Paul passes McCain

[BaalChatzaf]

.... We probably can lay the groundwork so that we don't have another generation of fanatics.

Jim

How? Please be specific.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I appreciate your good-natured response. However, it highlights something in the Objectivist culture I have detected and really bothers me (not just on this issue).

You stated flat-out that you don't by into the notion that it is possible to persuade fanatics, completely missing the point that it is not the fanatics I have been targeting for persuasion (and I have been very clear). This brushes aside a bunch of newspaper articles, links to moderate Muslim organizations, a study by the Rand Corp., with endorsement by one of the greatest critics of Islamism, and other material I have posted on OL, all proving that it is not only possible to convince moderate Muslims of things like individual rights, etc., it is currently happening and growing. The moderates are even denouncing and repudiating the fanatics and this is growing. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion and to change the subject, but it completely ignores hard evidence.

I have seen Objectivists do this time and time again. They look at hard evidence and then blank out what does not fit their theory or bias. They make some pretty strange assessments of quantum physics, they deny parts of human nature that are well documented, they attribute evil intentions to people who obviously do not have them, they practically deny large corporation corruption and cronyism with government officials (but mostly keep to a strict silence about it), they blame people for not abandoning their families and lifelong friends to escape a dictatorship, I could go on, but the truth is that way too many Objectivists consistently do not identify reality correctly. (I can provide quotes from most any Objectivist Internet forum as examples, but they are so plentiful that this is not really necessary.)

This bothers the hell out of me.

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

Good strategic analysis and brief discussion of possible US-Israel attack on Iran and Syria soon at Moon of Alabama, which is the rump list of ace blogger Billmon (who retired last year).

Brant,

You and I are old enough to remember how it was in the 50's when Ayn Rand wrote. Zero crime, nobody locked their doors at night in Middle America. 100% consensus on mom and apple pie, reflected in Leave It To Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, etc. Hard to fault Rand for her era. On occasion I carry a .38

Bringing this back to Ron Paul, I don't think there are enough calm, confident voters in the US to elect him president. Eugene McCarthy comes to mind. The world is too tense for a Boy Scout fix.

W.

As far as I can tell Ron Paul is not the man we need for President now because of the big mess the US has made in the world and now has to deal with. I don't think he is up to it. I may be wrong, but it is a common enough perception that he has no real chance, but maybe his campaign will be educational, even for me.

--Brant

If the previous generation of presidents had the stature of Ron Paul, the US would not have made the big mess of the world that it has. Instead of becoming a raging empire on its way to bankruptcy, the US would have returned to its roots as a limited government republic. The catastrophic US policies in the middle east would not have happened. The US would have disengaged its military from the volatile middle east. American troops would never have been stationed in Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 attack would almost certainly never have happened. There would be no Patriot Act, no Military Commissions Act, no Guantanamo Bay, no torture as official US policy, no "extraordinary rendition". Habeas corpus would still be a proud symbol of a still free society, rather than a dying remnant of a society that has sold its liberty for the pathetic illusion of security.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Good strategic analysis and brief discussion of possible US-Israel attack on Iran and Syria soon at Moon of Alabama, which is the rump list of ace blogger Billmon (who retired last year).

Brant,

You and I are old enough to remember how it was in the 50's when Ayn Rand wrote. Zero crime, nobody locked their doors at night in Middle America. 100% consensus on mom and apple pie, reflected in Leave It To Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, etc. Hard to fault Rand for her era. On occasion I carry a .38

Bringing this back to Ron Paul, I don't think there are enough calm, confident voters in the US to elect him president. Eugene McCarthy comes to mind. The world is too tense for a Boy Scout fix.

W.

As far as I can tell Ron Paul is not the man we need for President now because of the big mess the US has made in the world and now has to deal with. I don't think he is up to it. I may be wrong, but it is a common enough perception that he has no real chance, but maybe his campaign will be educational, even for me.

