Looking for place of reason & rational thinking... I hope this is it.

[jriggenbach]

Jack Bauer, or whether or not Ayn Rand would've been a fan of 24 (I doubt she would; she liked romantic fiction rather than 'gritty hardboiled 'realism''), is irrelevant to debates on real world foreign policy.

I admit that sometimes, ARI Watch's tone can get 'bitchy' (for instance, saying that Andrew Bernstein is spiritually corrupt because he also enjoys South Park), but it clearly isn't "quasi-Pacifist." Pacifism is the belief that war is unjustifiable, even in self-defense. ARI Watch clearly rejects that proposition; what it argues is that Neoconservative foreign policies are not self-defense.

Wait a minute. Do you mean to say that if someone attacks you and then you retaliate by going to some completely different neighborhood (or maybe even a different state or a different country) - some neighborhood or state or country where the people who attacked you don't live - and kill a bunch of people and maim and cripple a bunch of others and destroy a bunch of homes and businesses with bombs . . . you mean that's not self-defense? If that's not self-defense then I'd like to know what is!

Dennis Hardin

[Dennis Hardin]

Jack Bauer, or whether or not Ayn Rand would've been a fan of 24 (I doubt she would; she liked romantic fiction rather than 'gritty hardboiled 'realism''), is irrelevant to debates on real world foreign policy.

I'm sure you're aware that one of her favorite authors was Mickey Spillane. Jack Bauer was very much a post-9/11 anti-terrorist version of Mike Hammer. And, like Hammer, he was a moralist, totally devoted to doing whatever was necessary to protect innocent lives from the scum who wanted to slaughter them. Sometimes you find more good sense and human decency in fiction than you do in so-called "serious" commentary by so-called experts.

If a terrorist was threatening to detonate a bomb in your neighborhood, who would you want in charge? Jack Bauer or some pompous, pipe-smoking, wise-cracking, holier-than-thou windbag? (Okay. That's probably a false alternative, but I got a kick out of saying it.)

I admit that sometimes, ARI Watch's tone can get 'bitchy' (for instance, saying that Andrew Bernstein is spiritually corrupt because he also enjoys South Park), but it clearly isn't "quasi-Pacifist." Pacifism is the belief that war is unjustifiable, even in self-defense. ARI Watch clearly rejects that proposition; what it argues is that Neoconservative foreign policies are not self-defense.

Did you happen to notice that I said "quasi-Pacifist?"

[studiodekadent]

Jack Bauer, or whether or not Ayn Rand would've been a fan of 24 (I doubt she would; she liked romantic fiction rather than 'gritty hardboiled 'realism''), is irrelevant to debates on real world foreign policy.

I'm sure you're aware that one of her favorite authors was Mickey Spillane. Jack Bauer was very much a post-9/11 anti-terrorist version of Mike Hammer. And, like Hammer, he was a moralist, totally devoted to doing whatever was necessary to protect innocent lives from the scum who wanted to slaughter them. Sometimes you find more good sense and human decency in fiction than you do in so-called "serious" commentary by so-called experts.

If a terrorist was threatening to detonate a bomb in your neighborhood, who would you want in charge? Jack Bauer or some pompous, pipe-smoking, wise-cracking, holier-than-thou windbag? (Okay. That's probably a false alternative, but I got a kick out of saying it.)

And if you build a national security policy on the assumption that there are terrorists threatening to detonate bombs in every neighbourhood, we quickly end up in a police state. And again, 24 is not a reliable guide for foreign policy.

I admit that sometimes, ARI Watch's tone can get 'bitchy' (for instance, saying that Andrew Bernstein is spiritually corrupt because he also enjoys South Park), but it clearly isn't "quasi-Pacifist." Pacifism is the belief that war is unjustifiable, even in self-defense. ARI Watch clearly rejects that proposition; what it argues is that Neoconservative foreign policies are not self-defense.

Did you happen to notice that I said "quasi-Pacifist?"

Objecting to a some specific wars on the grounds that said wars are both 1)non-defensive, and 2) are being used as a pretext for eroding civil liberties and empowering the state, isn't even quasi-pacificism.

