RoR: Forum

"Prof. Hospers quotes AR during a 1962 Election Night celebration 'accept 80% taxation in order to preserve a free society -- if they prevent you from speaking all bets are off."

from memory, didn't cut and paste...

If you look at what 'campaign finance reform' has done to speech coupled with the war on terrorism approach from the government -- we are certainly headed that direction -- look at the conventions -- in Boston protestors were put into a pen that wasn't close to the convention and virtually inaccessable to the public passing by or media -- in NYC they are doing the same thing so that peaceful protestors are relegated to the margins of Queens -- FBI agents have visited thousands of activists, most with no record of political violence just to check them out...again, among numerous other examples -- it would be my guess that is O'ist publications/blogs/activists (gasp) started to make a difference in American public life you'd all feel the heat.

Its amazing that Lindsey can sit in New Zealand, free from any rational fears of terrorism because his government rightly has not gotten involved in this whole mess and call people who dare question the war in Iraq as Saddamites -- while reaping praise on Reagan's corpse, they guy who started t US funding of the radical islamic mujahedin and Saddam Hussein...I never gave Hussein a dime -- if I'm a Saddamite, what does that make Reagan?

Post 21

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 11:16am

Look folks, I think any further discussion on this topic is a total waste of time for both me and my opponents. Chris Sciabarra has laid out a good case against the Iraq war, and I can't top his analysis. If you disagree---well, I think you pro-war people are pretty dense. I don't care to repeat the same arguments over and over.

Post 22

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 1:21pm

Look folks, I think any further discussion on this topic is a total waste of time for both me and my opponents. Chris Sciabarra has laid out a good case against the Iraq war, and I can't top his analysis. If you disagree---well, I think you pro-war people are pretty dense. I don't care to repeat the same arguments over and over.

The question wasn't the case for or against the war, but who started it. You can repeat "the same arguments over and over" until the cows come home, and call me all the names you like, but neither thing is going to change the facts I identified. And if your oft-repeated case against the war can't even get straight on who started it, sorry but I don't think you've exactly earned the right to call me "dense."

Post 23

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 1:59pm

Stephen Malkamus writes:

Its amazing that Lindsey can sit in New Zealand, free from any rational fears of terrorism because his government rightly has not gotten involved in this whole mess and call people who dare question the war in Iraq as Saddamites -- while reaping praise on Reagan's corpse, they guy who started t US funding of the radical islamic mujahedin and Saddam Hussein...I never gave Hussein a dime -- if I'm a Saddamite, what does that make Reagan?

Right: nobody in New Zealand needs to fear terrorism because New Zealand is uninvolved in the Iraq war. Presumably, only those countries involved in the Iraq war need to fear terrorism.

Too bad that of the countries involved in the Iraq war, the one least involved has been bombed (Spain), but those most involved have not been (the US, UK, Poland, the Czech Republic).

Meanwhile, Bali, Istanbul, Damascus, and Riyadh have been bombed, and the bombing of Amman was thwarted at the last minute. Alas, Bali is nowhere near Iraq, the Turkish government was against the Iraq war, the Syrian government supports the Iraqi insurgency, Amman supported the Ba'ath regime in violation of the UN sanctions, and Saudi Arabia was adamantly against the Iraq war as well.

I won't bother to find the link, but I recently read a story in the New York Times about Islamist terrorist cells now operating in South Africa. I guess they're operating there to retaliate against South Africa's involvement in the Iraq war, right? You remember that, don't you--the great South African offensive against Baghdad? Wait: you missed it? Funny. So did I.

Here's what I find amazing: that people can insist on making claims about terrorism when almost 100% of what they say is the exact reverse of what the evidence indicates.

Post 24

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 1:14pm

Lindsay Perigo states:

"His commitment to liberty *is*. That is what you Saddamites cannot forgive him for. You hold it against the only power on earth that is able to strike a blow for liberty when it actually does so. I suggest you go to Iraq, free Saddam from his jail, reinstate him, & glorify him. His reinstatement & glorification is the logical upshot of *your* premises."

I think this makes it clear that Perigo is not basing his views on any philosophy even remotely resembling Objectivism. It is NOT permissible in the Objectivist ethics to FORCE people to finance your own pet projects, regardless of how benevolent or well intentioned such projects are. Many people act as if the central issue is whether Iraq had represented a "clear and present danger" or not and maintain that those who support the war simply disagree about the facts involved. Perigo's statements above makes clear that that is not the case. The real issue is whether the citizens of this country have the right to spend their own money how they choose or whether social reformers like Perigo will decide for them. The "clear and present danger" argument is merely a smokescreen to cover up such underlying premises.

-------------Tom Blackstone

http://tomsphilosophy.tripod.com

Post 25

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 5:43am

"The real issue is whether the citizens of this country have the right to spend their own money how they choose or whether social reformers like Perigo will decide for them. The "clear and present danger" argument is merely a smokescreen to cover up such underlying premises."

Well, lets separate the issues then.

Objectivism holds that one of the few roles of government is defense of people's rights from external and internal foes. Iraq represents such a foe in that they did represent a danger to us and our freedom. Hussein was a threat that needed extermination.

Objectivism holds that financing the government through forced taxation is wrong. This is currently the case in America, and should be worked against. At the time the Iraq became a threat, the proper resonse wasn't to say, heck with him, lets re-work the government. We deal with him and work to fix the taxation issue.

Argument solved.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 8/19, 5:43am)

Post 26

Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - 8:18pm