BASIC PRINCIPLES BOOK ANNOUNCED


Recommended Posts

> I had thought Phil might like to join us. But, alas, it didn't work out. I think the problem was, fundamentally, that we (the members of the group) were libertarians [JR]

Jeff, I don't know why you would think that would have been the reason as I believe you're well aware I spent a lot of time in discussions and debates and forums with libertarians, anarchists in S.F. I found them an interesting, well-read, thoughtful, sociable group...often better in those areas than the (in many cases dorky or narrow) Oists in the various groups in the Bay Area.

> The group met once a month to discuss a book or journal article we'd all read.

I remember now. I said at the time to keep me on the list and I'd attend if I liked a particular book they were discussing, but that I had read enough politico-economic stuff and was more into literature and other areas of the humanities, so I was pretty picky.

Why would you presume the worst or least charitable interpretation?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

> I had thought Phil might like to join us. But, alas, it didn't work out. I think the problem was, fundamentally, that we (the members of the group) were libertarians [JR]

Jeff, I don't know why you would think that would have been the reason as I believe you're well aware I spent a lot of time in discussions and debates and forums with libertarians, anarchists in S.F. I found them an interesting, well-read, thoughtful, sociable group...often better in those areas than the (in many cases dorky and narrow) Oists I had around me in S.F.

> The group met once a month to discuss a book or journal article we'd all read.

I remember now. I said at the time to keep me on the list and I'd attend if I liked a particular book they were discussing, but that I had read enough politico-economic stuff and was more into literature and other areas of the humanities, so I was pretty picky.

Why would you presume the worst or least charitable interpretation?

It is, of course, somewhat depressing to have to explain what I think was already clear to everyone else, but the entire post was an effort at humor.

Perhaps I should take lessons on humor from "Selene."

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I formed a book discussion group in Bloomington a couple years ago, but, given the intellectual climate around here, I only invited my Bichon (Jazz) to attend. This limited-membership book club has worked out very well. I read passages from books and comment on them, while Jazz listens attentively. The only distraction is when Jazz decides to take a time out to lick his balls.

Although these frequent interruptions can be annoying, I understand Jazz's behavior. If I could lick my own balls, I would probably never read a book.

Ghs

Were you reading from only your own books, or others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Dennis has made it quite clear that he is an enthusiastic supporter of the U.S. government's foreign policy of fighting multiple non-defensive wars and ongoing occupations which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people abroad. Oh, he might disagree with some of the specifics, such as believing that the U.S. government should have gone to war with Iran and murdered several hundred thousand Iranians rather than several hundred thousand Iraqis. But in terms of agreeing with the basic policy of murdering innocents abroad and justifying this as somehow being within the realm of legitimate self-defense, Dennis has made his position quite clear. He has also enthusiastically advocated torture as a justifiable U.S. government policy, despite the horrenous ethical and practical consequences of this policy, which is now a standard part of U.S. government behavior around the world.

Now, for all I know, Dennis may be a really nice guy in person. But this raises a rather interesting question. Just how abhorent do a person's ideas have to be before the issue of whether or not he or she is a really nice person becomes irrelevant?

Martin

If I had to remain perpetually angry at people with whom I have serious disagreements, I would have very few friends left. JR and I would never have remained friends for the past 40 years, since we have some serious disagreements about natural rights, war, and other topics. For example, I took a lot of flak from JR and other anarchists on Atlantis II when I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (with qualifications) shortly after 9/11.

I didn't merely say that Dennis is a "really nice guy in person." The fact that he is a reasonable person is much more important, in this context. I didn't like JR's reference to Dennis supposedly "strutting around." Expressing one's opinions with confidence does not qualify as "strutting." If it did, then both JR and I strut as much as anyone on OL, and probably more.

Ghs

Obviously, almost all people maintain friendships with other people with whom they have sometimes serious disagreements. But I think that the issue of just how serious are the disagreements would come into play at some point. For example, suppose you met a really nice person with whom you shared many common interests. You found yourself really enjoying this person's company. However, you also discovered that this person was a white supremacist who advocated an apartheid state in which all non-white people would have to exist as serfs in legally segregated communities. Would you still want to maintain a friendship with this person?

Regarding your dispute with JR on Atlantis II about the invasion of Afghanistan, I don't really remember most of the arguments that were made, but I would guess that your support of the invasion was predicated on the basis of the U.S. government following a more or less libertarian approach to the invasion, if there is such a thing. For example, killing only those members of the Afghan government responsible for harboring Al Qaeda, absolutely minimizing civilian casualties, and then leaving. (Please correct me if I am wrong in supposing that this was your actual position.) The problem is that the U.S. government is not the slightest bit libertarian in its approach to anything. It never has been and it never will be. It has a long history of brutally killing huge numbers of innocent civilians in foreign wars, going all the way back to the Spanish-American war. So what reason is there to suppose that it would fight any war, including the Afghan war, with any kind of respect for libertarian ethical principles? So in advocating for a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, what you're inevitably going to end up getting is exactly what has happened in Afghanistan, with huge numbers of innocent Afghan civilians killed, massive destruction of infrastructure and destabilization of the entire country, thousands of U.S. military casualties, and untold billions of dollars going to fight an unwinnable war to defend what is among the most corrupt governments in the entire world. The war has also led to the use of drones in Pakistan, killing large numbers of Pakistani civilians and helping to further destabilize Pakistan, a country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. The Afghan war is now the longest war in American history, and there are no signs that it is ever going to end. The U.S. government is simply planning on building permanent military bases in Afghanistan in order to expand its empire and to maintain a permanent military presence there. The troops are not leaving -- ever.

If you had known prior to the start of the Afghan war that it was all going to turn out like this, would you still have advocated a U.S. invasion?

