Why McCain and not Obama


Recommended Posts

If you vote for McCain or Obama, then do not complain about the trillion-dollar ripoff.

Chris,

This is a double standard. If you apply this to people who face the election as it exists, you certainly have to apply it to economics as it exists.

Thus I could say, "If you use United States currency in buying your groceries, then do not complain about the government's economic policies. You thus sanction all the evils in the USA economic system."

Obviously, this is so oversimplified that it is painful. But that applies to your oversimplification as well.

Just because you vote for a viable candidate, that does not mean you vote for everything the government has done nor everything the candidate proposes. It is perfectly reasonable to have a specific purpose in mind, just like it is when you use tainted currency in a tainted system (by your standard) to buy groceries.

I make the case for trying to alleviate the coming inflation with my support of McCain. I don't see how inflation can be stopped. And I am beginning to realize that people here in America have no real idea of what it means, nor do they think it will happen.

I should have seen that coming, though. The entire current social-economic fabric is woven with debt used as a commodity. Now people are wondering why it is imploding. It couldn't do otherwise because debt is not a commodity.

Inflation coming from massive government spending and massive government bailouts is kinda like that, especially now that debt will no longer inject expanding currency into the economy, at least not on the scale it used to.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is a repeat of another post I just made. Just being biased. :)

Biden Angered By Tough Questions

After all the crap the MSM has thrown at Palin in her face, even grossly misrepresenting an article so an interviewer could practically ask her if she was stupid, etc., I really feel sorry for Biden's offended sensibilities. WFTV newswoman Barbara West (Orlando) was a bit slanted in her questioning, but she dared ask Biden to his face what nobody will ask. Isn't "spread the wealth" rooted in Karl Marx? Hats off to her.

Here's the blurb on YouTube:

The Obama campaign whined about WFTV being "unprofessional" when it dared to dish out some tough questions to Vice President hopeful, Joe Biden.

The Obama spokesperson issued this statement about the interview:

"There's nothing wrong with tough questions, but reporters have the very important job of sharing the truth with the public -- not misleading the American people with false information. Senator Biden handled the interview well; however, the anchor was completely unprofessional. Senator Biden's wife is not running for elected office, and there are many other stations in the Orlando television market that would gladly conduct a respectful and factual interview with her."

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I have not been on this board for a while (I'm afraid) and I want to make it clear that I still love this forum.

I am replying in this thread because I believe you have raised an important point. However, I wish to make clear that as much as I understand the reasoning behind your decision and can understand why you would come to such a conclusion (thus, I do not think you are being irrational), I disagree with your position.

I will state first that if I were an American Citizen, I'd be voting for Bob Barr. He may be a moderate libertarian (he is no longer that sadistic atheist-hating drug-warrior neo-nazi we knew from when he was in the house), but unfortunately moderates are more attractive than principled candidates and I'd rather a moderate libertarian than a moderate conservative or a moderate leftist (I refuse to call them 'liberals' since it is the libertarians that are the true liberals).

Now, as for your position, you reasoning is as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): Obama will create more inflation than McCain, Inflation is the largest problem facing the US, therefore Obama is the greater of two evils.

I agree with you that both candidates are "two evils" and I also agree that inflation is a monumental problem for the US. I import a lot of stuff from the US, and inflation in America is the last thing I want given how the Australian Dollar's exchange rate has recently plunged against the US Dollar. However, I disagree with the proposition that Obama will create more inflation than McCain. I concede I am only speculating about what is most likely to happen, but I do believe that it is more likely for McCain to create more inflation.

There are two ways to fund government: printing money or taxation. Republicans tend to be more wary of raising taxes than Democrats and thus they would be more likely to inflate to raise money than to raise taxes. In addition, McCain is more interventionist than Obama (I concede, Obama is likely more interventionist than many of his anti-war followers). Since War is expensive, it has to be paid for, and there are only two ways to do this: inflation or taxation. Given McCain's Republican-ness, he is more likely to do the former.

Also, lets look at the opportunity costs of social programs versus war. Social programs are almost always a net loss, they are run inefficiently and they are nearly always inferior to their market-based alternatives. However, they at least produce SOME level of return (even if the net benefit is negative). War, on the other hand, produces no return at all, except if the war is in self-defense (and Iraq does not, in my judgement, fall under that category). Thus, I would say the opportunity costs of social programs are probably a bit better (note the "probably a bit") than those of war.

So overall, Michael, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of McCain vs Obama.

Additionally, with the chance of McCain dying in office, a vote for him seems like a vote for Palin, and as bad as Obama and McCain both are, Palin is by far much worse. She is so disgracefully anti-rational, anti-human, anti-capitalist (her constant hymns to the glory of small town virtue do not sit well with big-city, 'sin'-encouraging capitalism) and just plain demented that she is a few rungs lower than all the alternatives.

Make no mistake, I do not like Obama or Biden. Obama is a centrist-pragmatist (although he is not (anymore) the hardline marxist he once was... read any issue of The Economist that looks at his advisors, their credentials are all impeccably moderate-market (and have stated to The Economist multiple times that Obama's anti-NAFTA statements are driven by pandering-to-the-electors (i.e. they are lies) and not honest conviction)), and Biden is a Unionist Trial-Lawyer. Both suck. But in the debate over who sucks least, I would say Obama, ever-so-slightly.

