Maarten Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 I should have clarified, perhaps, that that was not about myself. However, it seems a little oversimplified to say that anyone who does not agree with this statement doesn't understand Objectivism, or is somehow detached from reality. I think that was what Laszlo was referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 My problem with the statement is the following: Isn't it possible that one has great understanding of Objectivism but doesn't understand American politics? or the nature of the Religious Right? I don't think that a person can be intimately familiar with Objectivist politics and yet have no clue about American politics. Did your subject forget to read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal? Did he stop reading Objectivist literature before Peikoff wrote Religion vs. America? Or, consider this: if he takes politics so unseriously, it is highly doubtful that he would take the entire philosophy of Objectivism very seriously, since a branch of Objectivism deals with politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 My problem with the statement is the following: Isn't it possible that one has great understanding of Objectivism but doesn't understand American politics? or the nature of the Religious Right? (Please note: I am not claiming that it is inconsistent to understand Objectivism and the Right and vote Republican.) There are three characteristics here: a. Votes Republican. b. Understands Objectivism or the role of philosophy in everyday life and not being rationalistic. c. Understands (ie. has identified the philosophically essential nature of) US Politics Peikoff judges that if you are a, then you cannot be b. This is true. Lazlo posits that there might be someone who is not c, rather than not b. My question for those who think this is that if you misunderstand the essentials of US politics, but you do understand the critical importance of philosophical principles in everday life, then what the hell are you doing voting at all? ie. if you are conscious of your failings in c, then you wouldn't vote (not a) because you understand the fundamental importance of philosphy to everyday choices (are b). if you are unconscious of your failings in c, then you have made an error, but that error is in failing to link up b (philosophy) with c (the particulars of US politics), ie. of being rationalistic so you are not b. if you are an Objectivist in another country then you don't vote (not a.) I think he has them all covered and his statement is correct! For some reason The Princess Bride and iocane powder are coming to mind. (Incontheevable!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dianahsieh Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 My problem with the statement is the following: Isn't it possible that one has great understanding of Objectivism but doesn't understand American politics? or the nature of the Religious Right? Agreed, sort of. In my opinion, LP's statement presumes some general knowledge of and concern for the state of American politics, i.e. that of a voting American citizen. It was written as a recommendation on voting, after all. And anyone even considering voting ought to be familiar with major events in politics, e.g. the Terry Schaivo nightmare, Bush's spending spree, the religiosity of the Republican leadership, and so on. A person ignorant of those basic facts has no business voting at all. And yes, I do think a person ought to -- morally speaking -- follow the basic outlines of his country's politics so that he can vote intelligently. Also, if some Dutch Objectivist published a statement saying "If you vote for XYZ candidate [in Holland], then you don't understand Objectivism," I wouldn't dream in a million years that the statement applies to me -- or anyone else outside Holland. That's the basic situation for Objectivists outside the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) I still haven't heard a good explanation of why it is impossible for 2 rational people to come to opposite conclusions, regarding which party is the greater threat. As someone who just entered the workforce, the socialism of the Democrats is more of a threat to me than is the Republican desire to ban abortion, drugs, porn, and butt-sex. None of the religious goals of the Republicans would really affect me. Yes, the Republicans are becoming increasingly socialist, but they are not on the same level as the Democrats. They are, after all, trying to defeat the minimum wage increase. Another point I thought of: Christian morality may be based on faulty premises. But at least they have something that can be called "morality." Whatever problems it may have, it is better than the relativistic Democrats preaching that there is no morality and that there should be no moral judgements. Edited January 30, 2007 by Moose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) Either that, or you could be an Objectivist living in a completely different country, who just doesn't know much about American politics. I don't think that fact alone makes you a rationalist... Being ignorant of the politics of a foreign country certainly does not make an individual a rationalist when it comes to politics in general. However, being ignorant of the politics of a foreign country and wielding an adamant, uncompromising opinion based on false perceptions makes you inadvertantly (at the very least) a rationalist on this particular issue. This is about misperceiving reality. Obviously, this would be different if