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Dennis has made it quite clear that he is an enthusiastic supporter of the U.S. government's foreign policy of fighting multiple non-defensive wars and ongoing occupations which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people abroad. Oh, he might disagree with some of the specifics, such as believing that the U.S. government should have gone to war with Iran and murdered several hundred thousand Iranians rather than several hundred thousand Iraqis. But in terms of agreeing with the basic policy of murdering innocents abroad and justifying this as somehow being within the realm of legitimate self-defense, Dennis has made his position quite clear. He has also enthusiastically advocated torture as a justifiable U.S. government policy, despite the horrenous ethical and practical consequences of this policy, which is now a standard part of U.S. government behavior around the world.

Now, for all I know, Dennis may be a really nice guy in person. But this raises a rather interesting question. Just how abhorent do a person's ideas have to be before the issue of whether or not he or she is a really nice person becomes irrelevant?

Martin

If I had to remain perpetually angry at people with whom I have serious disagreements, I would have very few friends left. JR and I would never have remained friends for the past 40 years, since we have some serious disagreements about natural rights, war, and other topics. For example, I took a lot of flak from JR and other anarchists on Atlantis II when I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (with qualifications) shortly after 9/11.

I didn't merely say that Dennis is a "really nice guy in person." The fact that he is a reasonable person is much more important, in this context. I didn't like JR's reference to Dennis supposedly "strutting around." Expressing one's opinions with confidence does not qualify as "strutting." If it did, then both JR and I strut as much as anyone on OL, and probably more.

Ghs

Obviously, almost all people maintain friendships with other people with whom they have sometimes serious disagreements. But I think that the issue of just how serious are the disagreements would come into play at some point. For example, suppose you met a really nice person with whom you shared many common interests. You found yourself really enjoying this person's company. However, you also discovered that this person was a white supremacist who advocated an apartheid state in which all non-white people would have to exist as serfs in legally segregated communities. Would you still want to maintain a friendship with this person?

Regarding your dispute with JR on Atlantis II about the invasion of Afghanistan, I don't really remember most of the arguments that were made, but I would guess that your support of the invasion was predicated on the basis of the U.S. government following a more or less libertarian approach to the invasion, if there is such a thing. For example, killing only those members of the Afghan government responsible for harboring Al Qaeda, absolutely minimizing civilian casualties, and then leaving. (Please correct me if I am wrong in supposing that this was your actual position.) The problem is that the U.S. government is not the slightest bit libertarian in its approach to anything. It never has been and it never will be. It has a long history of brutally killing huge numbers of innocent civilians in foreign wars, going all the way back to the Spanish-American war. So what reason is there to suppose that it would fight any war, including the Afghan war, with any kind of respect for libertarian ethical principles? So in advocating for a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, what you're inevitably going to end up getting is exactly what has happened in Afghanistan, with huge numbers of innocent Afghan civilians killed, massive destruction of infrastructure and destabilization of the entire country, thousands of U.S. military casualties, and untold billions of dollars going to fight an unwinnable war to defend what is among the most corrupt governments in the entire world. The war has also led to the use of drones in Pakistan, killing large numbers of Pakistani civilians and helping to further destabilize Pakistan, a country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. The Afghan war is now the longest war in American history, and there are no signs that it is ever going to end. The U.S. government is simply planning on building permanent military bases in Afghanistan in order to expand its empire and to maintain a permanent military presence there. The troops are not leaving -- ever.

If you had known prior to the start of the Afghan war that it was all going to turn out like this, would you still have advocated a U.S. invasion?

Martin

I think you've gotten George's position right. If not he'll explain. In terms of policy for the US to follow at the time he and I were about the same. Somewhat different reasons. The American people convulsively needed to kick ass just like after Pearl Harbor. Get in (Afghanistan), get out and don't invade Iraq. Jeff's position would have resulted in much less harm to all and sundry, but was too rational to be palatable. I didn't yet understand how pig-headedly stupid Bush was.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> ...depressing to have to explain...the entire post was an effort at humor. [JR]

Or you could try to get better at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Dennis has made it quite clear that he is an enthusiastic supporter of the U.S. government's foreign policy of fighting multiple non-defensive wars and ongoing occupations which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people abroad. Oh, he might disagree with some of the specifics, such as believing that the U.S. government should have gone to war with Iran and murdered several hundred thousand Iranians rather than several hundred thousand Iraqis. But in terms of agreeing with the basic policy of murdering innocents abroad and justifying this as somehow being within the realm of legitimate self-defense, Dennis has made his position quite clear. He has also enthusiastically advocated torture as a justifiable U.S. government policy, despite the horrenous ethical and practical consequences of this policy, which is now a standard part of U.S. government behavior around the world.

Now, for all I know, Dennis may be a really nice guy in person. But this raises a rather interesting question. Just how abhorent do a person's ideas have to be before the issue of whether or not he or she is a really nice person becomes irrelevant?

Martin

If I had to remain perpetually angry at people with whom I have serious disagreements, I would have very few friends left. JR and I would never have remained friends for the past 40 years, since we have some serious disagreements about natural rights, war, and other topics. For example, I took a lot of flak from JR and other anarchists on Atlantis II when I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (with qualifications) shortly after 9/11.

I didn't merely say that Dennis is a "really nice guy in person." The fact that he is a reasonable person is much more important, in this context. I didn't like JR's reference to Dennis supposedly "strutting around." Expressing one's opinions with confidence does not qualify as "strutting." If it did, then both JR and I strut as much as anyone on OL, and probably more.

