Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ready To Choose Your Poison?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Why not? After all is that not what John Galt did? In fact did he not actively encourage it?

The greatest expert on "what John Galt would have done" was Ayn Rand and she didn't think we should give up. Ayn Rand believed that as long as we are free to advocate our ideas -- and we are -- we should be fighting to change the direction of the culture.

See her essay, "Don't Let it Go," in the Ayn Rand Letter (Vol. 1, No. 4 November 22, 1971, Vol. 1, No. 5 December 6, 1971).

However, Rand advocated using our minds, not our guns, in our fight.

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

However, Rand advocated using our minds, not our guns, in our fight.

:)

Correction: She advocated using our minds and, when necessary and rationally appropriate, guns too.

"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative." [Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government"]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correction:  She advocated using our minds and, when necessary and rationally appropriate, guns too.

"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative."  [Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government"]

True. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is the Bush administration that has made America vulnerable to a probable nuclear attack by Iran, since the Bush Administration has largely ignored the magnanimous threat that Iran poses to the well-being of America.  Bush has largely ignored the potentially devastating impact that the construction of Iran's nuclear reactors poses.

That is correct---but here's what you forgot to add: John Kerry would be 100 times worse. When you criticize Bush, put it in the context of the alternative.

Bush is the candidate for die-hard religious right-wing fanatics who place mercy before justice.

So you think Kerry will place justice before mercy? Kerry isn't aware there is such a concept as justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backing up to the beginning of this thread, why exactly is it inappropriate to quote from ARI op-eds and link to them?

Because AutoJC had created four of five threads containing solely a link and/or quote from the latest ARI op-ed. I have no objection to linking ARI editorials (or any other) when it’s presented for discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had been meaning to reply to this earlier, but here goes:

Disturbing, because certain objectivists appear to be selling out to the Republican party, the party of the faith-based conservatives

This is utterly ridiculous, not to mention insulting, since “selling out” in this context implies that supporting Bush means betraying our principles. It’s equally ridiculous to claim that this forum is being used “as a sounding board to morally support the ends of the Republican party and its objectives.” Since you haven’t given a shred of evidence for this bold allegation, I’m not going to bother to try to respond.

If you think that there’s some conspiracy here to swindle fellow Objectivists into voting for Bush, let me be clear: I voted for Bush, will do so again, will use all my persuasive powers to convince everyone here to do the same, and I think any freedom-loving capitalist would be a damn fool to vote for anyone else, especially Kerry. When the election nears, I will provide a detailed argument for my choice, though I don’t have any brilliant insights to offer that haven’t already been mentioned.

Here are some pointers:

-In relation to the Democrats, the republican platform is pro-freedom, pro-market, and pro-individualism.

-The Bush tax cut is a big deal, even if it is largely ceremonial.

-Neither the budget deficit nor the recession is Bush’s fault.

-Bush’s religious leanings are insignificant: Bush lacks the support for any major policy change, and is only marginally different from Kerry in policy.

-John Kerry is a pacifist, socialist, pragmatist, and a hippie. In fact, aside from religion, he a double dose of all of Bush’s flaws, and none of the virtues.

But the real difference between the candidates has much more to do with perception than content: a Kerry victory will be a mandate for multilateralism, pacifism, and a severe blow to American leadership for years to come. Yes, Iraq was the wrong war, and the occupation makes me sick on a daily basis, but it is the perception of a Kerry victory that will matter in the end.

The final choice is still for the lesser of two evils – but I’d rather go with a known evil than sacrifice the U.S. to the whims of pacifists and assorted dictatorships around the globe, and/or whatever position Kerry may hold next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, GC, I guess, then, that you have proven me right, haven't you?

Bush remains, in my vision, a faith-based conservative.

Article upon article in Capitalism Magazine is bitterly critical of Bush and his faith-based initiative.

When you read and re-read such articles, you will find they corroborate with factual evidence quite accurately.

Bush has no respect for individual rights. First evidence is his blatant attempt to torpedo gay marriage by actively campaigning to amend our Constitution. Also, Bush is blatantly anti-abortion. And, in his zeal to make the country secure from terrorism, he has forced us all to sacrifice liberties for the sake of security.

Rather than cut government he is actively campaigning to force taxpayers to fund programs run by churches.

More on our disagreement later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some pointers:

-In relation to the Democrats, the republican platform is pro-freedom, pro-market, and pro-individualism.

We disagree.

Pro-freedom? See comment I made regarding security measures.

Pro-market? More protectionism than ever.

Pro-individualism? As long as you are not gay or minority or female.