one was deliberately evading new, accurate knowledge that might influence one's current opinion. So why would fervently supporting a party X over a party Y (when in reality party X is apocalyptically bad while party Y is only disgustingly bad) make one a rationalist and not just ignorant? This is because your beliefs must be based on some floating abstraction that party X is better since reality dictates otherwise. This is essentially what Kendall has already shown in his previous post, where he argued very well that if you are not c then you must be not b. Edited January 30, 2007 by DarkWaters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Another point I thought of: Christian morality may be based on faulty premises. But at least they have something that can be called "morality." Whatever problems it may have, it is better than the relativistic Democrats preaching that there is no morality and that there should be no moral judgements. I disagree with this; amoralism and naked nihilism can't have the corrosive effect on rational values that religious morality has, though amoralism and nihilism can certainly open the door for a religious takeover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 I still haven't heard a good explanation of why it is impossible for 2 rational people to come to opposite conclusions, regarding which party is the greater threat. Maybe that's because you weren't listening. Maybe you were too busy suggesting that Peikoff is a "dogmatist" and that he suffers from "dementia and senility." Or, maybe you were too busy making up your mind to vote Libertarian. Just my two cents. Hope it helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 I never said Peikoff was a dogmatist; I said some people seemed to follow him dogmatically. And attacking me for deciding to vote Libertarian (I ended up not voting at all, by the way) is not going to get the same reaction out of me that you would get from a Baptist by calling him a bad Christian. In other words, I don't care what your opinion is of me or my views. I am not an Objectivist, have never claimed to be, and am not going to artificially alter my views just for fear of being labeled "irrational." Aren't we above ad hominem attacks here? It would be more mature to just answer my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 By the way, if you wish to continue the conversation that you just broached, it would be more appropriate to do it via PMs or instant messaging. So don't bother responding to my last post, because I won't answer any response. Instead, you should respond to the one I made before that...as in, immediately before, not 10 pages before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 I never said Peikoff was a dogmatist; I said some people seemed to follow him dogmatically. Then you won't mind clarifying what you wrote here: That statement [Peikoff's statement], if taken literally, actively promotes dogmatism. No, I don't believe that we should tip-toe around what we say to avoid misleading n00bs who aren't thinking individually anyway. Regardless of who it effects, the statement is contrary to the idea of individual thinking. It promotes the unquestioning acceptance of the leader's statements and makes it clear that, if you question his opinions, you are one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) And maybe you'll excuse me for refusing to answer in the thread, since this is not the place for a pissing contest and since I explicitly stated I won't further disucss it in here. If you wish to perform thread necromancy on a topic that I quit discussing 3 months ago, do it in a PM, not in the middle of a completely different discussion. If you're not going to answer the point I just made, then don't answer one that I made in October. Edited January 31, 2007 by Moose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 By the way, if you wish to continue the conversation that you just broached, it would be more appropriate to do it via PMs or instant messaging. I don't think it would be more appropriate. I'm responding to public comments that you made. I therefore think that the public should benefit from my response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Then I'll just wait for someone else to respond to my point, because you obviously won't. The point you brought up has already been discussed. If you insist on continuing and want it to be "public," then at least make another thread or wait until my current concern has been addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas51184 Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 As someone who just entered the workforce, the socialism of the Democrats is more of a threat to me than is the Republican desire to ban abortion, drugs, porn, and butt-sex. None of the religious goals of the Republicans would really affect me. I don't mean this as an insult, but this is the factual ignorance to which I was referring. The intellectuals on the religious right (I'm not talking about the neo-cons here) desire to impose Mosaic law on the U.S. Issues like abortion, drugs, porn, homosexuality, etc. are a means to an end for this movement. The belief that Old Testament law should govern the United States is called "dominionism" (roughly, dominionists believe other things too). This is not a fringe ideology; Pat Robertson is a dominionist, and I suspect Rick Santorum is worse. The Christian Coalition rates politicians roughly based on how well they are advancing the dominionist agenda. In the last congress, 48 of the Republicans were