Ghs

Obviously, almost all people maintain friendships with other people with whom they have sometimes serious disagreements. But I think that the issue of just how serious are the disagreements would come into play at some point. For example, suppose you met a really nice person with whom you shared many common interests. You found yourself really enjoying this person's company. However, you also discovered that this person was a white supremacist who advocated an apartheid state in which all non-white people would have to exist as serfs in legally segregated communities. Would you still want to maintain a friendship with this person?

Regarding your dispute with JR on Atlantis II about the invasion of Afghanistan, I don't really remember most of the arguments that were made, but I would guess that your support of the invasion was predicated on the basis of the U.S. government following a more or less libertarian approach to the invasion, if there is such a thing. For example, killing only those members of the Afghan government responsible for harboring Al Qaeda, absolutely minimizing civilian casualties, and then leaving. (Please correct me if I am wrong in supposing that this was your actual position.) The problem is that the U.S. government is not the slightest bit libertarian in its approach to anything. It never has been and it never will be. It has a long history of brutally killing huge numbers of innocent civilians in foreign wars, going all the way back to the Spanish-American war. So what reason is there to suppose that it would fight any war, including the Afghan war, with any kind of respect for libertarian ethical principles? So in advocating for a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, what you're inevitably going to end up getting is exactly what has happened in Afghanistan, with huge numbers of innocent Afghan civilians killed, massive destruction of infrastructure and destabilization of the entire country, thousands of U.S. military casualties, and untold billions of dollars going to fight an unwinnable war to defend what is among the most corrupt governments in the entire world. The war has also led to the use of drones in Pakistan, killing large numbers of Pakistani civilians and helping to further destabilize Pakistan, a country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. The Afghan war is now the longest war in American history, and there are no signs that it is ever going to end. The U.S. government is simply planning on building permanent military bases in Afghanistan in order to expand its empire and to maintain a permanent military presence there. The troops are not leaving -- ever.

If you had known prior to the start of the Afghan war that it was all going to turn out like this, would you still have advocated a U.S. invasion?

Martin

I expected the Afghan war to turn out like it has, and I expect things to get even worse. After 9/11, I said the U.S. should go in, kill Bin Laden and as many of his cohorts as we could, and then get the hell out. I added that this probably would not happen, unfortunately; rather, we would end up mired down in that hell hole of a country for many years, in the name of "nation building." But this outcome was not inevitable.

As for the killing of innocents, there is no way to avoid this problem. But of all the governments in the world today, I think the U.S. has done more than any other, as a matter of official policy and the development of military technology, to target only enemy combatants. I am not a fan of the American State, but as states go, it is head and shoulders above most other states in the world today in this regard.

As for the observance of libertarian principles during war, this is a very important issue -- the very thing I discussed at length in "Thinking About War." There is a much, much more that I would like to say about this, but I will postpone my comments for subsequent posts.

About friendships: A hard core white supremacist frequently attends the same chess club I do. He is a remarkably well-read guy, and he likes to talk to me because I am familiar with many of the revisionist historical works that he happens to like. I don't shun the guy, but neither do I seek him out. We play chess occasionally (he usually wins), and we've played poker a couple times with mutual friends. I am no longer willing to discuss ideas with him, however, because his viewpoint is so dogmatically narrow that discussions are useless. And I tell him this, in no uncertain terms. And if he veers off into one of his racist, anti-Semitic, or anti-gay rants, I tell him to shut the fuck up. I have said this to him several times in front of other people.

So, no, I would not befriend this guy, but not because of ideological reasons per se. I would not befriend him because his thinking is shallow, and because I don't regard him as intellectually honest.

None of these reasons applies to Dennis, obviously. I haven't seen Dennis in decades, and I didn't have any idea of what had become of him until he showed up on OL. But I would have liked him even if we had never met, because I like the way he writes his posts, generally speaking. I say this despite the fact that we have had some very heated exchanges, and we disagree about a lot.

Do I like every post that Dennis writes? No, of course not; I don't even like all the posts that I write. But when Dennis is on top of his game, his posts are as good as any on OL, including my own. Moreover, Dennis has not stopped learning, as evidenced by a thread he started some time ago on deism and the American Revolution. The is not Dennis's field, obviously, and his willingness to expand his intellectual horizons in later life is both unusual and commendable.

As for the specific positions that Dennis takes on foreign policy and war, I disagree with most of them, but I don't regard them as outrageous. I am no more offended or outraged by them than I am by what I regard as the simplistic, unanalyzed Rothbardianism of the antiwar.com crowd.

I am a strict noninterventionist, of course, and I don't sugar coat the injustices committed by the American government in other countries. But if you want to know where I stand on terrorism, my answer may surprise many people. I advocate that the U.S. take a very simple and straightforward position on its response if a terrorist group obtains a nuclear weapon and detonates it on American soil. We let it be known to the world, explicitly, that should this ever happen, and should it turn out that any of the usual suspects (especially the governments of North Korea and Iran) were complicit in the attack (e.g., by providing the weapon), then the U.S. will not mount an invasion or anything like that. Rather, it will deploy its own nuclear arsenal and reduce some major cities in that country to radioactive parking lots. Period. End of story.

So is this some kind of unthinking visceral reaction on my part? Nope. It stems from my views about war, which are much different than the Rothbard/Bourne line taken by the libertarians on antiwar.com. I made it clear in an earlier post that I don't agree with the depiction (about pacifism) given by Dennis, which is inaccurate. But Dennis exhibits an annoyance with that group that is justified, even if he hasn't exactly pinpointed the reasons for his response.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

However the matter was resolved, no one who refused to return recordings of NBI lectures from the lecturers was compelled to produce them.

And it isn't just Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's lecture recordings that were hidden away.