--Brant

If the previous generation of presidents had the stature of Ron Paul, the US would not have made the big mess of the world that it has. Instead of becoming a raging empire on its way to bankruptcy, the US would have returned to its roots as a limited government republic. The catastrophic US policies in the middle east would not have happened. The US would have disengaged its military from the volatile middle east. American troops would never have been stationed in Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 attack would almost certainly never have happened. There would be no Patriot Act, no Military Commissions Act, no Guantanamo Bay, no torture as official US policy, no "extraordinary rendition". Habeas corpus would still be a proud symbol of a still free society, rather than a dying remnant of a society that has sold its liberty for the pathetic illusion of security.

Martin

Generations, not generation. However, I admit I do not have enough time to investigate Ron Paul's views and capabilities, which are not administrative. The only Congressman I know of to make the jump to the Presidency was Ford who first landed in the vice-Presidency by appointment. The last US Senator was Kennedy. It's been mostly governors or veeps. Congressmen do not make very good vice-Presidential candidates either. When Goldwater put Miller on his ticket I knew that was bad for his campaign. Paul has stature, but little gravitas.

--Brant

Edited July 11, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

I don't believe the US government should reach out to moderate Muslims except to gain tactical advantages. Private parties can do what they want.

The problem is that outreach would be interpreted as appeasement by Muslim terrorists who would then generally use Muslims as human shields whenever it was to their advantage, calling them "Martyrs."

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The Rand Corp. is adviser to the military and the government (among other entities). It is advising precisely the formation of moderate Muslim networks and I see it happening.

I agree that this is something better for private individuals, but they are doing it.

Michael

[galtgulch]

Jim,

There is a huge ideological leftover from Nazism in the Middle East (Saddam was a good example).

Michael

Please don't mind if I quibble but Saddam idolized Stalin and plastered the walls with pictures of Stalin and his bookshelves with books about Stalin, not Hitler.

I imagine you have read Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism which explores the inner workings of the totalitarian dictatorships in both Germany and Russia. It was my first exposure to Arendt's writing and to her mind and now I have more of her books but precious little free time to read them.

Ideas do move the world and it is a comfort to know at least that a rational view of existence has been spreading from one mind to another. Just a matter of time. On my way home I recommended Atlas and Rand's other works to a young fellow who responded that another fellow he knows is reading her works already.

PLease tell Kat to respond to my rebuttal to her argument in the forum about Paul not being pro choice on abortion. I am eager to see what she has to say.

galt

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Galt,

I saw a documentary on the Saddam/Nazi connection that alerted me to this. I have merely skimmed over the following links, but they give some of the information that was in the documentary.

The Nazi Background of Saddam Hussein

The Muslim/Nazi Connection

There is plenty more out there. Just Google it.

Essentially, Nazism was not properly eradicated in certain Muslim countries and it was called something else. The world simply did not pay attention. A good part of the absolute hatred of Jews in that part of the world comes from this leftover.

Incidentally, at that distance, being a leftover from Nazism does not mean someone like Saddam cannot like Stalin, also.

PLease tell Kat to respond to my rebuttal to her argument in the forum about Paul not being pro choice on abortion. I am eager to see what she has to say.

Not on your life. You tell her.

Michael

[galtgulch]

PLease tell Kat to respond to my rebuttal to her argument in the forum about Paul not being pro choice on abortion. I am eager to see what she has to say.

Not on your life. You tell her.

Michael

Hi Mike. Very funny.

I assumed that Kat would check her recent posts to see if anyone responded to her posts. Now if you will not tell Kat perhaps you would consider thinking about the issue I raised. Should Ron Paul's position on abortion be a "deal breaker?" You would have to read my post there to see my reasoning.

What do you think?

galt

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Galt,

Kat works at a job where there is a long commute. That's why she doesn't post often.

I am against abortion controls, but I personally find abortion distasteful. There is a legal theory that Ronald Reagan held to that this is a constitutional matter of guaranteeing the right to life of all citizens. The problem is in defining when a person becomes a citizen. There is no doubt in my mind that a fetus is a human being in the beginning stages of life. Incredibly, that seems to be in doubt in some discussions I have read.

