Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

I Only Defend President Bush When He's Right

Rate this topic


AutoJC

Recommended Posts

Suppose I went on strike like Galt, would I be wrong?

I rather like that idea myself.

My opinion is that we are living Atlas Shrugged right now.

We have experienced incompetent leadership since November 22, 1963.

America's image as a powerful nation has taken a very sour turn. We still enjoy lots of individual rights, but how much longer will that last?

There are those on this forum and on many capitalist sites who give Bush credit for at least standing up to the terrorist threat by counter-attacking the nations that support terrorism. However, I can only look at the methods he is using and the evidence is quite clear- he is fighting an unprincipled war, needlessly sacrificing our young men and women.

America should have bombed the living crap out of Afghanistan until they had surrendered or the Al Qaeda/Taliban were annihilated. Instead, Bush and his faith-based stink-tank were afraid of world opinion, that America would kill lots of so-called innocents. This same tact is happening in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

AutoJC-

That is an argument, but it is not one with any relation to the present discussion. Whether Bush is better than Kerry is a significant topic, but the topic here is: If one candidate is better than the other, should one vote for him, or simply refuse to vote because one does not agree completely?

It is unlike the analogy which has no hints of anything other than the wallet.

It is not unlike the analogy, since one candidate will stand by and watch you be shot, and one will try to prevent the shooting.

In the analogy, you have a choice between having your wallet stolen and having you wallet stolen on top of dying. Your argument is that one should not do what one can to make the best choice. That one should leave it up to passerby to decide what happens to him. Absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is that one should not do what one can to make the best choice.  That one should leave it up to passerby to decide what happens to him.  Absurd.
I am not going to argue about the use of an analogy since it is easier to discuss the issue.

What I said is that since people fail to admit the obvious, they serve evil. In this instance, Bush and Kerry are both mistaken about their decisons on government they actually think they are doing right. You, on the other hand, are giving them the validation they need to carry out their offfenses on the rest of us.

I placed two of your quotes below to show the you the unreasonable nature of your arguemnt.

you only have two options (assuming you are not prepared to leave the country or go on strike a la Galt)
Two options plus one equals three. The next paragraph in that post, you say:

And, again, a vote says nothing except that you believe the candidate you voted for is better than the other option.
You know there are three options, but must have subconsciously decided to make it vanish. Why? Why are you deluding yourself? Until you admit why you are ignoring reality, there is no use in arguing about this topic.

You need to see that there are three options, and by erroniously limiting it to two, you are compromising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have experienced incompetent leadership since November 22, 1963.

The downfall started way before Kennedy's execution.

I think the biggest hit we took was the income tax amendment in 1917 (ca.).

That is what all this political garbage is about, getting control over our confiscated money (taxes). If there was no money to milk for their families and in-laws, and friends, they wouldn't be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slave,

Going on a John Galt Strike and choosing not to vote are two entirely different things. In one you are cutting the world off from your presence and all the benefits you supply for it, the other you are choosing to live in this world and simply refusing to pick what presidential candidate is superior. Again, if neither is superior then no choice is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AutoJC-

That is an argument, but it is not one with any relation to the present discussion.  Whether Bush is better than Kerry is a significant topic, but the topic here is:  If one candidate is better than the other, should one vote for him, or simply refuse to vote because one does not agree completely?

Sine I started this thread:

1. I disagree about my argument's relation with the present discussion, and...

2. Since the subject originally had to do with Bush and his incompetence, I think that it's, well, relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, autoJC, it is relevent to the title topic of the thread, but it is not relevent to the discussion at present.  It is not an arugment for or against slave's position.

In fact, I argued in favor of his Atlas Shrugged scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few thoughts here.

First, Ayn Rand said the time to go on strike is when they take away the freedom of speech. My own belief is that this will happen at the same time that working in one's profession isn't possible without sanctioning the looters.

Today is not the time to go on strike.

Second, if one went on strike, then *voting* would be the least of what one stopped doing.

Third, if one is not on strike, then one has a choice in each election. One should choose the candidate that one thinks will be the better, or alternatively the candidate that one thinks will be less bad. This is simply the application of the principle of choosing the greater over the lesser.

Anything else is a cop-out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Bearster.

Bearster makes some good points.

Except that in the scenario in Atlas Shrugged, it appeared that the America depicted in the book did allow for a limited amount of individual rights, and that the two protagonists, Dagny Taggert and Hank Rearden, were not really feeling the effects of the limitations of "free speech" or "looters rewards." Not until the kangaroo court trial of Rearden did all this become apparent. Prior to that, no amount of persuasion by D'Anconia et al could get either one to defect.

Given this scenario, it appears that America today is well beyond the scenario that caused John Galt et al to defect. That's my opinion.

That's why I thought Slave's contentions had some validity.

So, who are you really voting for?

Face it, you individuals on this forum have proven rather than disproven that the choice in this election is really not a choice based upon principles, but a "pick your poison" scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I thought Slave's contentions had some validity.
As I have already pointed out, your opinion about the present state of this country--even if it is fact--has no relation to Slave's claims.

Slave claims, not that we should remove ourselves from the world, but rather that, if we stay we, should not vote. Note that Slave may, indeed, think we ought to go on strike, but no opinion about whether to leave or not has any bearing on what we should do as long as we remain.

Slave says:

You know there are three options, but must have subconsciously decided to make it vanish. Why? Why are you deluding yourself? Until you admit why you are ignoring reality, there is no use in arguing about this topic.