Sheer bunk, GC. You gotta do better than that! :D

-The Bush tax cut is a big deal, even if it is largely ceremonial.
It is a big deal. We agree on this one.

-Neither the budget deficit nor the recession is Bush’s fault.

Agreed.

-Bush’s religious leanings are insignificant: Bush lacks the support for any major policy change, and is only marginally different from Kerry in policy.
I disagree. See the above regarding Bush's faith-based initiative.

-John Kerry is a pacifist, socialist, pragmatist, and a hippie.  In fact, aside from religion, he a double dose of all of Bush’s flaws, and none of the virtues.

Typical Republican FUD. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
-John Kerry is a pacifist, socialist, pragmatist, and a hippie.  In fact, aside from religion, he a double dose of all of Bush’s flaws, and none of the virtues.

A pacifist? That's why he said he'd use military might in his foreign policy agenda. That's why he voted FOR the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Some pacifist!

That's OK that Kerry isn't a pacifist. The last thing we want for a president is one who has problems defending the country against enemies. We already have that in Bush.

A socialist? Neither candidate is known for his staunch capitalist stand. Looking through Kerry's website one sees the agenda of a "mixed economy" advocate continuing social-oriented programs- pretty much what the Bush administration, and previous administrations, have done.

But the Republican plants here on these forums like to throw around the socialist label at Kerry and the Democrats. The political ploys used by both parties are nauseating.

A pragmatist? Again I see the Republicans calling the Democrats "the pot calling the kettle black." The only validity in your critique on Kerry is that he would continue the pragmatic status quo of the previous administrations.

A hippie? :nerd: We all know Bush's record serving in the National Guard, and the mud slung by both parties regarding the two candidates' national service. Face it, ALL of the current politicians in major office in America are behaving like a bunch of spoiled rich kids.

In other words, GC, the country is currently run by a bunch of hippies who were schooled in multiculturalist institutions by collectivists and altruists, die-hard elitists who believe that man's purpose on earth is to serve the needs and whims of others. They were taught that there is no black and white, no good or evil, that everything is relative and there are no absolutes, and that man's emotions are as valid as his reason in guiding his decisions. They were taught to respect all manner of culture, all manner of ethnicity, no matter what its stated purpose, that all manner of nations are sovereign, no matter what the nature of their respective governments. A totalitarian government is sovereign and should be respected, accoriding to these amoral, nihilist clowns who claim intellectual superiority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pro-freedom?  See comment I made regarding security measures.
In what ways exactly are liberals more pro-freedom than conservatives? Because they fight for the freedoms of animals, trees, and the planet? They fight for workers' "rights" to education, minimum wages, etc.?

Pro-market?  More protectionism than ever.

How is this different than the liberals again? Oh, I'll tell you how: the difference is merely one of degree. The conservatives are guilty to a lesser degree.

Pro-individualism?  As long as you are not gay or minority or female.

First of all, care to provide some evidence that conservatives do not give similar rights to minorities? Is it because they typically do not advocate affirmative action? It's true that their crusades against gay marriage and abortion are reprehensible, but aside from that how are they worse than the liberals?

What the liberals stand for is not individualism but "group rights," the fraud of which has been exposed by Ayn Rand decades ago. I suggest you study that topic.

That said, this whole argument is pretty silly since both the liberals and the conservatives are awful. Anyone defending one wing against the other seems to me to be losing sight of the bigger picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A pacifist?  That's why he said he'd use military might  in his foreign policy agenda.  That's why he voted FOR the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Some pacifist!

Was that before or after he voted against them? :P

It seems as though you come from a strong liberal background and are having trouble shedding your obvious bias. Every time somebody criticizes the left, you call them lackeys of the faith-based right--regardless of how much they also criticize the right. Just to warn you, I'm not going to put up with that much longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But the Republican plants here on these forums like to throw around the socialist label at Kerry and the Democrats.  The political ploys used by both parties are nauseating.

"Republican plants?"

I beg your pardon!

Link to post
Share on other sites
That said, this whole argument is pretty silly since both the liberals and the conservatives are awful.  Anyone defending one wing against the other seems to me to be losing sight of the bigger picture.

First off, an apology.

Under no circumstances do I want to sound like I am defending the socialist-based left.

Secondly, we are in agreement regarding both the liberals and conservatives being awful.

In further defense of myself and my postings, I dare quote Ayn Rand regarding the issue of politics and party affiliations:

"“Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to ‘do something.’ By ‘ideological’ (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the ‘libertarian’ hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.”

So where does that leave us all?

Many of us want to vote. I most certainly will.

