About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 1:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I absolutely agree with Peikoff's assessment of the evils of religion, I wonder if he appreciates the full scale disaster that could befall this country if the Democrats do return to power.  And those dangers are augmented immeasurably during a time of war. We might deal a blow to the mindless spiritual orgy of evangelical  hysteria, but what will it matter if our nation doesn't survive?  Despite its pernicious effects, religion does provide Republican leadership with some semblance of a moral backbone, and we may need that if we are to thwart the global forces bent on our destruction. 

Considering the slate of potential presidential candidates the Democrats will likely parade before the voting public over the next two years—insufferable, brain-dead, mealy mouthed goons who make Mr. Thompson from Atlas Shrugged come off like a clone of George Washington--Peikoff’s ultimatum may be the best argument for rationalism since Immanuel Kant.

 

Dennis


Post 1

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 4:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As most people are aware, ARI is  consistently ani-libertarian, because the libertarian party has no underlying philosophy. But now they are asking us to vote for, and in essence sanction, a bad philosophy? Doesn't make sense to me.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 4:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.” "

What a perversion of morality! Sanctioning a killer is immoral - as is sanctioning a system where only killers are offered. The only moral action in such a case is to refrain from supporting either. The lesser of two evils is still evil.


Post 3

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 7:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Some people say that there is no point voting because there is no difference between the two major parties, and the other parties have no chance of winning. However, there is a difference: the Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous.

Republican voters have more reason to be bitter than do Democratic voters. The Democrats are in Washington pushing for the kinds of things their supporters want: more spending, more immigration, more liberal judges."

                                      -Thomas Sowell

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/entry.asp?entry_id=11010


Post 4

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As most people are aware, ARI is  consistently ani-libertarian, because the libertarian party has no underlying philosophy. But now they are asking us to vote for, and in essence sanction, a bad philosophy? Doesn't make sense to me.
Do you expect ARI to make sense on anything?

I gave money to the Ron Paul campaign a few months ago. He's not in my district, but I'm happy that I did.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 8:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
He is dead wrong, is all I can say.  Somewhere along the way, Peikoff went way off course.  There was an interesting analysis someone did awhile back, saying that in general the more the popular vote swings Republican, the lower the taxes in general and the less government.  This also applies to margin of victory, so in the last two Presidential elections, the popular vote was very close, and the result is that while the Republicans may win, there are more social-type issues addressed because that is the overall swing the popular vote went.  The upshot of this was don't do protest votes and the like, vote for the side that gets you closer to where you want to go, and despite the fact that the Republicans have done more spending, there is no doubt that the Democrats would do even more if they win, and the fact that they came close affects the swing votes and forces the compromises they like too.  In no way is the country heading towards a theocracy, he is just so far off base he can't even see the target any longer.

Post 6

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 9:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In "It is Earlier than you Think," Rand wrote more than 40 years ago that the good news or silver lining in Goldwater's defeat was that at least the religious, traditionalist conservatism was over.  It had been definitively discredited and wouldn't count politically any more.  She was wrong at the time, but I like to think that if the Republicans lose congress next month the prediction will come true.

This could be very good news.  The Republicans are at their best in the minority (as in the early Clinton era and the 1994 election), and a Democratic victory might force them to cultivate their libertarian strain.  If this happens, it will come along just as the Democrats (Clinton, Obama, Lieberman) are trying to get with religion.  Obama, in particular, is avowedly a moral authoritarian.  He'd make a good foil for a libertarian message from the Republicans, and everybody would get that message.

(I suspect that the real lesson of this heavy-handed presidential buildup that the media have been giving Obama is that they've realized, a decade after everyone else, that Clinton's criminal past rules her out as a potential president.  Said buildup will do him about as much good as similar efforts did for Linsday, Muskie and McCain..)

Peter

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 10/24, 12:05pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 10:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you vote Republican, you're not an Objectivist? Ludicrous. How can Piekoff feel comfortable with this kind of Intrincisism? It's such a shame that AR made him her heir.

Post 8

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 12:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My gripe with Republicans is that they used to be the party for smaller, limited government but they are not anymore. I can't find even one redeeming quality to the Republican Party. Not even one. They have become Socialists, Big Government, Big Brother party with their theocratic views to boot. We have the biggest federal government now than we ever did. They had a chance to privatize social security and they blew it! Not one, not even one bit of lousy legislation was passed that was pro-limited government or pro-liberty. And they've had power long enough so what's their excuse?