voted 100% in line with the Coalition. A dominionist American would affect you; blasphemy would be a crime, as would heresy. If they ever come to power I doubt they'd throw atheists in jail, but they would at least have segregation-like laws targeting non-Christians. The founders of the dominionist movement support the stoning of adulterers and disobedient children, along with atheists, homosexuals, and heretics. Those people (Christian Reconstructionists) have written most of the texts used by the Christian home school movement, as well as by Christian colleges. They are crazy, but highly influential within the religious right. And that's just a short little taste of what is going on in America. Bush's faith based charity initiative is responsible for funding and expanding Christian drug treatment. Part of such treatment is converting to Christianity. So in some parts of the country, if you are arrested for drugs you may be sentenced to complete a program or go to jail, i.e. convert to Christianity or go to jail. It's not just in the south, either. The Salvation Army (a Christian organization which is partly funded by the government) in NYC has fired people for being homosexual or non-Christian. Of course, such would be their right if they weren't taking government money. I'll close by re-recommending Kingdom Coming as an introduction to all of this. If any of what I just wrote is new to you, you should familiarize yourself with it immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 I still haven't heard a good explanation of why it is impossible for 2 rational people to come to opposite conclusions, regarding which party is the greater threat. As someone who just entered the workforce, the socialism of the Democrats is more of a threat to me than is the Republican desire to ban abortion, drugs, porn, and butt-sex. None of the religious goals of the Republicans would really affect me. Yes, the Republicans are becoming increasingly socialist, but they are not on the same level as the Democrats. They are, after all, trying to defeat the minimum wage increase. Another point I thought of: Christian morality may be based on faulty premises. But at least they have something that can be called "morality." Whatever problems it may have, it is better than the relativistic Democrats preaching that there is no morality and that there should be no moral judgements. Since the thread has become polluted by another disagreement, I'm reposting this so that people other than MisterSwig will see it and respond to it, if they wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) I don't mean this as an insult, but this is the factual ignorance to which I was referring. The intellectuals on the religious right (I'm not talking about the neo-cons here) desire to impose Mosaic law on the U.S. Issues like abortion, drugs, porn, homosexuality, etc. are a means to an end for this movement. The belief that Old Testament law should govern the United States is called "dominionism" (roughly, dominionists believe other things too). This is not a fringe ideology; Pat Robertson is a dominionist, and I suspect Rick Santorum is worse. The Christian Coalition rates politicians roughly based on how well they are advancing the dominionist agenda. In the last congress, 48 of the Republicans were voted 100% in line with the Coalition. A dominionist American would affect you; blasphemy would be a crime, as would heresy. If they ever come to power I doubt they'd throw atheists in jail, but they would at least have segregation-like laws targeting non-Christians. The founders of the dominionist movement support the stoning of adulterers and disobedient children, along with atheists, homosexuals, and heretics. Those people (Christian Reconstructionists) have written most of the texts used by the Christian home school movement, as well as by Christian colleges. They are crazy, but highly influential within the religious right. I'm somewhat familiar with dominion theology, but I don't think most Republicans are in line with it. The Christian Coalition may rate 48 Republicans as voting 100% in line with dominionism, but you're neglecting that that is only based on issues which are brought to a vote in Congress. How many Republican legislators do you think would vote "Yea" on a measure making mealtime prayer mandatory, under criminal penalty? How many do you think would actually make it illegal to say the word "goddamn?" Dominionists might, but I highly doubt that many mainstream Republicans would. They get a 100% rating, because issues like that are never put to vote. And that's just a short little taste of what is going on in America. Bush's faith based charity initiative is responsible for funding and expanding Christian drug treatment. Part of such treatment is converting to Christianity. So in some parts of the country, if you are arrested for drugs you may be sentenced to complete a program or go to jail, i.e. convert to Christianity or go to jail.Yeah, that's ridiculous, but it's hardly worse than the Democrats criminal justice agenda, which is to take violent criminals and put them in community-involved rehabilitation programs. It's not just in the south, either. The Salvation Army (a Christian organization which is partly funded by the government) in NYC has fired people for being homosexual or non-Christian. Of course, such would be their right if they weren't taking government money. How is this any worse than radical leftists taking government money to indoctrinate college students with anti-Americanism and Marxism? Ward