When that human being becomes a citizen bearing rights is the legal question. Since the rights of the mother are involved, it is complicated.

I am for setting a time, say in the last third of the pregnancy term when the fetus is more or less developed, shows signs of response and can survive outside the womb, as the point where it starts to bear independent legal rights. Even then, if a person maliciously caused a miscarriage to the mother before that time, I want the person held responsible for both the aggression against the mother and the death of the fetus. Also, in some borderline cases, I want the mother to still have the option to abort in the last third of the term until actual birth (cases like detection of brain impairment of the fetus, accidents like poisoning where severe damage to the fetus is irreversible, risk to the mother's life, etc.).

My wants are not law, but that is how I see it. Today's world seems to be bumping and grinding along more or less OK in this respect. There is a lot of heated debate, but if a pregnant woman really wants an abortion, she can find where to get one most anywhere.

Michael

[galtgulch]

Galt,

QUOTE(Kat @ Jul 10 2007, 06:11 AM) *

Hi Lori and welcome to Objectivist Living.

I also have a big problem with voting for a candidate who is not pro-choice. In my view, if a candidate does not support a woman's right to choose, he or she does not deserve my vote. You don't take away rights like that. It is a deal killer. Simple as that.

Kat

Hi Kat, i am reminded of the musical 1776 which mirrors what actually happened at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia which led to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In the first Draft written by Thomas Jefferson he had many clauses which were objected to and had to be removed in order to appease the delegates from the southern states in order to get the unanimous vote to declare independence.

Kat, I fear that if you were in T. Jefferson's position you would have refused to remove the offensive clauses which abolished slavery, on principle no doubt, and we would still be saluting the British flag!

I can imagine a scenario in which we figuratively hold our noses and vigorously support Ron Paul in his bid for the nomination. If we do there is a chance he would get the nomination and then might win the election and become president. I know that is far fetched but as inconceivable as it is there is a slight chance for it to happen. Even if not elected his campaign as nominee would yield positive effects.

Paul has pointed out that the Income Tax only accounts for about one third of the Federal Revenue and the other two thirds amount to the equivalent of the Federal Budget for 2000. Paul said that if he repealed the Income Tax and cut spending back to the 2000 level, there would be no need to replace the Income Tax with a Flat Tax or anything else so he could also abolish the dreaded Internal Revenue System.

If that happened within one week after his election to office those who sympathize with young ladies who have unwanted pregnancies would have plenty of money to help them out.

In other words I think it might be a big mistake to let Pauls position on abortion cause us to prevent his election. Once he were elected and the IRS abolished, the Gold Standard restored, the regulations repealed, the Constitution adhered to, and our troops brought home from all over the world, we could concentrate on influencing the States who would have jurisdiction over the choice vs abortion issue.

I do sympathize with your deal breaker mentality but there are a number of other crucial principles involved such as the right of each earner to keep the money he or she earns, and adherence to Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which limits the powers granted to the government and which has been violated big time in the last few decades. Here is our chance to at least influence the dialog on such issues in a Presidential campaign.

Think of all the pro life folks who would be willing to listen to Ron Paul on all our other issues! Even if he doesn't get elected many minds might be enlightened.

galt

Hi Michael, Well there it is above. Kat's post and my reply. That shows that my question hasn't to do with abortion per se but whether a case can be made to send money to Ron Paul's campaign now to help him get the nomination and then support his candidacy for president, despite his anti choice position.

galt

[Aggrad02]

Galt,

Kat works at a job where there is a long commute. That's why she doesn't post often.

I am against abortion controls, but I personally find abortion distasteful. There is a legal theory that Ronald Reagan held to that this is a constitutional matter of guaranteeing the right to life of all citizens. The problem is in defining when a person becomes a citizen. There is no doubt in my mind that a fetus is a human being in the beginning stages of life. Incredibly, that seems to be in doubt in some discussions I have read.

When that human being becomes a citizen bearing rights is the legal question. Since the rights of the mother are involved, it is complicated.

