple disagreement are initiation of force. I don't really know, it doesn't make much sense.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, necrovore said:

There's no reason for an individual to fear a boycott or a shunning unless it's 100%.

If it's not 100% then there's always some place the individual can continue to buy food or what-not, so the boycott or a shunning wouldn't be an effective "punishment."

In order to be 100%, everybody else has to be coerced into participating in the boycott or shunning.

That's not a free society.

For some there will be no reason to fear boycott, it's not active violence toward them. But to some it may mean losing a job which can be disastrous.

Most importantly, a boycott is not necessarily punishment. People just want to stay away. A shunned person may like the treatment, who knows. It is the right of the person boycotting to be unmolested, they are just taking care of themselves, keeping safe.

You had said the following which I indicated was a false statement.

30 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

In a free society, the only "consequence" of free speech is that some people might not agree

It is false, because there are more possible consequences that just "not agreeing".

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Very clear case of retaliatory force when" he (George Floyd) was choked to death during his ¬legal¬ arrest.

You were vocal against that immoral killing then, Eiuol, rightly so. What is so different now?

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

49 minutes ago, necrovore said:

"In a civilized country, it is safe to be unpopular."

Depends what you are unpopular about. If you are a known dangerous person, you are not going to be safe anywhere. 

If you are going to consistently frighten people, don't expect to go to a free country because it will be safe.

Being unpopular has less survival value than being popular, even animals seem to know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Depends what you are unpopular about. If you are a known dangerous person, you are not going to be safe anywhere. 

If you are going to consistently frighten people, don't expect to go to a free country because it will be safe.

Being unpopular has less survival value than being popular, even animals seem to know that.

Speech itself isn't "dangerous." It doesn't infringe any rights. So self-defense isn't applicable to it.

Self-defense is applicable when activities are dangerous to others. If you're a murderer, you can expect people to organize against you and throw you in jail. That's self-defense on their parts. You can also expect "aiding and abetting" to be illegal, so you won't be able to just find other people.

It's wrong to conflate one with the other. Sure, murderers are "unpopular," but that doesn't mean that all unpopular people are murderers.

As I've pointed out, there are a lot of "woke" leftists who conflate speech with violence.

--

And, as I said, people are free not to deal with each other if they don't want to, for any reason. It is not a punishment against an individual -- as long as he is free to find other people to associate with.

The problem is when people are coerced into participating in a boycott or shunning. Then the victim is not free to find other people.

Edited by necrovore
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You were vocal against that immoral killing then, Eiuol, rightly so. What is so different now?

Retaliation of some kind was justified, but it wasn't proportional. My opinion is the same as it was back then. 

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

The problem is when people are coerced into participating in a boycott or shunning. Then the victim is not free to find other people.

Yep. You just explained how it is false that only the left has broad free-speech protections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...