Aggrad02

Members
  • Content Count

    381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Aggrad02

  • Rank
    $$$$
  • Birthday 08/31/1980

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    dustan1
  • Website URL
    http://www.myspace.com/txobjectivist
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    internationalmetal

Profile Information

  • Location
    Calvert, TX

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Dustan Wells Costine
  1. It would have been something if U.S. forces would have done that. It is not the role of our military to enforce private contracts with foreign nations. Especially contracts that were made by a dictator set up by western forces. Also the companies that had their oil leases seized were not even American they were British (I believe). --Dustan
  2. studiodekadent, The problem is that the question must be framed within politics. The main reason that Fundamentalist are a threat to our civilization is because they seek to use force, either directly (Muslim Terrorist) or through the state (Fundamentalist Christian Conservatives), to impose their belief systems on others. Fundamentalist that do not seek to use force on others are not a physical danger (from direct force or the state). This goes back to your original question: Should we form alliances with theologically liberal Christians? The question to your question is WHY? The only answer to WHY we (objectivist) would form alliances with theologically liberal Christians, lies in whether they believe force should be used (direct or state) to impose ones values on others. In your example, Andrew Sullivan is a Christian, I do not know to what degree he practices his Christianity, but just because he is a homosexual does not mean that he is a liberal Christian. To be a homosexual and still cling to Christianity in the face of so much persecution from that community shows a great amount of faith, I would bet that Sullivan is a closer Christian in the image of Christ than most Fundamentalist. But on the other hand Sullivan is a classical liberal (conservative libertarian) politically. He does not think that one should force ones values via force or the state onto others. He is clearly an ally against Fundamentalist who seek to use force, or anyone else for that matter who seeks to use force. On the other hand Sam Harris is a fasci-socialist, while atheist, he believes that the state (force) should be used to form society to the good of the group(collectivism). While he is also anti-Fundamentalist, I would say he is not an ally because the socialist atheist and the fundamentalist are fighting over the same cookie, state power. Also while Hitchens (and many other socialist) may not believe in dictatorial power, they do subscribe to the idea that democratic socialism (socialism of the majority) is ethical (which it is not). There is no difference in the fasci-socialism of a dictator and a majority. Remember that Ayn Rand fled the atheist Soviet Union for the secular but majority-christian United States because of liberty. Do not let your hate for the Witch Doctors persuade you into forming alliances with the Attila's. Be concerned about those who wish to impose upon you and find those that have a moral view of the purpose of government. Philosophically (outside of politics) the Chrisitans are not allies because they believe in Mysticism, but be careful which atheist you align yourself with because not all base their metaphysical beliefs and arguments in firm foundations of reason. --Dustan
  3. I will add more later once I can think more about this, but... First you have to define liberal. Liberal in the classical sense like the Founding Fathers? or Liberal in the modern sense which is a misnomer. Modern Liberals are mainly global fascist progressive socialist (Wilson->FDR->Kennedy->Obama) i.e. collectivist/statist. Most of them (whether they know it or not) hold pragmatic/existential world views, and worship the state. Sam Harris quotes which concern me: "Only openness to evidence and argument will secure a common world for us" "Examples of well-behaved and comparatively atheistic societies like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark--which surpass us in terrestrial virtues like education, health, public generosity, per capita aid to the developing world, and low rates of violent crime and infant mortality--are of no interest to our electorate whatsoever" "Despite all that he does not and cannot say, Obama's candidacy is genuinely thrilling: his heart is clearly in the right place "I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror" "While we hold the moral high ground in our war on terror" On Christopher Hitchens: "He does not object to being called a "former" Trotskyist, his affection for Trotsky remains strong, and he says that his political and historical view of the world is still shaped by Marxist categories" "Hitchens is seen as part of the "pro-liberation left" or "liberal hawks" comprising left-leaning commentators who supported the 2003 Invasion of Iraq." "This Enlightenment will not need to depend, like its predecessors, on the heroic breakthroughs of a few gifted and exceptionally courageous people. It is within the compass of the average person" Don't be fooled by most of these Atheist. While they give great arguments against God, they are still religious none-the-less, they have just replaced God with the State. They are clearly in the Neitzsche and Marxist mold. There is no difference between a conservative Christian using the state to beat the bible on your head, and a socialist Atheist using the state to beat wellbeing onto you. Now on the other hand Ali is not a socialist (any longer) and neither is Dennett or Sullivan. They are probably better allies. Also the largest pool to pull allies from is from liberty-minded Christians/Jews/Muslims/(which ever faith). These people while holding on to their faiths do not seek to impose it upon others, but to merely leave each other alone, this is good enough for me. Edit: Btw: Considering the modern movement of the Progressive Atheist, I have quite using that term ( I dislike terms anyways), now if people ask what church I go to, instead of saying I am atheist, I tell them I have no belief in a god, which is closer to the truth anyway.
  4. Just in spite of this article, I went and walked around my grass and then kicked a bush before I walked back in. --D