Churchill ring a bell? I'll close by re-recommending Kingdom Coming as an introduction to all of this. If any of what I just wrote is new to you, you should familiarize yourself with it immediately. I've actually heard of this book, and had thought about picking it up. Now that I've seen it recommended on here, I'll see if I can find it. You seem to misunderstand my intent. I am not defending the religous agenda of Republicans. I am defending the idea that someone can have an honest disagreement on which party is worse. I, personally, believe the leftist agenda of Democrats to be a bigger threat. Both parties suck. But coming to a different conclusion than Dr. Peikoff about which one sucks worse does not make me irrational. Edited January 31, 2007 by Moose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 You seem to misunderstand my intent. I am not defending the religous agenda of Republicans. I am defending the idea that someone can have an honest disagreement on which party is worse. I, personally, believe the leftist agenda of Democrats to be a bigger threat. Both parties suck. But coming to a different conclusion than Dr. Peikoff about which one sucks worse does not make me irrational. Who has said that you can't have an honest disagreement about which party is worse? And who has said that coming to a different conclusion than Peikoff makes you "irrational"? Rational people can disagree about things. It just means one or both of them is wrong (i.e. mistaken). No one is claiming otherwise. I have yet to see why people make a big deal out of his statement. In order to let his statement upset, people have to represent it as saying something it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Another point I thought of: Christian morality may be based on faulty premises. But at least they have something that can be called "morality." Whatever problems it may have, it is better than the relativistic Democrats preaching that there is no morality and that there should be no moral judgements. Why exactly is this true? Why is having an incorrect, "systematic" morality better than having a relativistic morality? Does one necessarily lead you to be more wrong in more important situations? In fact, Peikoff's thesis is that consistently "mistaken" morality is as dangerous as consistently relativistic, nihilistic morality. However to the extent that one is more consitent than the other it is more dangerous. We can certainly debate if this characterization is itself correct, and then exactly where each party falls on the scale, but I would reject the characterization above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) Who has said that you can't have an honest disagreement about which party is worse? And who has said that coming to a different conclusion than Peikoff makes you "irrational"? Rational people can disagree about things. It just means one or both of them is wrong (i.e. mistaken). No one is claiming otherwise. I have yet to see why people make a big deal out of his statement. In order to let his statement upset, people have to represent it as saying something it doesn't. Peikoff's statement suggests this very thing. If he thinks other people are wrong, that's fine. Like I always say, if you don't think people who disagree with you are wrong, then you have no right to call something your opinion. But his statement isn't that people who disagree with him are wrong. It's that people who disagree have no understanding of the role of philosophy in man's life. Why exactly is this true? Why is having an incorrect, "systematic" morality better than having a relativistic morality? Does one necessarily lead you to be more wrong in more important situations? In fact, Peikoff's thesis is that consistently "mistaken" morality is as dangerous as consistently relativistic, nihilistic morality. However to the extent that one is more consitent than the other it is more dangerous. We can certainly debate if this characterization is itself correct, and then exactly where each party falls on the scale, but I would reject the characterization above. I suppose this point is debatable. I am reminded of a part of We the Living, however. In the part I'm thinking of, Kira is talking about Petrograd constantly changing hands between the Red Army and the White Army. She states that, in many ways, the White Army was worse, because they stood for nothing. The Red Army may have stood for Communism, but at least it was something. Edited January 31, 2007 by Moose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Peikoff's statement suggests this very thing. If he thinks other people are wrong, that's fine. Like I always say, if you don't think people who disagree with you are wrong, then you have no right to call something your opinion. But his statement isn't that people who disagree with him are wrong. It's that people who disagree have no understanding of the role of philosophy in man's life. Well, a. You may not like the degree to which he ascribes the mistake, but this does not say you're irrational, it says you're mistaken. Albeit a very big mistake. Again, we can debate how big the mistake is, but it doesn't say any more than that. b. he subsequently qualifies the error. You might very well understand the importance of philosophy in mans life, but your failure to connect it to a specific concrete leaves your understanding as a floating abstraction. Yes, you might have done all that great thinking to come to where you are, but if you don't actually "push the button" as a result of thinking, then it all matters for