To legitimately call something "Quasi-whatever," that something must actually have some genuine relationship or resemblance to the "whatever." I fail to see how ARI Watch's commentary is even remotely resembling or related to pacifism.

On these forums, people will easily (and correctly) accept the argument that intervening in an economic system can have far-reaching effects which can be ultimately counterproductive. Is not the "blowback" hypothesis, which ARI Watch clearly supports, simply the application of the same insight to foreign policy? The pattern is the same; a well-intentioned (at least publicly) intervention ends up creating more problems than it solves. This hypothesis has nothing to do with pacifism (it does, however, relate to non-interventionism, which is a completely different proposition) nor is it a manifestation of "hatred of America" (significant disagreement with certain administrations, yes, but "America" as such? no).

[Peter]

Professor Moriority (Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA. Criminality & Psuedo Social Science) wrote:

Well, it may not be you, but, obviously, it is us, or some of us anyway. It had nothing to do with "her" and everything to do with Dennis and football. We got exuberant for the off-topic post is all. Anyone think of PMing her?

End quote

OK. Perhaps Dana should have stepped through the door in the "Greetings" section and not started her own thread, with its potential for contention between ARI,TOC, and Independent Objectivists. Michael, what is "PMing her?"

Dennis Hardin wrote:

Sic es vos rudis unus. . . I hope this was meant as a joke.

End quote

Just a bit. The only sport I follow is football, but I thought the scantily clad Russian cheerleaders was not the greeting I would want for my daughters. I would advise them to be wary if they were entering a portal with only a bunch of guys answering their knocks.

I want to hear from younger fans of Rand, not drive them off. Has she been driven off? I hope not. I suppose I am a bit like the owners who want to keep OL a vibrant, open, and civil forum. No offense to Dennis who's posts I enjoy.

And I agree with Mr Reidy. I have no beef with Yaron Brook, the head of ARI. He seems like a good and decent man.

Peter

Edited August 22, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Anyone think of PMing her?

Personal messaging would be my guess.

[DanaMarie215]

Welcome, Dana. I’m Dennis. Well, now that the introductions are out of the way, let’s dive right into the heavy stuff. Who is your favorite NFL team?

Not that you asked, but my favorite team is the Indianapolis Colts, since they obviously have the best quarterback in all of human history, Peyton Manning. (Don’t pay any attention to what Adam Selene says. He likes football too but doesn’t seem to appreciate the fact that Peyton walks on water. Howard Roark in a football jersey. And he claims to be rational!! Hah!)

Objectivism and football. You have definitely come to the right place.

Most of the people here are rational and benevolent, but you will inevitably encounter the occasional libertarian nihilist/homeless mental patient. They are easy to recognize. They write like Ellsworth Toohey and they hate football. Just ignore them.

Again, welcome.

Hi there Dennis... & the Colts? Eh. I'm a Bronco fan so I'll have to disagree with you on the idea of the "best quarterback in all of human history". I like Peyton, but Elway takes the GOAT title.

Ha. I'll be sure to keep the 2nd part of advice in mind.

[DanaMarie215]

Hi Dana. Where are you going to school?

Do you prefer college football or NFL?

Not that you asked, but my favorite team is the Indianapolis Colts, since they obviously have the best quarterback in all of human history, Peyton Manning. (Don’t pay any attention to what Adam Selene says. He likes football too but doesn’t seem to appreciate the fact that Peyton walks on water. Howard Roark in a football jersey. And he claims to be rational!! Hah!)

Objectivism and football. You have definitely come to the right place.

As long as he doesn't have to run (er, attempt to run), Manning is great. But until the Colts lose Austin Collie (prick from BYU) I cannot cheer for them.

Go Steelers & Bears... and any team with my fantasy players.

Mike

I prefer the NFL, I don't have a favorite college team. I do enjoy watching the SEC though- I don't have a specific team though.

[DanaMarie215]

Dana,

Welcome to Objectivist Living.

I sympathize with you about the college problems. What are you studying?