As far as I can tell, every one of Leonard Peikoff's NBI-period recordings has also gone disappearo.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

I know for a fact that Peikoff’s NBI lectures on the history of philosophy continued to be available for years after the break. I attended several of those lectures here in Los Angeles in the 70s. I suppose it’s possible that Peikoff rewrote and/or re-recorded them, but I doubt it. He had moved on to other things at that stage. I could be wrong about that.

Also, Linda Rearden transcribed several of them prior to George Reisman’s break with ARI in 1993. Rearden took Reisman’s side against Peikoff (and Schwartz), so their business relationship ended at that point. She had originally intended to transcribe all of the lectures. The transcribed versions of lectures 1 though 6 are apparently still available here.

It’s a shame, too. I never got to hear (or read) Peikoff’s in depth analysis of Immanuel Cunt.

German pronunciation of Immanuel Kant

(Shame on those German philosophy professors for using the Americanized version of his last name. Have they no respect for academic integrity?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Dennis has made it quite clear that he is an enthusiastic supporter of the U.S. government's foreign policy of fighting multiple non-defensive wars and ongoing occupations which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people abroad. Oh, he might disagree with some of the specifics, such as believing that the U.S. government should have gone to war with Iran and murdered several hundred thousand Iranians rather than several hundred thousand Iraqis. But in terms of agreeing with the basic policy of murdering innocents abroad and justifying this as somehow being within the realm of legitimate self-defense, Dennis has made his position quite clear. He has also enthusiastically advocated torture as a justifiable U.S. government policy, despite the horrenous ethical and practical consequences of this policy, which is now a standard part of U.S. government behavior around the world.

Now, for all I know, Dennis may be a really nice guy in person. But this raises a rather interesting question. Just how abhorent do a person's ideas have to be before the issue of whether or not he or she is a really nice person becomes irrelevant?

Martin

With regard to my "abhorent" ideas on the moral justification of retaliation:

I may have been mistaken in assuming that the viewpoint I expressed (see the antiwar.com thread) on the moral legitimacy of retaliatory bombing is commonly understood by libertarians. I would like to take credit for it, but for me to do so would also be “abhorent.” I first heard the argument in an Academic Associates’ Seminar recording made by Nathaniel Branden in February, 1972. I listened to it again tonight and transcribed, word for word, Branden’s response. It’s entirely possible, based on the voice, that the questioner may well have been George, but I’m just guessing about that.

Question: Ayn Rand stated that the mass retaliation against civilians in time of war did not constitute the initiation of force against them because the government speaks for all the citizens of that country and if a government declares war on us, it does so in the name of all its citizens. What is your view of mass civilian bombing in wartime? Does it constitute aggression against innocent people?

Branden begins by strongly disagreeing with Ayn Rand’s stated position on the issue.

Her formulation is an unfortunate one. I would not express myself that way. I understand that because of my past association with Miss Rand that there is a natural tendency to identify our thinking and to still regard me as her spokesman and interpreter, which I very much regret, because, while I do believe in the legitimacy of retaliation against an aggressor nation under certain circumstances which I'll define in a moment, it would not be on the grounds that the government is the agent or spokesman of the people, because as you correctly point out, specifically under a dictatorship that's what a government is not.

I look at the issue somewhat differently. You see, under conditions where people are living in a free society, the individual can make his own way and protect his own life without the necessity of aggressing against other individuals. But suppose a situation arises such as a war declared by a foreign dictatorship, in which your country is being threatened, is being attacked, being bombed or whatever, where your life, your security are now on the line. Then I would say you have a moral right to take the necessary actions against that country to protect yourself, without necessarily claiming that all the individual citizens of that country who may be hurt or killed are in any way blameworthy because the chances are they are not. I would say that a violation of the rights of those citizens has taken place, but that the moral agent responsible is their own government.

Putting it differently: suppose the world were so constituted that there was only a very limited amount of food--no more food could be grown or produced--and there was less food then there were people who needed to eat. Under such a situation, nobody could morally condemn a person who did whatever necessary to get that food for himself or his family and he would have the right to do so because the first right of a living organism is to remain alive.

In a situation such as a war, then I would say that if another country threatens you, if your own survival depends on taking aggressive action such as bombing against that country, your defense of your own life and your own nation gives you the right to do it. That is not saying that the violation of the people's rights of the other nation is not involved, but that morally the violator is the government that started the war. That is how I analyze that situation. I will add, for the record, that I don't think Miss Rand would disagree with a word I’ve said. I think her formulation is merely an unfortunate one, but I can't say for certain.

Nathaniel Branden, Academic Associates' Seminar #33

Of course, Branden's response is entirely predicated on the morality of rational self-interest. That's the ethical position that opposes your "abhorent" premise that you have to let a gunman kill you if he's using an innocent person as a human shield. Incidentally, from a moral perspective, I find your position utterly abhorrent.

For the exact same reasons, if the Bush administration had captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before 9-11 and they knew an attack of some kind was imminent, it would have been immoral not to torture him if he refused to reveal the plot. To let 3000 innocent people die out of sensitivity to the "inhumanity" of torturing that bastard would have been unconscionable.

Abhorrent does not even begin to describe the corruption and vileness of your "ethical" viewpoint in that situation.

If you were the administration official responsible for refusing permission for the torture, you would be utterly contemptible. Even if, when you attended all the funerals, you explained to all the grieving survivors about what a "nice guy" you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of these reasons applies to Dennis, obviously. I haven't seen Dennis in decades, and I didn't have any idea of what had become of him until he showed up on OL. But I would have liked him even if we had never met, because I like the way he writes his posts, generally speaking. I say this despite the fact that we have had some very heated exchanges, and we disagree about a lot.

Do I like every post that Dennis writes? No, of course not; I don't even like all the posts that I write. But when Dennis is on top of his game, his posts are as good as any on OL, including my own. Moreover, Dennis has not stopped learning, as evidenced by a thread he started some time ago on deism and the American Revolution. The is not Dennis's field, obviously, and his willingness to expand his intellectual horizons in later life is both unusual and commendable.

