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 unread


Post 0

Friday, October 24, 2008 - 5:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So true.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 5:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

ET: "... the most moral U.S. politician ever interviewed..."





You need to define your terms.  Is not "moral politician" an oxymoron?  If not, then you need to explain why.  All Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul did was tell you what you want to hear.  He knows his constituency and he plays to it. 

  • Letting "the states decide" is not a consistent application of individual rights.  All it does is bring the potential for violations of those rights one step closer to home. 
  • Does your state practice the principles of liberty?  Does your state have only voluntary funding for only police and courts? Does your state have minimal necessary regulations of businesses or of individuals? 
  • How much influence do you have with your state government? Is it likely that you can write letters and talk to politicians and get them to see things your way?  How about your immediate neighbors?  Have you talked to the people next door left and right and across the street and explained The Truth to them, <glory halleluiah! praise reason!>
Touting  a Congressman while ignoring a reporter really proves that politics is a distraction.  John Stossel has reported for years on free enterprise and individualism (Wikipedia bio) and has been so consistently factual and reasonable that a major network keeps him around, perhaps as a "house conservative" but on the air nonetheless.  John Stossel deserves our attention, not Ron Paul.

(I just updated John Stossel's entry in this site's Objectipedia.)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 10/25, 6:23am)


Post 2

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 9:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ron Paul is by far the most Libertarian of any politician I know of. Apart from his views on abortion, I don't know of anywhere that he isn't pro individual rights. He has been the only consistent, intelligent voice on straightening out the monetary system - and if Washington had to live within a budget because they were no longer able borrow or inflate at will, they would have to turn on one another, tearing up old programs to fund new ones.

You would think that Michael would want to see Libertarians holding national office. All I can think is that Michael's brand of anarchy is threatened by even a tiny step in the direction of minarchy. For Michael, all things government, even minarchy, must be hated and trashed.

We don't need to agree with Ron Paul's position on abortion or his crazy endorsement to see the value he brings to the political arena. Ron Paul deserves our support for all that he has gotten right, for how consistently and publicly he has fought for Capitalism.



(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 10/25, 9:15am)


Post 3

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 9:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael said:
Letting "the states decide" is not a consistent application of individual rights.  All it does is bring the potential for violations of those rights one step closer to home. 
Excellent point, Michael.

Thanks,
Glenn


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 12:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

SW:   All I can think is that  ...


Really? Is that all you can think of, just one thing?  Do no alternative explanations come to mind? 

I am one of the few members of my local libertarian party who actually pays all the dues to the party, local, state and national.  I did not join the national LP.  However, to join the local party, the check for membership gets parceled up and I get the (ahem) extra benefits.

In 1992, I ran for Congress (Michigan 6th) as a Libertarian.

In 2006-2008, I held office as a Republican Precinct Delegate representing Ann Arbor Township.  I was chosen by my neighbors in an open primary election, in August 2006.  I was a delegate to the state GOP convention this past February.

Over the past year alone, I have given about $300 in campaign contributions, mostly to Republicans, but also to local Democrats who are worthy of my support, for instance, Jerry Clayton, a candidate now for sheriff in 2008 who impressed me when he spoke to a criminal justice seminar class I was in. 

I have many theories about you, Steve.  Perhaps I remind you of someone else and this causes you to relentlessly pursue me though RoR, picking arguments were none are offered.  You might be dealing with cognitive dissonance as your highly effective intellect sees the contradictions in limited government constitutionalism, but your investment in your previous public statements prevents you from admitting what you fear is the truth.  I have said that I see you as an "inspector-guardian" who likes to know the rules and enforce them.  Thus, you seek to "banish from the territory" someone who questions the authority of Ayn Rand on matters of Objectivism.  I also know that this is an incomplete description, because you love to argue theory and you dislike facts.  That is the hallmark of a "master mind" or "field marshall."  (All of that from Myer-Briggs, of course, a limited model, admittedly.)  I have another theory -- it's hilarious when I put it in writing -- but I have a theory that you might actually look up to me, be in awe of me and therefore you seek esteem in the eyes of others (pseudo-self esteem for yourself) by arguing me down to prove that you are smarter.  (See, that's pretty funny isn't it?  But, it does show that there are other explanations for your actions.)  Perhaps, you are a principled advocate of limited, constitutional government and you fear that those less intelligent than you, less learned or insightful, will be seduced by my glib salesmanship on behalf of anarchy.  After all, Ayn Rand was afraid that "young advocates of freedom" were being "befuddled" by Murray Rothbard's "wierd abstraction."  Perhaps -- and I understand that the above just makes what follows difficult for you -- you actually like me, value me as a person and appreciate my non-political posts and you hope to help me see the light on minarchy so that I can have a better life.  Another explanation might be that I represent an abstract goal.  If you can shoot down an anarchist, you will get to paint a circle-A on your intellectual fighter plane and brag about it to all your minarchist pals back at the hangar.  Or -- and this is really the crux of the problem here -- I do not understand you  any better than you understand me and any psychologizing I do is as chancy as the pronouncements you make about what motivates me.