naught. I suppose this point is debatable. I am reminded of a part of We the Living, however. In the part I'm thinking of, Kira is talking about Petrograd constantly changing hands between the Red Army and the White Army. She states that, in many ways, the White Army was worse, because they stood for nothing. The Red Army may have stood for Communism, but at least it was something. ...which is why she stayed in Russia to stick it out with the Communists? If she would have done that, then she really would have had no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's life. Look, I realize this can be construed as an inflammatory statement. Reread The Wrechage of the Concensus, and argue that your stand is where Rand would have placed herself. It wasn't Peikoff as much as that essay (and Brad Thompson's recent OCON lecture) that changed my mind about this war, and the Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 I still haven't heard a good explanation of why it is impossible for 2 rational people to come to opposite conclusions, regarding which party is the greater threat. As someone who just entered the workforce, the socialism of the Democrats is more of a threat to me than is the Republican desire to ban abortion, drugs, porn, and butt-sex. None of the religious goals of the Republicans would really affect me. Yes, the Republicans are becoming increasingly socialist, but they are not on the same level as the Democrats. They are, after all, trying to defeat the minimum wage increase. You are attacking a straw man. Peikoff did not say that "it is impossible for two rational people to come to opposite conclusions regarding which party is the greater threat." He said very clearly: In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world. Nobody, to my knowledge, is upholding the position that you are attacking. It should be obvious that two rational people can come to opposite conclusions regarding which party is the greater threat. The way I understand it, Peikoff's point is that if you vote Republican then you don't understand Objectivism, because if you did you would see by now that the Republicans are the greater threat. However, ignorance of Objectivism does not necessarily make you irrational. Whether you are rational depends on your individual intellectual context. Are you evading the evidence against your position? Are you basing your vote on feelings or faith? Or are you employing your reason and forming conclusions based on the evidence available to you? Etc. To deal briefly with your particular context, Moose, you may not be personally interested in "butt-sex", but what are you going to do when you start to notice that more and more "sinners" in your neighborhood are being sent to jail for their "crimes" against religion? What are you going to do when your boss is rounded up and sent to the gulag because she had an abortion? What are you going to do if your friends are fined their life savings for doing drugs? When your co-worker reports you as a heathen nonbeliever to the morality police, where will you run? Or, will you fake a belief in Jesus in order to escape persecution? Are you going to pay your taxes to have these "sinners" locked away? Will you appease the Christian masses? Or, will you join the rebellion fifty years too late? When you start to notice that the majority of people around you are theocratic Christians, what will you do? Will you be happy in such a world? Will you be happy in your Christian dictatorship as long as it doesn't have a minimum wage increase? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Well, a. You may not like the degree to which he ascribes the mistake, but this does not say you're irrational, it says you're mistaken. Albeit a very big mistake. Again, we can debate how big the mistake is, but it doesn't say any more than that. b. he subsequently qualifies the error. You might very well understand the importance of philosophy in mans life, but your failure to connect it to a specific concrete leaves your understanding as a floating abstraction. Yes, you might have done all that great thinking to come to where you are, but if you don't actually "push the button" as a result of thinking, then it all matters for naught. This is certainly a more reasonable view, but from my earlier participation in this thread (and my rereading of it a couple hours ago), this is not the position that his defenders were taking. While it's more reasonable, I still think it's wrong. Someone can be thinking properly and still come to a different conclusion than another person who is thinking properly. Why? Because when determining which party has potential to be worse for this country, we are essentially predicting the future. A lot of it is based on past experience, but an equal amount is pure guesswork. Then again, a lot of it is personal preferences. As I said earlier, I'd rather live in a country where I am banned from wearing shorts but get to keep my whole paycheck, than I would living in a country that takes half my paycheck but doesn't force me to abide by any religion's laws. ...which is why she stayed in Russia to stick it out with the Communists? If she would have done that, then she really would have had no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's life. Well, I certainly don't think either of the 2 American parties is as bad as the Communists, but I think the analogy is roughly the same. And, to echo someone else's sentiments from earlier in the thread, if things are as bad as Peikoff says, then it isn't time to be strategizing our votes. It's time to get the hell out. Look, I realize this can be construed as an inflammatory statement. Reread The Wrechage of the Concensus, and argue that your stand is where Rand would have placed herself. It wasn't Peikoff as much as that essay (and Brad Thompson's recent OCON lecture) that changed my mind about this war, and the Republicans. Not familiar with that particular essay. Where can it be found? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) You are attacking a straw man. Peikoff did not say that "it is impossible for two rational people to come to opposite conclusions regarding which party is the greater threat." He said very clearly: Nobody, to my knowledge, is upholding the position that you are attacking. It should be obvious that two rational people can come to opposite conclusions regarding which party is the greater threat. The way I understand it, Peikoff's point is that if you vote Republican then you don't understand Objectivism, because if you did you would see by now that the Republicans are the greater threat. However, ignorance of Objectivism does not necessarily make you irrational. Whether you are rational depends on your individual intellectual context. Are you evading the evidence against your position? Are you basing your vote on feelings or faith? Or are you employing your reason and forming conclusions based on the evidence available to you? Etc. It seems to me that the Objectivist view is that non-Objectivists are not completely rational...that is to say that they have some irrational principles. I'm still not getting how Objectivist principles can be applied to what is, essentially, an attempt at predicting the future. To deal briefly with your particular context, Moose, you may not be personally interested in "butt-sex", but what are you going to do when you start to notice that more and more "sinners" in your neighborhood are being sent to jail for their "crimes" against religion? What are you going to do when your boss is rounded up and sent to the gulag because she had an abortion? What are you going to do if your friends are fined their life savings for doing drugs? When your co-worker reports you as a heathen nonbeliever to the morality police, where will you run? Or, will you fake a belief in Jesus in order to escape persecution?That would certainly piss me off. It also pisses me off when people get sent to jail for tax evasion or "insider trading." And besides that, religious laws are very difficult to enforce. I'll grant you that this country would be worse off if it became the Christian Saudi Arabia than it would if it became a Western hemisphere Russia or China. Russia and China's economic repression is still better than Saudi Arabia's complete lack of personal freedom. Then again, I'd rather it become the Christian UAE than the Western hemisphere France. Why? Because the UAE's religious laws are moderate and would make for a much more bearable life than France's increasing socialism. Are you going to pay your taxes to have these "sinners" locked away? Will you appease the Christian masses? Or, will you join the rebellion fifty years too late? If things ever became as bad as you are describing, I would not hesitate to pack my bags and leave. If it ever became outright totalitarian to the point that I wasn't allowed to leave, I would have no problem dedicating my life to revolution. But I don't suspect things will become that bad for quite some time. Probably not in my lifetime, though perhaps in the lifetime of my children (who do not yet exist, by the way). When you start to notice that the majority of people around you are theocratic Christians, what will you do? Will you be happy in such a world? Will you be happy in your Christian dictatorship as long as it doesn't have a minimum wage increase? I went to Texas A&M, which is easily among the top 3 most conservative schools in the nation, if not the most...I've had plenty of radical Christians in my life. No, I wouldn't be happy in a Christian dictatorship and, yes, I'd rather have a minimum wage increase than a theocracy. But I don't know of a single Republican legislator who advocates outright theocracy. Pat Robertson and James Dobson are not lawmakers. Democrats, however, are fond of declaring "war on individualism" (Ted Kennedy) and they like to "take things away from you on behalf of the common good" (Hillary Clinton). Those are verbatim quotes and they sound like something straight out of Mao's Little Red Book. To me, that is scarier than having to put up with Bush's faith-based initiatives and all his empty rhetoric about a "culture of life." Wow, didn't mean the post to be that long. I still say that this debate isn't about which party is worse, but rather that it is about Peikoff's statements about people who think Democrats are the worse of the 2 parties. But it is an interesting conversation, nonetheless. I'm thinking the debate about which is worse should be split off, so that this thread can continue discussing the nature of Peikoff's comments. Okay, I have to get up at 5:00 to go to work, so I'd better go ahead and say my nightly prayers to Jesus. I encourage you to do the same, or I might have to report you to Jerry Falwell. Merry CHRISTmas to all and to all a good night. Edited January 31, 2007 by Moose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 How much does everyone want to bet that despite the hours and angst he has put into opposing Dr. Peikoff's position, that Moose STILL hasn't listened to the FREE DIM lectures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.