As for the specific positions that Dennis takes on foreign policy and war, I disagree with most of them, but I don't regard them as outrageous. I am no more offended or outraged by them than I am by what I regard as the simplistic, unanalyzed Rothbardianism of the antiwar.com crowd.

I am a strict noninterventionist, of course, and I don't sugar coat the injustices committed by the American government in other countries. But if you want to know where I stand on terrorism, my answer may surprise many people. I advocate that the U.S. take a very simple and straightforward position on its response if a terrorist group obtains a nuclear weapon and detonates it on American soil. We let it be known to the world, explicitly, that should this ever happen, and should it turn out that any of the usual suspects (especially the governments of North Korea and Iran) were complicit in the attack (e.g., by providing the weapon), then the U.S. will not mount an invasion or anything like that. Rather, it will deploy its own nuclear arsenal and reduce some major cities in that country to radioactive parking lots. Period. End of story.

So is this some kind of unthinking visceral reaction on my part? Nope. It stems from my views about war, which are much different than the Rothbard/Bourne line taken by the libertarians on antiwar.com. I made it clear in an earlier post that I don't agree with the depiction (about pacifism) given by Dennis, which is inaccurate. But Dennis exhibits an annoyance with that group that is justified, even if he hasn't exactly pinpointed the reasons for his response.

Ghs

George,

Thank you. Coming from you, especially, this means more to me than I can possibly tell you.

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per usual with the defenders of government torture they make up tautological stories to justify it.

Abhorrent doesn’t begin to describe the corruption of Dennis’s trying to justify what the U.S. government has done. Vileness doesn’t begin to describe his trying to fob this sophistry off on Ayn Rand’s ethics.

For a bit of the real world Dennis can’t trouble himself to look at, see the articles collected at Torture USA.

Edited by Mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of these reasons applies to Dennis, obviously. I haven't seen Dennis in decades, and I didn't have any idea of what had become of him until he showed up on OL. But I would have liked him even if we had never met, because I like the way he writes his posts, generally speaking. I say this despite the fact that we have had some very heated exchanges, and we disagree about a lot.

Do I like every post that Dennis writes? No, of course not; I don't even like all the posts that I write. But when Dennis is on top of his game, his posts are as good as any on OL, including my own. Moreover, Dennis has not stopped learning, as evidenced by a thread he started some time ago on deism and the American Revolution. The is not Dennis's field, obviously, and his willingness to expand his intellectual horizons in later life is both unusual and commendable.

As for the specific positions that Dennis takes on foreign policy and war, I disagree with most of them, but I don't regard them as outrageous. I am no more offended or outraged by them than I am by what I regard as the simplistic, unanalyzed Rothbardianism of the antiwar.com crowd.

I am a strict noninterventionist, of course, and I don't sugar coat the injustices committed by the American government in other countries. But if you want to know where I stand on terrorism, my answer may surprise many people. I advocate that the U.S. take a very simple and straightforward position on its response if a terrorist group obtains a nuclear weapon and detonates it on American soil. We let it be known to the world, explicitly, that should this ever happen, and should it turn out that any of the usual suspects (especially the governments of North Korea and Iran) were complicit in the attack (e.g., by providing the weapon), then the U.S. will not mount an invasion or anything like that. Rather, it will deploy its own nuclear arsenal and reduce some major cities in that country to radioactive parking lots. Period. End of story.

So is this some kind of unthinking visceral reaction on my part? Nope. It stems from my views about war, which are much different than the Rothbard/Bourne line taken by the libertarians on antiwar.com. I made it clear in an earlier post that I don't agree with the depiction (about pacifism) given by Dennis, which is inaccurate. But Dennis exhibits an annoyance with that group that is justified, even if he hasn't exactly pinpointed the reasons for his response.

Ghs

George,

Thank you. Coming from you, especially, this means more to me than I can possibly tell you.

Dennis

Dennis: not that it matters much at all in comparison to Ghs's assessment, but I agree wholeheartedly with his views of your posts here on OL, with the possible exception of your curious infatuation with the Constantly Under-performing Colts.

Talk about strutting--maybe you learned that from Manning?

Edited by PDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It’s a shame, too. I never got to hear (or read) Peikoff’s in depth analysis of Immanuel Cunt.

Dennis, shame on you: You are not allowed to use that word on this board.

You can, however, call anyone any other name or engage in any other character assassination or name-calling you wish.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It's a shame, too. I never got to hear (or read) Peikoff's in depth analysis of Immanuel Cunt.

Dennis, shame on you:

You are not allowed to use that word on this board. You can, however, call anyone any other name or engage in any other character assassination or name-calling you wish.

Mis-spelling. Should have been Cu*t.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It's a shame, too. I never got to hear (or read) Peikoff's in depth analysis of Immanuel Cunt.

Dennis, shame on you:

You are not allowed to use that word on this board. You can, however, call anyone any other name or engage in any other character assassination or name-calling you wish.

Mis-spelling. Should have been Cu*t.

Actually, what you can’t do is barge onto a thread where others are having a polite conversation, and start calling people bitch and cunt. By “can’t”, I mean once you do, your part of the conversation might get peeled off and put in the garbage pile. How terrible is that? For people who don’t want to take the time to reread it, I’ll summarize the conversation Phil is talking about.

The Doctor: Have you gone to see it yet? (the Atlas Shrugged movie)

Phil: No

Ellen: Why not? Money where mouth is

Phil: Snarky little bitch

Ellen: You are a hypocrite

Phil: Up yours, cunt

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10501&view=findpost&p=133263

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little Johnny finally made it to college! In the first day of Philosophy 101, the professor took a survey of the class. "How many of you are religious?" Half the class raised their hands. "How many of you are Kantians?" Almost as many raised their hands.

