Let me re-phrase that, anything which defines itself by public opinion. Example, a politician who wants to win an election so takes several polls to decide which issues he can win on. Irrespective of his actual principles and convictions.
No that’s what losers like John Kerry or immoral nihilist like Bill Clinton do. Politicians who actually accomplish good act on priciple and reason alone, not pragmatism.
No that’s what losers like John Kerry or immoral nihilist like Bill Clinton do. Politicians who actually accomplish good act on priciple and reason alone, not pragmatism.
I agree 100% with that.
No that’s what losers like John Kerry or immoral nihilist like Bill Clinton do. Politicians who actually accomplish good act on priciple and reason alone, not pragmatism.
George Bush is highly pragmatic. However, his constituency is, to some extent, principled. Unfortunately the prinicples of some members of the vocal minority include things like no abortion etc.
Pragmatists can achieve beneficial things, but only when they are pushed by those with principles. Vocal minorities espousing firm principles have WAY more effect on government than masses of confused sheeple.
This is what I mean; that if the MECHANISM of the government is sound, it can survive all sorts of people, and that only a vocal minority of intellectuals is required to keep things on track. This is essentially Ayn Rand’s position (as I understand it, I’m not putting words in her mouth) which is why Objectivism is “For the New Intellectual”. That vocal intellectual minority HAS to exist, and they CANNOT cease in their vigillance.
The point of objective laws is to prevent anyone from making laws because they “want to”. The Governor is an Executive position, too, so he can’t make laws ANYWAY. He can only issue orders to see that the laws are carried out. Only the legeslative branch should be able to make laws.
This is what concerns me. Can objective laws actually be created? Doesn’t the subjectiveness of language hinder that goal?
I agree that only the legislative branch should be able to make laws. But that is not where the problem lies.
Let me use an example from the Constitution. Amendment XII states that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Why does “involuntary servitude” not apply to jury duty? It should. If I choose not to serve on a jury, than by that statement in the Constitution, I should not have to. But somebody decided (I would imagine it is the judicial sytem that interprets the laws) that “involuntary servitude” does not apply to jury duty. That seems arbitrary to me. Involuntary means contrary to my will. If it is not my will to serve on a jury, than by the words of the Constitution, I should not have to. But others will tell me that is too strict an interpretation of the words.
What would be an Objective answer to this question?
ann r kay-- You are right that you shouldn’t be forced to serve on a jury or anywhere else, and the reason you have to now is that the Constitution at the present time is NOT being applied objectively and right now we do not live in a rational Objectivist society. In other words, the statists and altruists are using the flawed premise that it is “somehow” okay (why? blank out) to *force* you to serve “for the ‘good’ of society”.
ann r kay-- You are right that you shouldn’t be forced to serve on a jury or anywhere else, and the reason you have to now is that the Constitution at the present time is NOT being applied objectively and right now we do not live in a rational Objectivist society. In other words, the statists and altruists are using the flawed premise that it is “somehow” okay (why? blank out) to *force* you to serve “for the ‘good’ of society”.
Okay. Then how can we progress towards a more Objectivist society?
To put it more bluntly (moderators, feel free to delete or edit this post, I won’t mind): How do we keep the commie bastards, insane dictators, and other devious scum out of the government?
Okay. Then how can we progress towards a more Objectivist society?
To put it more bluntly (moderators, feel free to delete or edit this post, I won’t mind): How do we keep the commie bastards, insane dictators, and other devious scum out of the government?
Educate the “public” about the superiority of reason and the virtues of selfishness by any means possible, i.e., op-eds, guest appearences of radio and t.v., talking with the people close to you, etc. Vote for the least statist while at the same time least nihilist and relativist candidates that are available, and encourage other to do so also through rational dialogue.
When the dominant philosophy of the culture is a philosophy of reason, a proper government will follow. But when the culture is ruled by irrationality, government by the rational for the rational cannot be imposed.