I'm an economist; BEcon and MBusEcon. I actually had a positive time overall; certainly my Objectivism wasn't popular amongst all but there were many that were partially or wholly sympathetic. My Master's Thesis advisor was inspired by my work on the commonalities between his Evolutionary Economics and Objectivism; he read Atlas Shrugged and absolutely loved it. At the moment we are both working on an article for the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

OL has been a fantastic forum in my experience. There's no pressure for ideological conformity (in spite of Dennis' blustering about "libertarian nihilists" I have yet to encounter any actual nihilist on these forums) so you get a lot of Randian, Neo-Randian, and Rand-inspired perspectives here. I happen to enjoy that; exploring common ground between Objectivism and other schools of thought is far more productive than burning intellectual bridges at every opportunity. If I were to offer any advice about being an Objectivist in college, that's the advice I offer; try to find common ground between Objectivism and your Profs.

For example, in one of my philosophy courses, I had a feminist Foucault-scholar (she wasn't necessarily a Foucualdian herself, though). So I did a piece heavily inspired by Objectivist approaches to feminism. If you have the misfortune of ending up with a devout Postmodernist as a teacher, you could try to introduce the Objectivist concept of "the Metaphysical vs. the Man-Made" (what Rand calls "the man-made," postmodernists call "the socially constructed"). In economics, there are plenty of scholars besides Mises to look at... you can find a lot of Objectivist-compatible value in both Hayek and Schumpeter.

I will echo some of the warnings given by others... the reading of Atlas and Fountainhead can be an amazingly empowering and liberating experience (it certainly was for me), but it does run a risk of leaving one 'blinded by the light.' This can make one develop a harsh, dogmatic approach, which would be exacerbated by being in an environment that lacks much sympathy for Objectivism... being surrounded by an 'hostile, enemy world' can make one develop a seige mentality (speaking from extensive experience). This is not to discount the immense value of Objectivism; merely to provide some caution.

As for relating to Rand characters, I too find it easy to relate to Dominique (although I lack the fetish for bodice-ripper ravishment sex). A sense of disgust at society in general can easily do that to one However I also relate to Roark in many respects.

Either way, I look forward to talking with you more and I hope you find much value in these forums.

-Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I have not declared a major yet & have no idea what I will when I do so. I'll probably major in communication or something with a journalism type of focus but this changes probably weekly. I have no idea what I want to ultimately do & because I have a number of things I'd be good at, it gets difficult to narrow it down.

I understand and appreciate the warnings. I've been careful not to fall into the trap of objectivist dogma and the worship, so to speak, of Rand. I love both but I also aknowledge that I don't need to march in lockstep with all of her views to live by reason.

[DanaMarie215]

Dennis: I keep looking in the Ayn Rand Lexicon for "football" and I just do not find it. Personally, I find baseball far more rational and a more objective measure of sportsmanship. Baseball is a thinker's game. (Football reguires the collective sacrifice of linemen to enable the quarterback to complete a play.) Baseball can be played well by persons of any size and gender. (Football has turned universities in minor league training camps.) Baseball requires a mix of skills from every player. (Football consists of a lot of short action plays punctuating long delays.) You can play baseball by yourself: toss up the ball, swing the bat. (Football requires others.)

Baseball fans are loyal. Football fans are fanatical.

I point out that the NBI formed baseball teams while the Kennedy family played touch football on the White House lawn.

George Carlin explained the key differences between football and baseball very well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om_yq4L3M_I

The bottom line:

In football, the object is for the quarterback, otherwise known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his recievers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use the shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.

In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"

Baseball is for pansies! (Nothing personal, Mike.)

It’s true that the NBI staff in the sixties always played baseball, never football. But I think that was because every time someone suggested football, Ayn always insisted on being the quarterback. You can imagine how that worked out.

As for the Lexicon, one look at Binswanger and you know he’s a baseball guy. (Actually, probably a badminton guy.)

I would bet Nathaniel prefers football. I seem to recall visiting his home back in the 70’s and noticing an autographed picture from Johnny Unitas, another great Colt quarterback and Peyton's mentor, on his wall. I would swear to it.