I'll wait for that fateful day when both conventions have culminated into the sorry platforms that both major parties will put forth to a righteuosly skeptical populus. Then I'll make up my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Republican plants?"

I beg your pardon!

As I said, Betsy:

"The political ploys used by both parties are nauseating"

I have read too much on this board of what I perceive to be endorsements of the Republican platform over any other. I merely wanted to challenge what I perceived to be a drift in that direction.

Personally I condemn the anti-industrial revolution hippie leftists for their hijacking of the Democratic party, a party which, at least prior to FDR's presidency, stood for individual rights and freedoms regardless of privilege.

In other words, what the Founding Fathers in America truly intended. If the privileged wanted to rule America then our Revolution was for naught. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

John Kerry's voting record has been to the left of Ted Kennedy's record. That should tell you all we need to know.

And i'm neither a Republican nor a plant.

As a native of Scotland, obviously I can't vote in the next American election.

You really need to examine Kerry's record in significant detail before you can make such a statement.

Better yet, as I will, why not wait for the national conventions to culminate?

After each party has shaped its platform, we'll really get to see where this is all going.

I'm not optimistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really need to examine Kerry's record in significant detail before you can make such a statement.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=12215

"Kerry has made frequent references to his military background, depicting himself as a proud American who served his nation honorably during the Vietnam War. However, what most people do not realize is when Kerry returned from combat, he became a key figure in the early-1970s, anti-American and pro-Hanoi movement personified by Jane Fonda. Like so many of those protesters, Kerry publicly maligned American soldiers, and went on to become a prominent organizer for one of America’s most radical appeasement groups, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). He developed close ties with celebrated activists like Fonda and Ramsey Clark, the radical Attorney General who served under President Lyndon Johnson. (Clark went on to head the pro-North Korean International Action Center.) Kerry also supported a document known as the “People’s Peace Treaty,” which was reportedly composed in Communist East Germany and contained nine points – all of them extracted from a list of Viet Cong conditions for ending the war. "

And "By participating in VVAW demonstrations, Kerry marched alongside many revolutionary Communists. Exploiting his presence at such rallies, the Communist publication Daily World prominently published photographs of Kerry addressing anti-war protestors, some of whom were carrying banners with portraits of Communist Party leader Angela Davis. Openly organized by known Communists, these rallies were typified by what the December 12, 1971, Herald Traveler called an “abundance of Vietcong flags, clenched fists raised in the air, and placards plainly bearing legends in support of China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea and the Hanoi government.” "

And don't forget "Kerry’s career in the U.S. Senate began in 1984. Since then – and notwithstanding his efforts to portray himself as a political moderate – he has established a long record of support for a wide array of left-wing causes, ideologies, and associated pieces of legislation. Among the most significant features of this record are the votes he has cast with regard to national defense and security issues. During his Senate career, Kerry has voted for at least seven major reductions in defense and military spending. Even after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by Islamic terrorists, he voted to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001. In 1996 he voted to slash defense spending by $6.5 billion. "

How about "By contrast, Kerry voted in favor of President Clinton’s 1993 tax hike, which was the largest tax increase in American history. In fact, Kerry recently called for “a return to the fiscal responsibility we gave this country in 1993 when we passed the Deficit Reduction Act.” Kerry’s consistent pattern of voting in favor of high taxes has earned him a meager 25.2 percent rating from the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) for the period of 1985-2001. Similarly, the group Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) gives him a paltry 12.5 percent rating for the years 1999-2002. "?

And rounding off, we have "Though Kerry characterizes himself as a political moderate, his voting record is, in fact, every bit as far-Left as that of his fellow Massachusetts senator, the candidly left-wing Ted Kennedy. According to Congressional Quarterly, over the course of Kerry’s Senate career, he has sided with Kennedy fully 94 percent of the time for key votes. In a number of different years – 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1998, 1999, and 2001 – that figure stood at 100 percent. Kerry’s lifetime Vote Rating from the leftist group Americans For Democratic Action (ADA) is 93 percent. Senator Kennedy’s ADA rating is a slightly lower 88 percent; that is, a avowedly leftist group states that John Kerry’s voting record is to the Left of Ted Kennedy’s."

Is that sufficient detail?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And can I add the following?

"Actually, there is a stark consistency that runs through Kerry’s career – He’s an opportunistic, back-stabber who never met a commie he didn’t like. He also has chutzpah to spare."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=12012

"He’s a moderate with a voting record more liberal than either Ted Kennedy or Dennis The Red Kucinich. Kennedy’s lifetime congressional rating from the if-it-moves-tax-it Americans for Democratic Action is 88 percent – compared to 93 percent for Mr. Middle of the Road. Kucinich’s lifetime score from the American Conservative Union is 15 percent. Kerry’s is 6 percent."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I reject your "evidence."