The professor noticed that Little Johnny had not raised his hand. "Johnny, aren't you a Kantian or a religious person?" Little Johnny said, "No, I'm an Objectivist!" The professor asked, "Why in the world are you an Objectivist?" Little Johnny replied with a self-satisfied smirk, "My dad is an Objectivist, and my mom is an Objectivist, so I guess that makes ~me~ an Objectivist."

The professor asked, "Well, if your dad was a moron, and your mom was an idiot, what would ~that~ make you?" Little Johnny replied, "I guess that would make me either a Kantian or a religious person."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Dennis has made it quite clear that he is an enthusiastic supporter of the U.S. government's foreign policy of fighting multiple non-defensive wars and ongoing occupations which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people abroad. Oh, he might disagree with some of the specifics, such as believing that the U.S. government should have gone to war with Iran and murdered several hundred thousand Iranians rather than several hundred thousand Iraqis. But in terms of agreeing with the basic policy of murdering innocents abroad and justifying this as somehow being within the realm of legitimate self-defense, Dennis has made his position quite clear. He has also enthusiastically advocated torture as a justifiable U.S. government policy, despite the horrenous ethical and practical consequences of this policy, which is now a standard part of U.S. government behavior around the world.

Now, for all I know, Dennis may be a really nice guy in person. But this raises a rather interesting question. Just how abhorent do a person's ideas have to be before the issue of whether or not he or she is a really nice person becomes irrelevant?

Martin

If I had to remain perpetually angry at people with whom I have serious disagreements, I would have very few friends left. JR and I would never have remained friends for the past 40 years, since we have some serious disagreements about natural rights, war, and other topics. For example, I took a lot of flak from JR and other anarchists on Atlantis II when I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (with qualifications) shortly after 9/11.

I didn't merely say that Dennis is a "really nice guy in person." The fact that he is a reasonable person is much more important, in this context. I didn't like JR's reference to Dennis supposedly "strutting around." Expressing one's opinions with confidence does not qualify as "strutting." If it did, then both JR and I strut as much as anyone on OL, and probably more.

Ghs

Obviously, almost all people maintain friendships with other people with whom they have sometimes serious disagreements. But I think that the issue of just how serious are the disagreements would come into play at some point. For example, suppose you met a really nice person with whom you shared many common interests. You found yourself really enjoying this person's company. However, you also discovered that this person was a white supremacist who advocated an apartheid state in which all non-white people would have to exist as serfs in legally segregated communities. Would you still want to maintain a friendship with this person?

Regarding your dispute with JR on Atlantis II about the invasion of Afghanistan, I don't really remember most of the arguments that were made, but I would guess that your support of the invasion was predicated on the basis of the U.S. government following a more or less libertarian approach to the invasion, if there is such a thing. For example, killing only those members of the Afghan government responsible for harboring Al Qaeda, absolutely minimizing civilian casualties, and then leaving. (Please correct me if I am wrong in supposing that this was your actual position.) The problem is that the U.S. government is not the slightest bit libertarian in its approach to anything. It never has been and it never will be. It has a long history of brutally killing huge numbers of innocent civilians in foreign wars, going all the way back to the Spanish-American war. So what reason is there to suppose that it would fight any war, including the Afghan war, with any kind of respect for libertarian ethical principles? So in advocating for a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, what you're inevitably going to end up getting is exactly what has happened in Afghanistan, with huge numbers of innocent Afghan civilians killed, massive destruction of infrastructure and destabilization of the entire country, thousands of U.S. military casualties, and untold billions of dollars going to fight an unwinnable war to defend what is among the most corrupt governments in the entire world. The war has also led to the use of drones in Pakistan, killing large numbers of Pakistani civilians and helping to further destabilize Pakistan, a country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. The Afghan war is now the longest war in American history, and there are no signs that it is ever going to end. The U.S. government is simply planning on building permanent military bases in Afghanistan in order to expand its empire and to maintain a permanent military presence there. The troops are not leaving -- ever.

If you had known prior to the start of the Afghan war that it was all going to turn out like this, would you still have advocated a U.S. invasion?

Martin

I expected the Afghan war to turn out like it has, and I expect things to get even worse. After 9/11, I said the U.S. should go in, kill Bin Laden and as many of his cohorts as we could, and then get the hell out. I added that this probably would not happen, unfortunately; rather, we would end up mired down in that hell hole of a country for many years, in the name of "nation building." But this outcome was not inevitable.

So you were advocating a course of action by the U.S. government that you yourself knew had a negligible chance of happening and would almost certainly end in the current disaster. Perhaps this outcome would not have been inevitable if the U.S. government had a shred of respect for libertarian principles of just war. Unfortunately, it didn't then and it doesn't now.

As for the killing of innocents, there is no way to avoid this problem.

There's a very easy way to avoid this problem. Don't go to war. Now, if one is attacked, there may be no alternative to going to war to defend oneself. But the last arguably defensive war fought by the U.S. was WW2 (and possibly Afghanistan, if one counts the 9/11 attacks as acts of war rather than criminal acts by a stateless terrorist group). Every other one of the many wars fought by the U.S. since WW2 was non-defensive; as such, there was no moral justification for the killing of innocents in the fighting of a non-defensive war.

But of all the governments in the world today, I think the U.S. has done more than any other, as a matter of official policy and the development of military technology, to target only enemy combatants. I am not a fan of the American State, but as states go, it is head and shoulders above most other states in the world today in this regard.