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 1:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

As we discussed before, the problem of you not being understood or always having your views appreciated rests in your stated embrace of contradiction. This makes much of what you say incomprehensible to those of us who do not value or tolerate contradiction in our principles and hierarchies of knowledge and values. However, your response in post #4 indicates to me that you are not really concerned with being understood or appreciated. I'm not sure of exactly what you are trying to accomplish.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 1:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK, that's it for me. I'm outa' here until after the election. The signal is so far down in the noise it isn't worth the trouble. Rant on, folks. You are going to have no effect on the election: zero, zip, nada. Whoever wins the election, it will be in spite of what you say here. Deal with it.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 2:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
CJS  "... in your stated embrace of contradiction. This makes much of what you say incomprehensible to those of us who do not value or tolerate contradiction in our principles and hierarchies of knowledge and values. "

Well, Jeff, I appreciate your reply, as I do just about everything you have written -- I can think of nothing off hand I did not.  Therefore, allow me to put a finer point on the problem.  I do not  embrace contradiction.  From my point of view at least, I am perfectly consistent, from A is A through this still life print of Ayn Rand's books with vase and apple above my desk.  However, I have said here on RoR that I have no problem with ambiguity.   I understand that for many who admire the works of Ayn Rand, ambiguity of perception is equivalent to contradiction in beliefs.  However, that is not true.  An ambiguous statement or an ambiguous perception is ambiguous, nothing more, nothing less: A is A.

(Also, I got that understanding of ambiguity from Penn Jillette who pointed out that totalitarian regimes hate ambiguity.  They don't care what you believe as long as everyone believes the same thing at the same time.  This, I submit,  is the root of motivation of many Objectivists to convert everyone in the world to Objectivism.  For me, Objectivism is a personal philosophy to improve my own life.)

Be that as it may, thanks, again, CJS.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 10/25, 2:33pm)


Post 8

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 2:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Objectivism is a personal philosophy to improve my own life.

That was all Ayn wanted it to be - she never wanted the movement as such...




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,
  • No, you don't remind me of anyone else, you are quite unique.
  • I don't pursue you here on ROR. You flatter yourself. Anarchy damages the libertarian movement, it is irrational and contributes to libertarians' reputation as nutcases - So, I will often refute anarchist arguments when I see them. If you continue to call yourself an Objectivist, I may make a point of ensuring that your posts are properly answered more often. And, if your continue to call yourself an Objectivist I believe you should do your writing from the Dissent area.
  • The contradictions belong to anarchy, not limited government so your cognitive-dissonance theory is as full of it as your anarchy nonsense.
  • "inspector-guardian" is a made up term based upon your mis-interpretation of Jacobs work that you choose to twist out of shape to suit your misunderstandings about government.
  • Your crazy, patch-quilts of jibber-jabber that you refer to as "facts" that you believe justify your anarchy theory mislead you into mispercieving the likes and dislikes of others. Pay attention to where Jeff wrote, "...much of what you say [is] incomprehensible..." I have said similar things. Ted has said similar things. You have complained about not being understood. There is a reason for this, Michael.
  • Your descriptions of my motives and personality are insulting and strikingly unrelated to reality - I actually would have imagined you to be more in touch with reality in this area than you are.
  • Feel free to chuckle and make yourself feel all warm and fuzzy with your fantasy that I look up to you - unless you are interested in the facts which are quite different.
  • Your psychologizing is tepid, off-base, and amaturish - I'm tempted to show you what a professional could do, diagnostically, with the gibbering you have spouted, but I find that kind of thing distasteful.
  • My fondness for you, which must have been quite thin to start with, is now pretty much non-existent. You wore out your welcome with me. You should go back and read my post - I did NOT psychologize - I said that your posts read as if you hated government - a very different thing!


Post 10

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 5:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

Thanks for the clarification in post #7. I admit that I did equate your statement regarding ambiguity with contradiction, so I apologize for the mischaracterization in my previous post. I guess what confuses me is that on occasion, some of your posts do seem, to me, to contradict things you post elsewhere. Maybe it is a case of you're playing devil's advocate, or maybe it's that I just don't fully comprehend those points you are making.

I do agree with your observation that one of the main benefits of Objectivism is for personal fulfillment and I do not have any deep-seated need to convert everyone else to my unique perspective. However, I do expect of others a recognition and respect for the autonomy of all individuals and the right for each person to pursue their life as they see fit, without coercive intervention. So, to that extent, I do have an agenda to convert others to that minimal basis for existing in a free society and do not believe that it is simply sufficient to pursue self-development in isolation. Robert, I agree that Rand wasn't interested in creating an organized movement, but don't you think that her political view accords with what I am saying here?

Michael, I'm not sure how you are (it seems to me) equating ambiguity with acceptance of other people's viewpoints. I can understand and accept viewpoints that do not agree with mine, but I do not see any ambiguity in this. Can you explain further what you mean? Thanks.

Regards,
--
Jeff


Post 11

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I agree that Rand wasn't interested in creating an organized movement, but don't you think that her political view accords with what I am saying here?
.......................

Her views accorded with the minimalist state, true...