But there is no delusion on my part, there is no subconscious removal of any options and there is no ignorance of reality. The fact is that one of the options--the one that I have "subconsiously removed"--is not relevent to the discussion, since our discussion is about what to do as long as we don't pick that option, and since the "third option" slave talked about before this, had no connection to the actual third option.

Slave's "third option" involves deciding not to choose, and refuseing to take responsibilty for what happens to oneself as a result. I does not involve removing oneself from the effects of that choice, but merely shouting that one is not responsible when the theif, who one could have walked away from for the price of the 25 dollars in his wallet, shoots you.

This is not, in fact, an option, since all it does is lead to one of the other two options. Choosing to let others choose for you is not a way of avoiding posion, but a way of pretending that, because you did not pick it yourself, the posion will not kill you.

Observe that the real third option, removing oneself from the effects of the choice, only makes my point more eloquent. I argue that one must choose between the two options, so long as there is reason to prefer one over the other. Now observe that, as soon as make the third choice, I no longer have any reason to prefer one candidate over the other. In fact, if I do have some strange reason to vote for a candidate to be in office while I am "on strike," I still ought to vote for him.

So, I would make the point that even "the real third option" is not a third option, but a way to make the other choice less important. Whether I am in the country or not, the fact remains that one of two men will be president, I should vote for which one I find preferable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, Ayn Rand said the time to go on strike is when they take away the freedom of speech...

Today is not the time to go on strike.

You are not allowed to criticize politicians 30 days before an election with the McCain Feingold bill. You are not allowed to say prayers in public schools. You are not allowed insult people on the radio as Howard Stern did. You are not allowed to call people when they are eating dinner with the no-call list.

Considering that the freedom of speech is falling, what do you think Ayn Rand would do?

We already know she wouldn't vote for Bush since she didn't vote for Reagan who had views similar to Bush's on abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slave claims, not that we should remove ourselves from the world, but rather that, if we stay we, should not vote.  Note that Slave may, indeed, think we ought to go on strike, but no opinion about whether to leave or not has any bearing on what we should do as long as we remain.

You are not stating my positon accurately.

The government does this to us for one reason. We allow them. Not only do we allow them, we delude ourselves to think they are actually fixing the problem by continuing providing them with the one thing they need - our acceptance. How is our acceptance given? With a vote. It is also given other ways, but since I have moved abroad, theft by taxation is of no concern.

I won't help pay for the rope you are being hanged with. I think you should have to pay for that yourself ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We already know she (Rand) wouldn't vote for Bush since she didn't vote for Reagan who had views similar to Bush's on abortion.”

You KNOW this? Are you arguing that Rand would not have voted for Bush because his stance on abortion is similar to Reagans? I would be indifferent in this election if was not for the fact that Kerry will do nothing to prevent bombs from falling on my head. This is a very poor reason to not vote.

Also, I find Richard's portrayal of your position is quite accurate based on what you have posted in this forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You KNOW this? Are you arguing that Rand would not have voted for Bush because his stance on abortion is similar to Reagans? I would be indifferent in this election if was not for the fact that Kerry will do nothing to prevent bombs from falling on my head. This is a very poor reason to not vote.
Rand would not compromise, and I think everyone on this site will agree with that. You are left to explain how Rand was wrong.

Bombing is a straw man. You are insinuatuing that the principle of freedom from the government increasing control over my life is a "very poor reason" becasue you are afraid to die - what happened to "give me liberty or give me death." Principle has value, and it is the lack of principle that got us here. Continuing with the lack of principle is not fixing the problem, it is prolonging the problem. For clarification, the problem isn't radical muslims in some distant country, it is our philiosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are afraid to die - what happened to "give me liberty or give me death."

Indeed, what has happened to it "slave"? Why are YOU still alive?

You must be compromising this principle, because I know you do not have liberty. I guess that means YOU are the problem as well. Since " Continuing with the lack of principle is not fixing the problem, it is prolonging the problem" I guess that means you better hurry up and die. Otherwise you are prolonging the "problem" just as much as those you criticize.

In other words, please - lead by example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be compromising this principle, because I know you do not have liberty. I guess that means YOU are the problem as well. Since " Continuing with the lack of principle is not fixing the problem, it is prolonging the problem" I guess that means you better hurry up and die. Otherwise you are prolonging the "problem" just as much as those you criticize.
Are you changing the topic to why I am not dead becasue you do not know what the topic is, because you are insulted that you vote or becaue of some other philosophy that explains why you think man is not able to be free (the assumption in "I know you do not have liberty")?

If we stay on the topic, please explain how Rand would have voted for Bush knowing that she was not one to compromise and that she voted against Reagan who has similar views on abortion.

After you acomplish that, I will answer the red herring of your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all,

or becaue of some other philosophy that explains why you think man is not able to be free (the assumption in "I know you do not have liberty")?
RadCap knows "you do not have liberty," not because he thinks liberty to be impossible, but because there is nowhere in the world where you could access this forum from and be free at the same time. AT PRESENT, no on this forum is free. Honestly, I am confounded by your insinuation that this implies that no one can EVER be free.

More importantly,

please explain how Rand would have voted for Bush knowing that she was not one to compromise and that she voted against Reagan who has similar views on abortion.

As I have done this what must be five times by now, I suggust you stop pretending that I haven't.

Now that I think about it, it has been quite a while since you even tried to respond to one of my posts on the matter... speaking of red herrings. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No further response is appropriate to slave by anyone. He has stated his principles AND he acts against them. Now he seeks to pretend this is not the case and wants others to ignore the contradiction - to treat him as if he is speaking rationally.

He is not.

As such, he should be treated accordingly.

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...