I can't believe you're making these statements. Who the hell are you favorably comparing the U.S. government to with regard to its treatment of innocent civilians -- the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or China under Mao or Cambodia under Pol Pot? Just in the last ten years, the U.S. government has slaughtered untold thousands of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and, most recently, Libya. It has a long history of aiding death squads in Columbia, Nicaragua, and other Latin American countries. It contributed aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, in which an estimated 1,000,000 Iranians were killed. the expansion of the War on Drugs into Mexico has led to the death of at least 50,000 people in Mexico in just the last four years. The Iraq sanctions, which were targeted squarely at innocent civilians, have killed huge numbers of Iraqis and brought unbearable misery to that country. Below is a link describing the estimated casualties associated with these sanctions:

http://en.wikipedia..../Iraq_sanctions

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Estimates of deaths during sanctions

Estimates of excess deaths during sanctions vary depending on the source. The estimates vary [30][37] due to differences in methodologies, and specific time-frames covered.[38] A short listing of estimates follows:

  • Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."[30][39]
  • Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[40]
  • Iraqi Baathist government: 1.5 million.[28]
  • Iraqi Cultural Minister Hammadi: 1.7 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning) [41]
  • "probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20. October 2003[42]
  • 350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[43]
  • Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less than] than half a million children." He claims that these estimates are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of "anything resembling a controlled experiment".[44][44]
  • "Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[45] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[46]
  • Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., The Lancet (1995, estimate withdrawn in 1997):567,000 children.[44]
  • Editor (then "associate editor and media columnist") Matt Welch,[47] Reason Magazine, 2002: "It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has ... contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990."[28][46]
  • Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark: 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning).[48]
  • British Member of Parliament George Galloway: "a million Iraqis, most of them children."[49]

[edit] Infant and child death rates

220px-Iraq-infant-mortality.png

magnify-clip.pngIraq's infant and child survival rates fell after sanctions were imposed.

A May 25, 2000 BBC article[50] reported that before Iraq sanctions were imposed by the UN in 1990, infant mortality had "fallen to 47 per 1,000 live births between 1984 and 1989. This compares to approximately 7 per 1,000 in the UK." The BBC article was reporting from a study of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, titled "Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq", that was published in the May 2000 Lancet medical journal.[51] The study concluded that in southern and central Iraq, infant mortality rate between 1994 and 1999 had risen to 108 per 1,000. Child mortality rate, which refers to children between the age of one and five years, also drastically inclined from 56 to 131 per 1,000.[50] In the autonomous northern region during the same period, infant mortality declined from 64 to 59 per 1000 and under-5 mortality fell from 80 to 72 per 1000, which was attributed to better food and resource allocation.

The Lancet publication[51] was the result of two separate surveys by UNICEF[30] between February and May 1999 in partnership with the local authorities and with technical support by the WHO. "The large sample sizes - nearly 24,000 households randomly selected from all governorates in the south and center of Iraq and 16,000 from the north - helped to ensure that the margin of error for child mortality in both surveys was low," UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said.[30]

In the spring of 2000 a U.S. Congressional letter demanding the lifting of the sanctions garnered 71 signatures, while House Democratic Whip David Bonior called the economic sanctions against Iraq "infanticide masquerading as policy."[52]

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************

And what the hell is an "enemy combatant" in a war zone in which the U.S. has invaded another country in a non-defensive war? For example, since the U.S. had absolutely no right to invade Iraq in the first place, the Iraqis are perfectly within their rights to fight American troops in any way they wish. Hell, if we were invaded by 100,000 Iraqi troops, and our government was defanged such that it could no longer fight to defend us against the Iraqi invaders, Americans would be in the streets in force with their guns, shooting them down, blowing them up, doing anything we could to fight them. We would be the American version of "enemy combatants". This would not give the Iraqi soldiers the moral right to kill us, since they were the aggressors and we were merely defending ourselves.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to reply to Martin Radwin, but what the hell happened to the old format? How is it now possible to use the quote function so previous posts will appear in one's reply? Have we devolved to the point where we must now copy and paste everything by hand? I can't even find that handy arrow that would take us to the original post. So how the fuck are readers supposed to know the specific post to which I am responding?

I've been working over 14 hours virtually nonstop writing some stuff that will hopefully lead to a new writing contract. A few minutes ago, I got so frustrated and annoyed with some of the results that I decided to venture over here for a break, only to feel like a stranger in a strange land.

I'm so tired I can barely see staight, and I'm straining to see the various icons and toggle switches. I managed to locate the icon for editing options, so I can at least use "preview post," but I still can't find anything that will enable me to quote previous posts.

Can someone help me out here?

I love learning new formats almost as much as I love reformatting my hard drive and reinstalling all the updates and software.

Who designed this POS? We should call it Phil's Revenge.

If I kill myself later today, consider this my suicide note.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to reply to Martin Radwin, but what the hell happened to the old format? How is it now possible to use the quote function so previous posts will appear in one's reply? Have we devolved to the point where we must now copy and paste everything by hand? I can't even find that handy arrow that would take us to the original post. So how the fuck are readers supposed to know the specific post to which I am responding?

I've been working over 14 hours virtually nonstop writing some stuff that will hopefully lead to a new writing contract. A few minutes ago, I got so frustrated and annoyed with some of the results that I decided to venture over here for a break, only to feel like a stranger in a strange land.

I'm so tired I can barely see staight, and I'm straining to see the various icons and toggle switches. I managed to locate the icon for editing options, so I can at least use "preview post," but I still can't find anything that will enable me to quote previous posts.

Can someone help me out here?

I love learning new formats almost as much as I love reformatting my hard drive and reinstalling all the updates and software.

Who designed this POS? We should call it Phil's Revenge.

If I kill myself later today, consider this my suicide note.