I've always thought that Carlin put the differences between football & baseball beautifully. I find myself resorting back to his ideas when trying to compare the two.

[DanaMarie215]

Brook is doing an excellent job as a spokesman and a better job than we could have expected of running ARI. He has to put up with Peikoff and his cohort, but he seems to be making an effort to move beyond them. The forthcoming Atlas Shrugged documentary, featuring former non-persons, is a case in point. People new to Rand's writings don't care about the factional squabbles anyway.

You're right, I have zero interest in whatever created the rift between Peikoff & Kelly. I find it irrelevant to me.

[DanaMarie215]

ARI Watch doesn’t worry much over squabbles within ARI. It addresses issues like government institutionalized torture, support for Israel, war, etc. Yaron Brook (president of ARI) doesn’t just put up with Leonard Peikoff (ARI’s founder) regarding these issues, they’re on the same page. (I don’t know who you mean by Peikoff’s cohort.)

Some ARI people will be featured in the new documentary “Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged” (first known as “Is Atlas Shrugging?”), but it’s produced and directed by Chris Mortensen. I don’t think ARI has a part in the production. (It’s scheduled for release 7 October 2011.)

In any case Atlas Shrugged doesn’t need a documentary to promote it, and one featuring the likes of Berliner, Bernstein, Binswanger, and Brook without opposition – and consequently promoting them (and ARI) – is a poor way to spread Ayn Rand’s ideas. See:

Harry Binswanger on Torture

and

Who’s Who

and the other articles on ARI Watch.

I'll check them out if I have time.

[DanaMarie215]

Dana Marie,

Welcome to OL.

After all the banter dies down, you will find some serious thinking challenges here. The tonic of this place is that people think for themselves, but still, most folks around here started sometime in their lives from a place where Rand made a strong impact on them.

This means that if you do your own study, you will learn a lot about Objectivism, since you will get seriously challenged on different premises (both for and against Rand's ideas). If you are looking more for a place where people simply teach Objectivism like in a school club, that is not what people here are into.

I foster the free-thinking environment. I believe that you learn a lot better and a lot deeper from being challenged and forced to think through stuff than simply following a reading schedule and filling out exercise books.

That aside, simply as a place to hang, OL is full of great people.

I hope you get into some galling tangles and super-friendly interactions and thoroughly enjoy yourself here. There is grand potential for this if you go after it.

Michael

Thank you, Michael. I am looking for a place to explore other ideas, debate the ones I don't need to explore, and see what other Objectivists & Rand fans are thinking. I'll debate the things I stand by but I'm also looking to learn about ideas and thoughts I haven't considered yet.

Thanks for the welcome!

[DanaMarie215]

I apologize for ... That is not "us." ... over a pretty teenager's picture?

Well, it may not be you, but, obviously, it is us, or some of us anyway. It had nothing to do with "her" and everything to do with Dennis and football. We got exuberant for the off-topic post is all.

Anyone think of PMing her?

It is alright. I enjoyed watching the back & forth. I enjoy observing interactions so it was actually entertaining for me.

[DanaMarie215]

Professor Moriority (Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA. Criminality & Psuedo Social Science) wrote:

Well, it may not be you, but, obviously, it is us, or some of us anyway. It had nothing to do with "her" and everything to do with Dennis and football. We got exuberant for the off-topic post is all. Anyone think of PMing her?

End quote

OK. Perhaps Dana should have stepped through the door in the "Greetings" section and not started her own thread, with its potential for contention between ARI,TOC, and Independent Objectivists. Michael, what is "PMing her?"

Dennis Hardin wrote:

Sic es vos rudis unus. . . I hope this was meant as a joke.

End quote

Just a bit. The only sport I follow is football, but I thought the scantily clad Russian cheerleaders was not the greeting I would want for my daughters. I would advise them to be wary if they were entering a portal with only a bunch of guys answering their knocks.

I want to hear from younger fans of Rand, not drive them off. Has she been driven off? I hope not. I suppose I am a bit like the owners who want to keep OL a vibrant, open, and civil forum. No offense to Dennis who's posts I enjoy.