Can anyone here give me one reason at all to vote Republican considering what they have become as a party?

Post 9

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 2:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't think there is a good reason to vote for any of the parties. If you want to make a protest vote, vote LP. Otherwise, it's the lesser of two evils. The Democrats used to somewhat good on social issues but now even they are "conservative" in that department.

Post 10

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 6:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hah I'd rather give all my money to the church than vote for some of the democratic canidates out there after looking at what they propose to do in office.

Post 11

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 8:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe you should read Ed's piece from The Individualist........

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1794-GOP_battle.aspx

(Edited by robert malcom on 10/24, 8:11pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 12:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peikoff:
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.
Not true. Understanding Objectivism does not imply agreement on every concrete application of it, like voting for or against a particular candidate -- unless, of course, the candidate is strongly pro-freedom or pro-statist. In the last election, there was substantial disagreement among ARI supporters over whom to vote for. Peikoff favored Kerry, and certain other Objectivists (e.g., Binswanger, if I'm not mistaken) favored Bush. Would Peikoff have called those who favored Bush "immoral," just as he is now calling those who disagree with him "immoral" for voting Republican? Do ARI Objectivists ever have disagreements that do not involve charges of moral turpitude?

Also, what happened to Peikoff's case for gridlock -- for a Democratic president and a Republican congress, or vice-versa? He is now saying that one should vote consistently Democratic.

It's also curious that his analysis ignores foreign policy. What I suspect is really dividing voters this election is the Iraq War, with the Democrats opposing it, and the Republicans supporting it. Of course, the Foley indiscretion has received considerable hype and moralistic handwringing, but I doubt that it'll have a comparable influence on voters, who have a bit more respect for what the really important issues are.

Granted, ARI spokespersons like Yaron Brook oppose the Iraq war, but only because they favor redirecting our war efforts toward Iran. Brook argues that we should dispatch our troops to the Iraq-Iran border and tell the Iranian rulers to flee the country for their vacation homes in Canada. If they take us seriously and leave, we move in and assume power. If they do not, we mount a full-scale attack against them, leaving Iraq to fend for itself.

Show me one Democrat who would favor such a policy. Brook's proposal should give pause even to Republicans, but they would find it a lot more palatable than Democrats would, and be far more likely to put it into practice. Speaking of being detached from the world, is Peikoff willing to jettison any realistic chance of implementing Objectivism's foreign policy -- not to mention avoiding economic disaster -- by turning power over to the Democrats? Evidently, he is.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/25, 12:28am)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/25, 12:34am)


Post 13

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 1:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill wrote:

Speaking of being detached from the world, is Peikoff willing to jettison any realistic chance of implementing Objectivism's foreign policy -- not to mention avoiding economic disaster -- by turning power over to the Democrats?

Bill, Economic disaster? Isn't that a hyperbole? And would the Republicans honestly behave any differently economically than the Democrats? Have you seen what they've done in the last 6 years? We have the biggest government now than we have ever had. Bush signed into law from a Republican congress the enormous life-sucking prescription plan bill. Privatizing Social Security was a complete bust. Is there really much of a difference at this point? They have the Legislature and the Executive branch, what was holding them back for 6 years? Remember, we had Clinton for 8 years and we saw some of the most robust Economic growth in a long time, albeit with a Republican congress, but the Republican congress in the 90's was far different than the one we have now. To me it's a question to the Republicans of what have you done for me lately?

(Edited by John Armaos on 10/25, 1:36am)


Post 14

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 3:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The obvious point here, which Peikoff and his gang miss, is if you're going to vote, vote Libertarian!  

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 6:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, great points on this thread.

I have to scratch my head in bewilderment whenever someone who claims to support free enterprise admits the Republicans in power haven't been good, but argues the Democrats would be much worse. Such a person confesses that he simply hasn't been paying attention to what the GOP has been doing since it gained control of both the Presidency and Congress.

Over the last six years, the Republican Party hasn't merely been "not good" for capitalism--it has been MIND-BLOWINGLY AWFUL. Under President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, the federal budget has skyrocketed from $1.8 trillion to $2.8 trillion today (no, most of that is NOT related to national security; it's spending on pork and welfare). The national debt has ballooned from nearly $6 trillion to $8 trillion. In historical context, these increases are truly shocking; on a linear graph representing government fiscal policy over the last century, they would appear as steep lines upward.