  5. Wolf I agree with you on how the government has ignored the Constitution. And there were major problems with the SCOTUS way before Roe v. Wade. --D
  6. Article 1 Section 9 is full of limits: writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended no bill of attainder or ex post facto law no capitation or other direct tax (repealed by 16th) No tax or duty shall be laid on articles from state to state No preference shall be given to any port No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations No titles of Nobility Section 10: No state shall enter into a treaty... No state shall lay any impost on imports or exports No state shall keep troops.... Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights (Bill of Rights) shall not be construded to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. Note: The Constitution would not have been ratified with out the promise of the Bill of Rights. So you cannot talk about the Constitution of September 13, 1788 without also including the Bill of Rights. They were not completely hammered out by the Constitutional Convention but they were on the table as part of the deal in a raw form. As seen especially by the 9th and 10th amendments, the Constitution is clearly a limitation of the power of government, now that is not followed today, but that is what it was meant to be.
  7. Well, actually, everything you cited is CRO-MAGNON activity. If you understood the Neanderthals, you would know that they had larger brains -- might have been telepathic -- and lived in small clusters and were individualists. The Cro-Magnon (that's us) were tribalists with small brains. Cro-Magnons cut their own fingers off... and the cutting of things continues... Every way you look at it, we are here because intelligence is not necessarily a survival trait, but brutality is. Sadly Collectivism is very good with the survival thing.
  8. This is a total misrepresentation of Ron Paul's campaign, but I would expect it out of Marotta. Right you are! The people who vote in primaries are better informed, more involved, more likely to write checks, more likely to be educated. I disagree with the both of you. The people that vote in the primaries are very representative of the voting population at large. (Generally) Neither are very well informed nor more likely to be educated. Some of them are more involved (most are not) and some are more likely to write checks (most are not). I know this from experience. Example, at the Brazos County Republican Party Resolution Meeting, one of my friends had to explain what the Military Commissions Act was. I am not talking about whether it was good or bad, just what it was. Most activist use the political parties as social clubs and have no idea what the issues are. Some people golf, some hunt, some post on OL, some watch football on Sundays and some join political parties. They vote in the primaries but they have no clue what is going on in our government. -Dustan
  9. Nothing down (sic) by Government is NECESSARY, maybe EXPEDIENT, but not NECESSARY. He didn't say it was. --Brant Either he endorsed the views that he posted or his post didn't say anything at all and was pointless.
  10. Another quote by Ayn on the US Constitution: "Ours was the first government based on and strictly limited by a written document- the Constitution- which specifically forbids it to violate individual rights or to act on whim. The history of the atrocities perpetuated by all the other kinds of government- unrestricted governments acting on umprovable assumptions- demonstrates the value and validity of the original political theory on which this country was built"
  11. Nothing done by Government is NECESSARY, maybe EXPEDIENT, but not NECESSARY.
  12. The error of structual functionalism asserts that no matter who is in a society, it can be made or remade to any desired outcome according to a plan that creates institutions and defines their operation. The error of structural functionalism fails to explain why so few of the perhaps 300 constitutions in the world actually create the societies they putatively intend. Institutions precede constitutions. ... by the way, most of the people who are less than three days dead have noticed that the American dollar is not in danger of collapse, but actually collapsed about 75 years ago and then did a dead cat bounce before settling in to permanent decay about 1972... I was born in 1949. Today's dollar buys what a nickel did in 1958: a Snickers bar. Gasoline that was 20 cents a gallon is now 4 dollars per. I went to buy a suit a couple of weeks ago. Guess how much it cost? (Hint: What is the price of gold?) The problem with this is our Constitution was not created to make our society which probably 299 of 300 of the constitution of the world look to do. Our Constitution was a limit on the power of government and nothing more. You somewhat contradict yourself here. Our Constitution is what it is, and to find out what that is all you have to do is read the Founder's documents including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers(this is objective). But in the top quote you imply that no matter what our constitution says objectively, how our society is formed will determine our government independent of any institutions such as the Constitution, implying that if one can affect a change in the thinking of society then one could change the interpretation of the Constitution, but you told Galt that no matter what his hopes , fears, wished or dreams are that what happens is independent. Well it seems that either the Constitution is what it is via our founders, which matches up exactly to Galt's wishes and dreams, or how our society is formed will determine our government and as long as Galt fights for what he wishes and dreams, he can change society (Which is what he is doing by pointing out and educating people on what the Constitution is objectively). Either way Galt can win. --Dustan
  13. Apparently, you do not know the actual U.S. Constitution, and apparently, neither does Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul. Come On, claims with no explanation are worthless. Please show how the either the Constitution has been followed in the manner in which was intended by our founders(which you already said it wasn't) or how our economy and national state of affairs has nothing to do with the socialist unconstitutional federal policies berthed by Wilson and FDR and continued by just about every President since. Or give some other explanation of your position which I might of misunderstood. --Dustan