I am for setting a time, say in the last third of the pregnancy term when the fetus is more or less developed, shows signs of response and can survive outside the womb, as the point where it starts to bear independent legal rights. Even then, if a person maliciously caused a miscarriage to the mother before that time, I want the person held responsible for both the aggression against the mother and the death of the fetus. Also, in some borderline cases, I want the mother to still have the option to abort in the last third of the term until actual birth (cases like detection of brain impairment of the fetus, accidents like poisoning where severe damage to the fetus is irreversible, risk to the mother's life, etc.).

My wants are not law, but that is how I see it. Today's world seems to be bumping and grinding along more or less OK in this respect. There is a lot of heated debate, but if a pregnant woman really wants an abortion, she can find where to get one most anywhere.

Michael

Michael,

I hold almost the same position that you do. I am personally Pro-life, but politically ambivalent as I do not know 100% that a fetus is a person, even though I believe that it is. Legally defining when or if a fetus is considered a person is crucial.

Also I don't think Ron Paul's pro-life stance is philosophically incompatible with objectivism per se. Ayn believed that the fetus is a part of the woman's body just like an appendix, therefore the woman could do as she pleased. But she also believed in the value of a human's life. Ron Paul on the other hand believes that the fetus is life, and has rights like any other human. The difference is the difference in defining when a human becomes a being not in philosophy.

-Dustan

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael,

I hold almost the same position that you do. I am personally Pro-life, but politically ambivalent as I do not know 100% that a fetus is a person, even though I believe that it is. Legally defining when or if a fetus is considered a person is crucial.

Talk about a no-brainer. A human fetus has less wit and intellect then a field mouse. Is a field mouse a person?

A human infant at birth is not a person, by this criterion, therefore it does not have any more rights than its mother chooses to give it. A human infant is the product of its mother's body and has no autonomous sentience. Therefore it does not have rights. Having rights is as much a matter of physiological capability as it is of law. A human infant, therefore a human fetus does not have enough functioning brain tissue and neural interconnection to have rights.

Since a fetus, or even a newborn infant is not a person, what is it? One thing for sure, it is the -property- of its mother. Her body produced it using nourishment that her biology provided. A fetus is essentially -a crop- growing inside a women. It grows in -her soil- (so to speak) therefore she owns it and has the right to dispose of it as she sees fit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Having rights is as much a matter of physiological capability as it is of law.

Bob,

Deny it life and no other rights can develop. That fact is kinda where the right to life comes from.

I don't like this differentiation between "person" and "non-person" as it smacks of an anti-concept. A fetus is a human being in the beginning stages of life. It is a continuum of the same thing as an adult, not an animal of another species. We were all fetuses once.

As to the rest of the argument about rights, I have given my views above. No sense in repeating them.

A fetus is essentially -a crop- growing inside a women. It grows in -her soil- (so to speak) therefore she owns it and has the right to dispose of it as she sees fit.

In your view, does that include harvesting her fetus for food like with any crop?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

In your view, does that include harvesting her fetus for food like with any crop?

Michael

Yes. She ought to be able to use her fetus for the next meal, biological experimentation, or making lampshades. It is -her- fetus. Not mine, not yours, not the government's and not society's. It is -hers-. The mark of a civilized person is knowing the difference between Mine, Yours and Hers.

Being disgusting is not illegal (I hope), at least not yet.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 15, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Being disgusting is not illegal (I hope), at least not yet.

Bob,

We strongly disagree on several issues (mostly oversimplifications). I do agree that being disgusting is not illegal and one has a right to it.

I also agree with the laws that prohibit the murder of human beings (however they are defined) and cannibalism.

Be careful with the property argument. Holding that one human being is the property of another is the first step towards sanctioning slavery. It's a tricky issue.

I am vastly more inclined to accept the legal reasoning that certain rights of the mother with respect to the fetus, then newborn, gradually diminish as the fetus/newborn grows and acquires those parts of the rights that are forfeited. On the fetus level, this is specific and primary (like right to life) and it is on a sliding scale, not suddenly either-or (i.e., according to what I understand of your thinking, under the law, one minute there should be a lump of food and another there should be a human being).