Anyone who's interested in this issue, as I'd hope any self-proclaimed Objectivists would be, should read Stephen Slivinski's new book, Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government. Slivinski, who works at the Cato Institute, is a very good researcher and writer, and his case here is airtight.

Were the Republicans doing anything to dismantle the welfare state, albeit less ambitiously than I'd like, I'd say that voting Republican is the clear choice for Objectivists. But the GOP's grotesque betrayal of individualism, in deed if not in word, has in my view made voting either Democrat or Republican a sanction of growing collectivism and a comfort to those who want America to be just like Western Europe.
(Edited by Jon Trager
on 10/25, 1:22pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill Dwyer wrote:

"Do ARI Objectivists ever have disagreements that do not involve charges of moral turpitude?"

Amen to that.

Just as you've noted that Ed Hudgins did, I also clobbered the GOP in the Fall issue of The New Individualist. They absolutely deserve to lose this election, for all the reasons cited by others.

But do we deserve the Nancy Pelosi alternative?

And -- as some here have noted -- if the safety and security of the nation from the Islamist threat is priority #1, does anyone think for a moment that the Democrats will make us safer? These are the people who gutted the military after the end of the Cold War, who have ignored and gutted our intelligence agencies since Jimmy Carter, and who stopped the CIA from getting bin Laden throughout the '90s. As for this latter point, here's Michael Scheurer, the CIA agent who led the hunt for bin Laden under Clinton:
I would refer you to the 9/11 Commission report of Gov. Kean. In that report, the 9/11 commissioners detail eight to ten chances that the CIA provided to policy makers to either capture or use the U.S. military to kill Osama bin Laden by the middle of 1999. None of those opportunities were taken. I think there's a widespread feeling among agency employees that it's inaccurate at least to attribute an intelligence failure to the agency when the men and women who risk their lives to collect information provided policy makers with information that could have led to the elimination of bin Laden more than two years before 9/11.

By "policy makers" Scheurer means the Clintonistas.

The position of Peikoff and his allies on this election is logically incoherent, given their past clear statements that the war against radical Islam is THE biggest and most important crisis of our civilization. That being the case, everything else -- profligate federal spending, interference with stem cell research, President Bush's religious inclinations, etc. -- have to take a back seat. Putting the party of Cut and Run in charge of the government would be a complete national security disaster. If you think PC policies in the military and Homeland Security are bad now, just you wait.

The Peikoff complaint against voting in a way to foster long-term philosophical chaos actually applies much, much more appropriately against supporting the Libertarian Party. There is a disaster for Objectivists: a Party that -- historically and repeatedly -- has associated the case for human liberty with such things as moral relativism, anarchism, foreign-policy paralysis, gutting of our national defenses and intelligence services, undermining our criminal justice system, and on and on. In the post-9/11 period, no Democrat would dare go as far towards self-sacrificial insanity as the Libertarians have sometimes done in their hostility to anti-terrorist intelligence agencies such as the CIA and FBI.

The fact that the L.P. has shifted its positions on these issues repeatedly over the years tells me that it is philosophically incoherent. "Liberty" means whatever unintelligible and inconsistent mess the latest faction in charge happens to believe.

Besides all this, a vote for the L.P., which can't possibly get elected, simply abdicates the responsibility of electoral choice to those who are voting for the only viable alternatives: Democrat or Republican candidates.

"Protest votes" are inane, because nobody actually reads in minority party votes any coherent or lasting messages. Elections aren't philosophical discussion forums. They are practical methods of filling elective offices with actual candidates. Given that none of the party alternatives are completely positive, therefore, for anyone concerned with his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, his strategy in the voting booth should be self-interested and practical. These days, that means: damage control.

Vote for the candidate least likely to do long-range harm, on those issues that pose the greatest and most immediate threats.

In some cases, that may mean getting rid of a particularly dangerous Republican. I think social-conservative Republicans like Rick Santorum pose grave long-term dangers to the GOP's philosophical direction. Others, like Arlen Specter and similar liberals, have paralyzed the GOP from doing good things. These people ought to be culled from the Party at the ballot box.