Ghs

Never mind. I was looking for the old "Reply" button, and, in my addled condition it didn't occur to me to hit "Quote" Who would have guessed that the quote function and quote button have something to do with each other?

Is there a spellcheck icon on this thing? And what's with the smiley face icon. I trigger the happy face and the talk, and only one face pops up in the panel directly below the composition window. And it's a different face, one that I rarely use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to reply to Martin Radwin, but what the hell happened to the old format? How is it now possible to use the quote function so previous posts will appear in one's reply? Have we devolved to the point where we must now copy and paste everything by hand?

Click on the Quote button in the lower right hand corner of the post.

I can't even find that handy arrow that would take us to the original post.

Clicking on the number in the upper right hand corner of the post gives the URL.

What did you do when your wife rearranged the furniture? :smile:

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is a brief excerpt from 15 pages of rough draft material that I wrote a few hours ago. This or a version of this excerpt may end up as part of a blog, so what I need to know is this: Does my meme metaphor make sense, and is it internally consistent? I've seen meme metaphors used before, but I don't know zilch about memes, and I don't want to use a metaphor that will reveal my ignorance to those who do.

After getting some sleep I will probably decide that my trendy metaphor is too clever by half and eliminate it entirely. The last thing I want is for readers to think, "Oh, he is trying to clever." Meanwhile, I would at least like to know if my use of the metaphor conveys what I want it to convey.

Please don't give me a lecture about memes. I just need to know if it works as a literary device in this context.

This query does not merit a separate thread, so I am posting it here.

Ghs

The sad truth is that many accounts of libertarian ideas have been written by Marxists and other ideological enemies of libertarianism. This is not to say that political affiliations necessarily warp the judgments of historians by instilling an ideological bias that cannot be overcome. To expect perfect objectivity may be futile, but to strive for perfect objectivity never is.

In some cases distorted accounts result from textbook errors that are passed from one historian to another. No historian can possibly read every primary source ever written in this vast field, so every historian must rely to some extent on the work of previous historians. Textbook accounts can function like intellectual memes that replicate themselves automatically unless a deliberate and sustained effort is made to eliminate them.

Consider the common claim that Herbert Spencer defended the “survival of the fittest” doctrine because he wanted to eliminate the infirm, the poor, and other elements of the “lower classes.” Whenever you run across this outrageous misrepresentation in a textbook treatment of nineteenth century libertarianism, you are witnessing a vicious historical meme that has replicated itself without restraint for over a century. And when a meme has been on the rampage for this long, some historians, especially those have no desire to portray libertarian thinkers in a sympathetic light, assume that it must be true.

As professors transmit the Herbert Spencer meme to their students, or as students pick up the meme from textbooks, Spencer appears as a sinister archetype of the Victorian era, a pitch perfect example of how those heartless champions of laissez-faire despised the poor. Given this stereotype, few students will desire to read Spencer for themselves, unless it for the purpose of replicating the meme yet again in their own work. And among those students who decide to read Spencer first hand, even fewer will approach what they read with any measure of objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice writing, George. I, too, am outraged by the perpetration and perpetuation of vicious lies about laissez-faire folks. But what can you expect from altruist-statists, eh?

As for the concept of "meme," I think it's fine, though I regard the transmissions of these misrepresentations more like the culural/intellectual equivalent of viral diseases, rather than the cultural/intellectual equivalent of genes. It's more a matter of the time frame than anything. Genes pass on from one generation to the next, while viruses can pass on many times within a given generation.

On the other hand, there can be salutary genes (which is why we're here, I guess), but there aren't (or at least you don't hear much about) salutary viruses. (Hmmm, a virus that would have taken the life of, say, Adolph Hitler, would have been salutary, right?)

Anyway, George, again, good writing, and thanks for sharing your work in progress!

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good message. Not sure when a reply on memes becomes a lecture on memes, but it's such a faddish word these days that it's bound to sound dated in another five years. Remember "bottom line" from the 1980s? "Myth", "cliché" and "misrepresentation" come to mind, and you won't surprise anyone if you think of better expressions than these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George:

It works quite well. I third the motion to place it on the floor for a vote.

Good piece of writing. Personally, I never did understand how they got away with the anti-Spencer prevarications.

Like the crazed bomb-throwing anarchist image, tough to get rid of.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good message. Not sure when a reply on memes becomes a lecture on memes, but it's such a faddish word these days that it's bound to sound dated in another five years. Remember "bottom line" from the 1980s? "Myth", "cliché" and "misrepresentation" come to mind, and you won't surprise anyone if you think of better expressions than these.

You make a good point. After rereading the passage a few minutes ago, it does strike me as self-consciously trendy, as I thought it might. I am going to kill off the memes and rewrite the passage. Thanks.

I used to lecture at IHS summer conferences with law professor Randy Barnett and historian Ralph Raico. At the final session, the speakers would give words of advice to the students. Randy Barnett would offer advice about how to survive in academia without compromising your principles, I would give my little lecture about how to use books, and Ralph Ralph would offer tips about writing.

Two of Ralph's tips always stood out for me:

First, if you write something and then ask a friend you respect to review it so he can tell you what he thinks before you write the final draft; and if, after reading your piece, he says that he doesn't understand something or that he finds something confusing, then don't argue with him. Don't get bent out of shape and insist that he didn't read with sufficient care; don't tell him to read it again; and, above all, don't tell him that he doesn't know enough to appreciate your fine efforts. If your friend doesn't understand something, the fault is almost certainly yours, not his. So thank your friend and then rewrite the damn thing.

Second -- and I love this one: After you have finished the first draft of your masterpiece and are admiring it and yourself, if you run across a passage that astonishes even you with its brilliance, then take your pen and strike it out. Your final draft will be better as a result.

Ghs

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