To properly judge Sen. Kerry's voting record, you need to go to other than your sources, which are opinionated and prejudiced to conservatism.

I believe you can go straight to the Federal Government's Senate site and, for each bill voted upon, you can list the crucial issues which you feel are germane to both America's interests and the intenational interests.

Once you make that list, you can determine whether Kerry's stand was truly leftist or not.

A note to all: I don't prefer referring to the anti-industrial, anti-capitalist Left as "liberals." They do not in any way fit the classic definition of liberalism, which connotes open-mindedness, individual rights, and freedom.

That's just me. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
A note to all:  I don't prefer referring to the anti-industrial, anti-capitalist Left as "liberals."  They do not in any way fit the classic definition of liberalism, which connotes open-mindedness, individual rights, and freedom.

That's just me. :rolleyes:

This is nonsense JC. The term "liberal" no longer holds its 18th and early 19th century meaning. It has been co-opted by the left. As Harry Binswanger has said on HBL, there are no more "liberals" even of the J. F. Kennedy type. To believe otherwise is to engage in self deception. Greedy Capitalist is right when he argues that, in relative terms, the choice is between a near explicit socialist and traitor and a very flawed and misguided man who at least holds some understanding of America and who represents in the eyes of the world free markets and self defense (no matter how far short he actually comes in both).

A win for Kery would represent a referrendum vote for bigger government and pacifism even if Kery and Bush amount to the same thing.

Have you been reading Arthur Silbur's Light of Reason weblog? You sound like a carbon copy. His arguments use the languange of Objectivism but none of the ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is nonsense JC. The term "liberal" no longer holds its 18th and early 19th century meaning. It has been co-opted by the left. As Harry Binswanger has said on HBL, there are no more "liberals" even of the J. F. Kennedy type. To believe otherwise is to engage in self deception. Greedy Capitalist is right when he argues that, in relative terms, the choice is between a near explicit socialist and traitor and a very flawed and misguided man who at least holds some understanding of America and who represents in the eyes of the world free markets and self defense (no matter how far short he actually comes in both).

A win for Kery would represent a referrendum vote for bigger government and pacifism even if Kery and Bush amount to the same thing.

Fine.

Then I confess to being a living anachronism, OK?

I still consider myself open-minded in thinking and philosophy. I live my life the way I see fit, for my own sake, and for my happiness. I impose upon no one, and no one may impose upon me. In "Liberal," the word has, as its root, the same root as "liberty." I still maintain that the Left has taken progressive thinking and severely corrupted it to their own socialist, anti-man, anti-mind agenda. Liberty and freedom are synonymous.

I cannot imagine anyone being free-thinking and creative in the oppressive environment the Left so endorses. How dare these clowns call themselves liberals?

As a living anachronism, I condemn the New Left for their hijacking the word "Liberal."

I consider capitalists the last true remaining liberals on earth. :rolleyes:

And yes, I fully agree with Harry Binswanger!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid proof of Front Page Magazine's conservative bias

No good, Black Sabbath.

Try again :rolleyes:

Are conservatives and what they stand for always evil? Is Front Page Magazine to be discounted because they had a column by Ann Coulter? Some of her columns are dead-on target and very funny too.

Front Page Magazine also carries Ayn Rand Institute op-eds, so I have absolutely no reason to discount something just because it is on their web site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are conservatives and what they stand for always evil?  Is Front Page Magazine to be discounted because they had a column by Ann Coulter?  Some of her columns are dead-on target and very funny too.

Front Page Magazine also carries Ayn Rand Institute op-eds, so I have absolutely no reason to discount something just because it is on their web site.

Dead on. As for Ann coulter, when she's explicitly religious she's hard to stomach. However, when she is exposing the treachery of the left, she's frikk'n awesome (a technical philosophical term). She is ascerbic as all hell but I like that about her. And I love when she gives the "Hollywood idiot of the week" award in her columns.

I wish she were an Objectivist because I think Objectivism could use someone with that kind of passion, humor, and wit. Although I know that many O'ists hate her because she is so insulting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are conservatives and what they stand for always evil?  Is Front Page Magazine to be discounted because they had a column by Ann Coulter?  Some of her columns are dead-on target and very funny too.

Front Page Magazine also carries Ayn Rand Institute op-eds, so I have absolutely no reason to discount something just because it is on their web site.

Unless, of course, it has a faith-based conservative bias AND also is an opinion, not fact.

We need to cite facts to back up our assertions.

That's all I asked of Black Sabbath.

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...