But generally, anyone who can look at the Islamist threat and want to do anything but decide his ballot choices on that issue deserves a mental examination.




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Tracinski, another ARI man who publishes The Intellectual Activist, openly advocates voting Republican this November.  According to a recent article of his sent me via e-mail from a friend:

I have realized that the best thing we can do in this election is to crush the left—because the Democratic Party adds nothing of value to the American political debate....

The American system is not friendly to monolithic one-party rule. The moment one party begins to dominate, it tends to split apart along its internal fault lines. The more the Republicans dominate American politics, therefore, the more intensely they will debate among themselves....

I can't guarantee that such a debate would produce the best result—I would like to see the emergence of a small-government, pro-immigration, pro-war, secular right—but I can guarantee that such a debate would be much more interesting and much more productive than the debate we're having with the left right now.

So this November, let's crush the left. Once the left is safely out of the way, we'll be free to begin the much more serious and important business of splintering the right.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 10/25, 8:12am)


Post 18

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 8:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Interesting you mention my Senators.  The thing is, I saw an advertisement that was for Casey, but at each point I was saying to myself "that is good" when they were trying to say it was bad re/Santorum.  For example, Casey wants:

1)  Kyoto protocals to help against global warming
2)  supports raising minimum wage
3)  wants to cut and run from terrorism
4)  is against privatizing social security

no matter what, I just can't vote for a guy who supports this


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 8:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm re-editing my comments on another thread and bringing them here. It's mainly about the lack of a soul in the Red Team. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I am going to give a brief recap of the story of Angelus/Angel and Buffy.

Angelus was a vampire. He was famous for taunting and terrorizing his victims. He laughed at them and would leave them gag gifts. He killed all of Drusilla's family, causing her to go insane. Then he killed her and made her a vampire.

Eventually, Angelus met his match in the form of a gypsy curse. The gypsies cursed him by giving him a soul. The soul was a conscience. They wanted to punish Angelus for all he had done. Above all, they wanted to make sure that Angelus would NEVER experience even a second of happiness. The most effective way was to make him live with the guilt of having killed hundreds or even thousands of innocent people. Angelus changed his name to Angel.

Angel lived with the guilt for many years. Then he met a beautiful young vampire slayer named Buffy Anne Summers and was inspired by her courage and wisdom. The old vamp and the young slayer fell in love. Angel was a mentor of sorts, since he knew more about vamps than anyone else.

He was the bad guy who had turned good. Some vamps hadn't realized that he had went to the good side. But they knew it was true when they saw him making out with Buffy.

During the middle of the second season, Buffy and Angel consummated their relationship. Angel experienced pure happiness. As the curse decreed, Angel lost his soul in that moment of happiness. He became the cold-blooded killer Angelus again.

Buffy was understandably heartbroken. She had lost her virginity on her birthday, and now the "man" who took it went crazy. Angelus threatened her friends, killed one of her teachers, and tried to bring about an apocalypse.

In this respect, Buffy failed as a slayer. She could never bring herself to kill Angelus. Eventually her friend Willow performed the same spell that had given Angelus his soul before. The good Angel came back, but their relationship was never the same again.

Being much, much older, Angel realized that he could never give Buffy a normal love life. Angel left Sunnydale for Los Angeles and started his own detective agency in his own television series. He continued to fight the good fight, but without Buffy, Xander, Giles, and Willow.

When the series ended four years later, Sunnydale was destroyed in the final battle with the "First Evil." Buffy's mother had died, but Buffy had found other allies in her fight against the forces of darkness. She was much older but still without a man in her life. She ultimately never lost her love for Angel. She had more failed relationships and never gave poor Xander a chance, even though he had been in love with her since the series pilot.

The Red Team has no soul. It is just like Angelus. The good Angel was just the product of a curse, and no loving relationship with him was ever possible. Buffy only had sex with him once. But apologists for the Red Team go back and let these vampires bang them again and again. Their behavior is even more pathetic than Buffy's during the second season.

The good Angel had enough integrity to leave Sunnydale and leave Buffy. The vampires in the Red Team do not have it and never will. Some supporters of the Red Team are still hoping that Willow or some brilliant witch will cast a spell and restore the "soul" of the party. But vampires aren't meant to have souls, just as they aren't meant to go out in sunlight either.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.