Michael

[Aggrad02]

In your view, does that include harvesting her fetus for food like with any crop?

Michael

It is -her- fetus. Not mine, not yours, not the government's and not society's. It is -hers-. The mark of a civilized person is knowing the difference between Mine, Yours and Hers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So when does a person no longer become property of their parents? Are you still owned by your mother? Are you really a disgruntled lamp shade? Or are you just a Judeo-Fascist.

I swear the longer you post the less difference there is between you and the Islamist you hate.

You for a government police state, with the economy virtually restricted and protected by the gov.

You are for wiping out an entire race/culture of people because some of them are extreme, and confiscating their property because you covet it.

Your are for confiscating the property and lives of others to attain these goals.

You are for parents owning their children, and disposing of them as they please.

--Dustan

Edited July 15, 2007 by Aggrad02

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dustan,

LOL...

I bet if anyone ever gets to know this dude personally, they will find a sweet old foul-mouthed man. Seriously. I bet his acts have very little to do with his words.

I also bet they will find a failed singer or actor somewhere in his past.

(My psychologizing itch has now been scratched for the day.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

I hold almost the same position that you do. I am personally Pro-life, but politically ambivalent as I do not know 100% that a fetus is a person, even though I believe that it is. Legally defining when or if a fetus is considered a person is crucial.

Talk about a no-brainer. A human fetus has less wit and intellect then a field mouse. Is a field mouse a person?

A human infant at birth is not a person, by this criterion, therefore it does not have any more rights than its mother chooses to give it. A human infant is the product of its mother's body and has no autonomous sentience. Therefore it does not have rights. Having rights is as much a matter of physiological capability as it is of law. A human infant, therefore a human fetus does not have enough functioning brain tissue and neural interconnection to have rights.

Since a fetus, or even a newborn infant is not a person, what is it? One thing for sure, it is the -property- of its mother. Her body produced it using nourishment that her biology provided. A fetus is essentially -a crop- growing inside a women. It grows in -her soil- (so to speak) therefore she owns it and has the right to dispose of it as she sees fit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I see you have an absolutist, no-holds-bared philosophy. You can't, by your lights, prove any of this, of course, just like Ayn Rand.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I see you have an absolutist, no-holds-bared philosophy. You can't, by your lights, prove any of this, of course, just like Ayn Rand.

--Brant

A human baby will double its brain mass in six months. They tells me a newborn has half the brains necessary to have autonomous sentience. Why is this the case? It is the case because of the size of a human female vaginal opening. The skull of a newborn must be small enough to pass through. That is why human offspring are literally half baked when they are taken out of the oven. The human infant is less developed relative to its adult state than any other mammal. It is our biological nature that dictates the relative underdevelopment of new born infants. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of biological fact.

We are all born half baked and witless. Nothing that undeveloped and feckless has rights other than those granted by their caretaker.

How do you argue with facts?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aggrad02]

I see you have an absolutist, no-holds-bared philosophy. You can't, by your lights, prove any of this, of course, just like Ayn Rand.

--Brant

A human baby will double its brain mass in six months. They tells me a newborn has half the brains necessary to have autonomous sentience. Why is this the case? It is the case because of the size of a human female vaginal opening. The skull of a newborn must be small enough to pass through. That is why human offspring are literally half baked when they are taken out of the oven. The human infant is less developed relative to its adult state than any other mammal. It is our biological nature that dictates the relative underdevelopment of new born infants. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of biological fact.

We are all born half baked and witless. Nothing that undeveloped and feckless has rights other than those granted by their caretaker.

How do you argue with facts?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Philosophically to say "We are born" implies that "we" existed before the act of birth or at least came to exist at the time of birth. And the Constitution protects the rights of all human beings (Bill of Rights and the 14th admendment).

[Wolf DeVoon]

Talk about a no-brainer... it is the -property- of its mother.

I agree. Your position is a no-brainer.