And I agree with Mr Reidy. I have no beef with Yaron Brook, the head of ARI. He seems like a good and decent man.

Peter

I wasn't driven off & the cheerleaders didn't bother me. I don't mind contention or arguing either- you'll find it takes a lot to drive me off.

I also don't mind men, you gentlemen seem decent enough.

Additionally, I think Yaron Brook is fantastic. His views on Objectivist foreign policy are not any different from Rand's. I think he is, above all, very warm to other people. Where Peikoff might ignore offers from John Stossel, PJTV, and other conservative/libertarian outlets- Brook has decided to embrace the possibility that their could be a conversion there & he is right to do so. I was a christian conservative & my hero was Reagan- but after reading Atlas Shrugged, it flipped me. If there is a chance to reach the reason of another human being, Brook takes it.

[Selene]

Dana:

Excellent statement.

Welcome to OL.

Out of curiosity, who would you consider voting for in the Presidential field? I do not include O'biwan the boy prince and dictator in waiting as a choice.

Additionally, are you active in your Congressional races?

Finally, have you had the opportunity to see Part One of the Atlas Shrugged movie?

I can see that you will be a fine addition to OL.

Once again, welcome.

Adam

[Xray]

It is alright. I enjoyed watching the back & forth. I enjoy observing interactions so it was actually entertaining for me.

Hi Dana Marie, welcome to OL!

Glad to know you have enjoyed watching the back & forth.

OL is very lively place in that respect; you'll come across quite few debates and intellectually stimulating discussions here.

I have the feeling that this is what you are seeking, so just jump right in!

Edited August 24, 2011 by Xray

[studiodekadent]

Hi Andrew,

I have not declared a major yet & have no idea what I will when I do so. I'll probably major in communication or something with a journalism type of focus but this changes probably weekly. I have no idea what I want to ultimately do & because I have a number of things I'd be good at, it gets difficult to narrow it down.

Well, whatever field/s you end up choosing, I hope you are successful and find your studies enjoyable.

I understand and appreciate the warnings. I've been careful not to fall into the trap of objectivist dogma and the worship, so to speak, of Rand. I love both but I also aknowledge that I don't need to march in lockstep with all of her views to live by reason.

An excellent attitude indeed.

[Dennis Hardin]

Welcome, Dana.

Objectivism and football. You have definitely come to the right place.

Most of the people here are rational and benevolent, but you will inevitably encounter the occasional libertarian nihilist/homeless mental patient. They are easy to recognize. They write like Ellsworth Toohey and they hate football. Just ignore them.

Again, welcome.

Hi there Dennis... & the Colts? Eh. I'm a Bronco fan so I'll have to disagree with you on the idea of the "best quarterback in all of human history". I like Peyton, but Elway takes the GOAT title.

Ha. I'll be sure to keep the 2nd part of advice in mind.

A Bronco’s fan? You poor dear. What the heck is Pat Bowlen doing, anyway? First he lets Josh McDaniels take Tebow as a number one draft pick. Then he hires John Fox as his new head coach—after Fox goes 2-14 with Carolina. Go figure. Dementia, maybe?

Elway as the greatest ever? Well, he certainly had his moments. Like Peyton, he largely carried the team while he was there. They have been in self-destruct mode since his departure.

The Broncos do have great-looking uniforms!

Glad to have another football fan here on OL!!

[BaalChatzaf]

I could give you a long description of who I am and the things I value but I won't. I'll just say that the character I admire most in all of literature is Hank Rearden. The one I relate to the most? Dominque.

Rearden was the one I felt sorriest for. His original understanding of human sexuality was a train-wreck. But he worked his way out. Good for him! My favorite -Atlas Shrugged- character was Franscisco. He was a smart-ass which I found very admirable. And I have actually met real live people like him.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Martin Radwin]

I followed up on Mark's links, and, on the strength of them, I find ARI Watch bitchy and trivial.