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 7:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I took from Jeff's reference to Rand's "political views" the belief that talking to other people about political issues is important.  You can have politics in an anarchy.  We have it in the office.  It's one way that people get along (or not), to investigate, discuss and understand the social consequences of individual actions.  Perhaps, "sociology" is a better word than "politics." 

Jeff, was I right or wrong on my understand of your statement above?

Jeff, one reason that I seem to contradict myself is that I can look at something from different angles.  I understood this a long time ago when I read a Zane Grey, The First Fast Gun The hero is challenged by a bully.  He says to the reader that he is not very smart, but he can turn a thing over in his mind and look at it from different sides while staring into the campfire.  Obviously, it made an impression on me.  I can hold different views of the same thing at the same time.  A is A: the thing is what it is; but what it is can best be determined by looking at it more than one way, otherwise, you might jump to a false conclusion.

One problem I had with the interview -- and thanks to Steve for bringing up the legality of abortion -- was that Ron Paul did not mention abortion in the intro (vid 1).  I went back and watched the episodes and John Stossel never asked him, either.  Stossel was not doing an investigative report.  He was shilling, feeding Ron Paul easy questions to which he knew the answer. 

That was also my disappointment with Ed Thomson for his hyperbole.  Ed knows better, but he was being enthusiastic.

Did Ron Paul say anything you did not know he would say?

In the Solo Parenting topics, Luke Setzer asked about Parental Licensing.  Luke is known to be a committed mainstream Objectivist.   It is a good question:  if the government has a compelling interesting in the safety of all of its citizens, when does it gain the right to protect a child?  Answering that leads back to Luke's question: should parents be licensed?  No one replied (except me).  Was the answer so obvious that it was embarrassing?  Or was the question so penetrating that it is intractable?  Is no one interested in that right now?  Or is everyone threatened by the issues it raises? 

When asked about gun control, Ayn Rand said that since the purpose of a handgun is to kill another person, it might be that only the police should have them, but she was not prepared to give a definitive answer at that time.  The question has come up here.  The answer that you always have a right to self-defense contradicts the assertion that the government holds a monopoly on retaliatory force.  Perhaps, it is just (ahem) "ambiguous."

Back to abortion:  argued as it has been here and everywhere else, it is not resolved to a consensus.  I believe that life begins at conception.  I also believe that a mother has the right to protect her own life.  I believe further that your mother maintains a lifelong right to kill you.  If not, when did she lose that right?  At 12 weeks gestation?  13.53 weeks gestation?  When the cord was cut?  When you turned 8 or 18?  Maybe mothers should issue a "right to life" permit granting you your life from that point forward: "Good-bye, kid, have a nice life." 

But John Stossel did not ask Ron Paul about anything at all like that, about the philosophical dilemmas, conundrums, challenges, non-sequiturs, contradictions or ambiguities involved in abortion (and infanticide and euthanasia).  They avoided the issue in order to give Ron Paul the best exposure to the most rightwingers who expected to agree with him and did. 

Working on this post -- when I should be working on a real deadline -- I googled Ron Paul Euthanasia and I found these:

Terri Schiavo's Ordeal
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul243.html

Death of Pope John Paul II
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html

Most people here, or at least the most vocal of them, think that Lew Rockwell is the devil's concubine.  However, Ron Paul wrote for that blog and did so deeply, addressing at length two multifaceted problems.  Dr. Paul has my respect for what he wrote there.  I disagree with certain points, but I truly understand that he made those statements after ponderous consideration.  It is too bad that public politicking reduces to predictable sound-bites.  Dr. Ronald E. Paul could make money as a philosopher.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 7:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
CJS:  Michael, I'm not sure how you are (it seems to me) equating ambiguity with acceptance of other people's viewpoints. I can understand and accept viewpoints that do not agree with mine, but I do not see any ambiguity in this. Can you explain further what you mean? Thanks.

We could fall down the rabbit hole discussing the ambiguity of ambiguity and the meaning of meaning.  All I meant was to underscore what you said.  Generally, we Objectivists have no patience for people who cannot make up their minds.  We prefer Christians to agnostics. 

When you say "acceptance" I take it that you accept it as true that someone believes this or that, though you disagree with what they believe.  I can accept that as well -- and I agree with it.

Another example of this ambiguity of understanding is reflected in claims by Steve and Ted that I have complained that they do not understand me.  I think they understand my words quite well.  I'm a pretty good writer.  They are intelligent readers.  One early point of misunderstanding with the problem of anarchy was the immediate assumption by some minarchists that I was going to discuss medieval Iceland or repeat the Tannehills' "would... should... could" fallacies.  So, those minarchists began arguing something they did  not understand: my point of view about the real world here and now of trade and commerce. 

I accept it as given that they do not agree.  I understand fully what they are saying.  They are pretty good writers and I am an insightful reader. 

What happens, though, is that unlike the heroes of a great philosophical novel, we don't just let it go for now and wait for a final outcome determined by reality.  Instead we keep beating each other over the head with words... and wonder why the message is not getting through. 

Hardest of all to understand, of course, is why we so otherwise intelligent people do that, but we must accept that we do.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.