Peikoff on Hispanics


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

.

Peikoff on the 2006 Elections

Too much Wolf-Just-Around-the-Corner these last five decades or so of my adult-memory life, as with Mark Holzer saying the country was doomed when Obama was first elected and that he was giving up further political advocacy (then Holzer coming back into balance after the 2010 elections), and as here in 2012:

. . .
William, there is no question that there will be elections four years from now. There will be a Libertarian Party too.

There is serious question whether both you and I will both be alive four years from now due to the course of nature, or whether the site will still exist by then, but if all that goes as we hope, we can revisit your worries in four years.

The President cannot in the present system “accomplish whatever he wants bypassing the Legislative Branch.” The Judiciary has a say on that.*

. . .
The inevitable consequences of the ruinous, longstanding inflationary policy which is going to continue to provide the President with newly created fiat currency for him to spend is bound to manifest itself in a hyperinflationary depression within the next few years. He will not accept blame typically but will take advantage of the chaos he caused to accrue more powers. This might lead to martial law and suspension of elections with confiscation of weapons from the citizens as Hitler did first thing when he was also elected to power.

From the context, I gather that when you refer to "the President" and "He" you are referring to President Obama. That suggests you think the hyperinflation will occur in the next four years. It suggests too that you think President Obama might then impose martial law and follow the tactics of a dictator with respect to suspending elections and disarming the citizens.

Those suggestions concerning President Obama are incorrect. Hopefully we can revisit your dark vision in four years. Or did you mean only some unknown president after him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks, Stephen.

The paragraph in which he mentions Objectivism, plus the concluding paragraph.

He doesn't mention his DIM hypothesis.

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.

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen,

Thanks for the kind words.

I don't think one can dispute that amnestying illegals (the large majority of whom are Hispanics) would eventually turn much of the country into one party, Democratic states. That's why the Democrats have their eyes on Texas, the last reliably large Republican state. So not withstanding the beliefs of Mexicans (who are nominal Catholics for the most part) I think we have to oppose immigration.

-Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 2 of the debate went up today:

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/10/14/a-debate-between-leonard-peikoff-and-yaron-brook-on-the-question-who-should-or-should-not-be-allowed-to-immigrate-into-the-us-moderated-by-amy-peikoff-part-2-of-2/

It's pretty painful, but I do suggest zapping to about 15 minutes in for a really good howler. Having disputed with Brook about who had the facts Peikoff finally acknowledges the source of his facts. He got them from 'an impassioned radio host'. soapbox.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 2 of the debate went up today:

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/10/14/a-debate-between-leonard-peikoff-and-yaron-brook-on-the-question-who-should-or-should-not-be-allowed-to-immigrate-into-the-us-moderated-by-amy-peikoff-part-2-of-2/

It's pretty painful, but I do suggest zapping to about 15 minutes in for a really good howler. Having disputed with Brook about who had the facts Peikoff finally acknowledges the source of his facts. He got them from 'an impassioned radio host'. soapbox.gif

Gee. I wonder who that radio host could be. Major slip up on LP's part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the point of the debate to hash out the immigration issue, or is that just a random current events subject which Peikoff and Brook chose to use to demonstrate that times are a changin', and people can now disagree with Pope Lenny without repercussions? Or is the purpose to create the illusion that Peikoff isn't the petty little authoritarian that he's thought to be? Either way, they seem to be making a real show of it.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now