Re property:

Before we can exchange tokens of ownership (money), we need to agree upon a principle of ownership. In previous writing, I suggested that the only thing a person owns outright is his or her liberty. If mankind are truly free, in a de facto sense, then no property claim can be absolute or legally negate the liberty of others. The most we can do is to possess and defend "property" by force. Indeed, this is descriptive of the world, ancient and modern. Might makes wealth. The strongest and brightest typically succeed in smothering all other claims to property and privilege, when they choose to wage economic war. Property news item

Re custody:

Children and morons have a right to be heard [in a court of law] if they cry out within earshot of a doctor, lawyer, or extended family member. Kids and dumbbells have the right of innocent liberty from birth. Custody is not a first principle, and it is always challengeable. The Rule of Law

Michael was correct, property in humans is slavery.

W.

Edited July 15, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael was correct, property in humans is slavery.

W.

Property in -human persons- might be slavery. A newborn human is not yet a person. It hasn't enough brains and neural interconnection to be a person. And surely a fetus is not a person. It has no rights.

Ba'al Chatzaff

[Wolf DeVoon]

A newborn human is not yet a person... And surely a fetus is not a person. It has no rights.

Give it up. Live births are recorded by law, i.e., legal personhood from their first breath. Regarding abortion if we absolutely must talk about it:

If I understand it correctly, the innovation attributed to Jesus of Nazareth was peace on earth, extended to the lame and the morally corrupt (if they repent and sin no more). Yet bugs are vilified. Some pariahs don't get any respect. We rightly regard pests as enemies, like toxic baccilli and mold. But there are few toxic, homicidal human babies or adult morons. Are they granted food and shelter by right or at our individual moral discretion? Is there a universal right to life, human or otherwise? Well, yes, as a matter of legal philosophy. If you kill someone, he/she can't appear in court to argue his/her side of the controversy...

I hereby certify that the law cannot catch or deter a clever evildoer. That's not the purpose of law, which exists first as a means of restraining mob violence, ignorant prejudice, and statist tyranny. If we apprehend a callous predator, from time to time, that's laudatory. But ending systemic, wholesale injustice is far more urgent, especially the heavy lifting of securing constitutional rights, which are few in number -- no summary punishment, fair trial by jury, no perjury, no secret evidence, and the right of appeal to ensure fundamental fairness.

To the clever predator, who does as he pleases without fear of coffee-sipping, donut-munching lawyers and cops, I suggest a review of moral purpose. Thy will be done. If you kill babies and torture morons, you will live the rest of your days in an irreversible interior hell of your own making, a black madness in perpetual fear of discovery, which will happen sooner or later. There are very few serial killers at large, except cattle ranchers and hog producers and flag-waving, stupified, weary, ultimately doomed armies of occupation. There is no ethical free ride.

As you can imagine, I needed to have a policy on [abortion]. The way I solved it was to propose that women be exempt from the criminal law and put in charge of law enforcement, to end male 'input' on abortion and domestic violence. This generally went over like a lead balloon, but I still think it's the correct solution. Women and men have contrary political purposes. The Rule of Law

Edited July 15, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Brant Gaede]

I see you have an absolutist, no-holds-bared philosophy. You can't, by your lights, prove any of this, of course, just like Ayn Rand.

--Brant

A human baby will double its brain mass in six months. They tells me a newborn has half the brains necessary to have autonomous sentience. Why is this the case? It is the case because of the size of a human female vaginal opening. The skull of a newborn must be small enough to pass through. That is why human offspring are literally half baked when they are taken out of the oven. The human infant is less developed relative to its adult state than any other mammal. It is our biological nature that dictates the relative underdevelopment of new born infants. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of biological fact.

We are all born half baked and witless. Nothing that undeveloped and feckless has rights other than those granted by their caretaker.

How do you argue with facts?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm not arguing with facts, I am merely pointing out that when you mix them up with "morality" and "rights" you are claiming absolutist philosophical views which you view as essentially unprovable. Or am I confusing you with Dragonfly?

--Brant

Edited July 16, 2007 by Brant Gaede