I agree completely. It's mostly a lot of quasi-pacifist claptrap. Spinning Ayn Rand's words to make her viewpoint fit theirs.

I suspect Ayn Rand would have been a huge fan of Jack Bauer.

Absolutely! Rand was a huge fan of torture. That's why the leading hero of Atlas Shrugged was Dr. Floyd Ferris and his brilliant invention, the Ferris Persuader. John Galt and his band of terrorists were attempting to destroy the society around them and, especially, the U.S. government. Ferris swept in there just like a Jack Bauer hero to stop this nefarious plot and protect society against the evil Galt inspired terrorists. Unfortunately, Rand had a malevolent sense of life, so the evil terrorists won in the end.

Martin

[Reidy]

I did not say that torture is trivial. I said that what ARI watch has to say about torture (or any other topic as far as I've been able to see) is trivial.

[Dennis Hardin]

I followed up on Mark's links, and, on the strength of them, I find ARI Watch bitchy and trivial.

I agree completely. It's mostly a lot of quasi-pacifist claptrap. Spinning Ayn Rand's words to make her viewpoint fit theirs.

I suspect Ayn Rand would have been a huge fan of Jack Bauer.

Absolutely! Rand was a huge fan of torture. That's why the leading hero of Atlas Shrugged was Dr. Floyd Ferris and his brilliant invention, the Ferris Persuader. John Galt and his band of terrorists were attempting to destroy the society around them and, especially, the U.S. government. Ferris swept in there just like a Jack Bauer hero to stop this nefarious plot and protect society against the evil Galt inspired terrorists. Unfortunately, Rand had a malevolent sense of life, so the evil terrorists won in the end.

Martin

Rand was a huge fan of strong fictional characters who demonstrated moral courage in the defense of innocent victims and in the pursuit of justice for thugs. My guess is that she felt torture was a necessary evil in certain situations where no other option was available. But using torture when absolutely necessary to protect innocent life does require a certain level of courage that most people do not have.

Bauer did have it. That is why she would have admired Jack Bauer.

[Brant Gaede]

I followed up on Mark's links, and, on the strength of them, I find ARI Watch bitchy and trivial.

I agree completely. It's mostly a lot of quasi-pacifist claptrap. Spinning Ayn Rand's words to make her viewpoint fit theirs.

I suspect Ayn Rand would have been a huge fan of Jack Bauer.

Absolutely! Rand was a huge fan of torture. That's why the leading hero of Atlas Shrugged was Dr. Floyd Ferris and his brilliant invention, the Ferris Persuader. John Galt and his band of terrorists were attempting to destroy the society around them and, especially, the U.S. government. Ferris swept in there just like a Jack Bauer hero to stop this nefarious plot and protect society against the evil Galt inspired terrorists. Unfortunately, Rand had a malevolent sense of life, so the evil terrorists won in the end.

Martin

Rand was a huge fan of strong fictional characters who demonstrated moral courage in the defense of innocent victims and in the pursuit of justice for thugs. My guess is that she felt torture was a necessary evil in certain situations where no other option was available. But using torture when absolutely necessary to protect innocent life does require a certain level of courage that most people do not have.

Bauer did have it. That is why she would have admired Jack Bauer.

Shudder.

--Brant

never saw an episode, nor did she

[Martin Radwin]

I followed up on Mark's links, and, on the strength of them, I find ARI Watch bitchy and trivial.

I agree completely. It's mostly a lot of quasi-pacifist claptrap. Spinning Ayn Rand's words to make her viewpoint fit theirs.

I suspect Ayn Rand would have been a huge fan of Jack Bauer.

Absolutely! Rand was a huge fan of torture. That's why the leading hero of Atlas Shrugged was Dr. Floyd Ferris and his brilliant invention, the Ferris Persuader. John Galt and his band of terrorists were attempting to destroy the society around them and, especially, the U.S. government. Ferris swept in there just like a Jack Bauer hero to stop this nefarious plot and protect society against the evil Galt inspired terrorists. Unfortunately, Rand had a malevolent sense of life, so the evil terrorists won in the end.

Martin

Rand was a huge fan of strong fictional characters who demonstrated moral courage in the defense of innocent victims and in the pursuit of justice for thugs. My guess is that she felt torture was a necessary evil in certain situations where no other option was available. But using torture when absolutely necessary to protect innocent life does require a certain level of courage that most people do not have.

Bauer did have it. That is why she would have admired Jack Bauer.

And, or course, governments can certainly be trusted to decide when torture is necessary to protect innocent life, just as they can be trusted to do all of the other wonderful things that they do to us every day. Governments would never abuse this power. They would never torture innocent prisoners under the mistaken impression that they had valuable information, or just for the sheer fun of it. Governments would never abuse this hideous power, because they are so honorable. Only the highest calibre of human being would ever apply for the job of government interrogator, never some sadistic bastard who got his jollies doing this kind of work. All of the prisoners tortured at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Bagram, as well as all of the black op sites where prisoners were renditioned to be tortured, were obviously guilty, because otherwise, why would the government have tortured them? Governments never make these kinds of mistakes. This country's founders, who got the fourth amendment to the constitution passed, were just a bunch of pussies. Right?

By the way, it has long been known that torture does not even achieve its alleged benefits. Prisoners will say anything to get the torture to stop, whether it is true or not. Civilized forms of interrogation have been shown to produce far better results. And the ticking time bomb scenarios that have been used to justify torture are absurd on their face, involving ridiculous hypothetical situations that would never occur in real life.

Martin

[jriggenbach]

I followed up on Mark's links, and, on the strength of them, I find ARI Watch bitchy and trivial.

I agree completely. It's mostly a lot of quasi-pacifist claptrap. Spinning Ayn Rand's words to make her viewpoint fit theirs.

I suspect Ayn Rand would have been a huge fan of Jack Bauer.

Absolutely! Rand was a huge fan of torture. That's why the leading hero of Atlas Shrugged was Dr. Floyd Ferris and his brilliant invention, the Ferris Persuader. John Galt and his band of terrorists were attempting to destroy the society around them and, especially, the U.S. government. Ferris swept in there just like a Jack Bauer hero to stop this nefarious plot and protect society against the evil Galt inspired terrorists. Unfortunately, Rand had a malevolent sense of life, so the evil terrorists won in the end.

Martin

Rand was a huge fan of strong fictional characters who demonstrated moral courage in the defense of innocent victims and in the pursuit of justice for thugs. My guess is that she felt torture was a necessary evil in certain situations where no other option was available. But using torture when absolutely necessary to protect innocent life does require a certain level of courage that most people do not have.

Bauer did have it. That is why she would have admired Jack Bauer.

And, or course, governments can certainly be trusted to decide when torture is necessary to protect innocent life, just as they can be trusted to do all of the other wonderful things that they do to us every day. Governments would never abuse this power. They would never torture innocent prisoners under the mistaken impression that they had valuable information, or just for the sheer fun of it. Governments would never abuse this hideous power, because they are so honorable. Only the highest calibre of human being would ever apply for the job of government interrogator, never some sadistic bastard who got his jollies doing this kind of work. All of the prisoners tortured at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Bagram, as well as all of the black op sites where prisoners were renditioned to be tortured, were obviously guilty, because otherwise, why would the government have tortured them? Governments never make these kinds of mistakes. This country's founders, who got the fourth amendment to the constitution passed, were just a bunch of pussies. Right?

Actually, Martin, it's a bit more nuanced than that. You see, most governments cannot be trusted to make these decisions, but our government can. Our government has never done anything wrong in its entire history, except, perhaps, by easily understandable and forgivable error. And any wrong it may have done was done only by Democratic administrations, never Republican administrations. As for the Founders, they did make a few trivial errors, but those were corrected by Judge Naragansett in Galt's Gulch.

By the way, it has long been known that torture does not even achieve its alleged benefits.

Again, a small correction, Martin, if I may be allowed one. You see, this has "long been known" only by people who Hate America and Blame America First. Dennis, who gets his information about this issue from a defunct Fox TV series, knows better.

Helpfully,

JR