I do, however, respect your reasoning behind your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

Fo me it is very hard to see Sara Palin as Vice President. And I cant understand How McCain choose this lady,

and that is why I think he has a really less IQ comparing to Obama.Also shows that he lacks also self-confidence.

Because people with lack of self-confidence they look for people similar to them.

I understand your point about "spread of wealth"....But I dont think Obama can or want(it is not in his interest) to transform US to a socialist conutry.

I want to comapre also regarding 2 issue.(Econimical growth and foreign policy against Iran) the Republican and Democrats.

me as a non-american what I see is

1..During Clinton presidency US was only growing econimically. while as during Bush presidency(also his father) you know better.

2..Historically and paradoxically I would prefer to say why Mollah suffer much much more during Demcrat presidency.

For all respect that I have for Reigan but it was a shame his policy with Iran.

and I dont know why(I say in in this way) why Mullah had a lot of confidence during Bush presidency?!!!!!!!!!!

I think it is time to look at everything deeper.

I dont have really any preferance about Republinan and Democrats...

I prefer Reigan to Carter but Clinton to Bush and now I think in this period 2008 to 2009 at least McCain is out of question.

Shahram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, as for your position, you reasoning is as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): Obama will create more inflation than McCain, Inflation is the largest problem facing the US, therefore Obama is the greater of two evils.

Andrew,

This is incorrect in a few key aspects, although it is true that Obama's policies will create more inflation than McCain's.

1. I have stated that I am proud of the high quality of the two candidates. I stand by this. Sure, both played the game to get where they are and have their fair share of blemishes, but I sense that both are committed to principles of doing good. I also believe that common sense plays a strong part in those principles, so this tempers any fanaticism. Obama comes from the left and McCain comes from the right, both both are fundamentally aligned on many issues dead center. If you are in the center, it doesn't matter how you got there. You are still in the center.

Whichever candidate becomes President, his administration will be more of a centrist orientation than a leftist or rightist one in actual deeds and not just rhetoric. I don't find the center bad when I look at what the excesses of the extremes have caused. Frankly, I consider the extremists I have seen to be absolutely nuts. (I speak politically, not idealogically.)

In a different political scenario than today's, I might think differently. But I have no illusions about the capacity of all people to make horrible choices, especially if they become involved in one side or another of a power structure. So I am a big fan of checks and balances. Bravo to our Founding Fathers for lasting wisdom.

In this sense, I do not see the glass half empty. I do not see this election as a choice between the lesser of two evils. I see it as a choice between the greater of two good men.

2. Nowhere did I say that inflation is the largest problem facing the USA. I do believe it is a serious upcoming problem that people are currently ignoring, just as they ignored what would happen when powerful people started repackaging bad debt and selling it almost like a separate commodity. The public cry was not against the impending catastrophe. Those who did cry out were treated as kooks, conspiracy nuts, unreal idealists, or just plain quirky. The public cry was that people wanted more. Well they got it. Here we are. Notice that reality will not be ignored.

The same goes for upcoming inflation. The law of causality exists, even when there are complicated inputs. Rand, in writing about a book on Kant, once stated something to the effect of looking down the centuries, pointing to the wars and large scale misery that has constantly erupted in human history, then pointing to Kant's ideas and saying "this leads to that." If we can get the issue away from Kant and focus just on the ideas she was talking about, this is true. When you divorce reason from knowledge, then base your laws of human conduct on that quality of knowledge, anything goes. Those with an aggressive bent will cash in on it and the masses will follow.

So when I see high government spending and taxing the rich openly proposed, I look to the future. I see that government spending will increase even more, especially after the first increase precedent "takes," and the rich will find loopholes or migrate their money out of the country. The only place the money can then come from is taking it from the less rich and devaluing the currency. I look at all this and say, "This will lead to that." I don't see how this cannot not happen. I have lived with this up close for over 30 years. (btw - Brazil got out of high inflation. Guess how? They privatized government stuff, thus cutting down on spending, stopped all that borrowing and reformed taxes.)

3. Getting back to the issue of the largest problem facing the USA, there are several severe problems, not just one. My position is that I don't see much of a change in any of these problems (except for future inflation) regardless of which candidate wins. So I am indifferent to both candidates in analyzing these problems irrespective of their campaign rhetoric. (I do admit Obama's Marxist sentiment gives me great pause.) I think they will hover around the center in practice. This does not mean I am indifferent to the problems or think they are less important than inflation. I am simply indifferent to these candidates to impact the problems in a manner different than anyone else in the center would.

This even includes the war in Iraq and American military presence overseas. Obama wants to set a timetable for withdrawal, but in practice, I do not believe it would happen as he plans. McCain wants total victory there, but he will eventually get out. The centrist drift is to get out with honor and both will. If somehow both were allowed to become President in parallel universes, I wager that both would get out at approximately the same time.

I don't see this sameness with inflation. There I do see a real difference between Obama and McCain, and even then, I see it as a matter of degree and not kind. But the degree is big and honking.

4. I don't know enough about Barr to comment intelligently on him. At this stage of the election, the Libertarian party does not have a chance in this election. I didn't see signs of it before, either, so I never became interested. (I did register as a Libertarian when I got my Florida driver's license on returning to the USA, so I guess I am on record somewhere in their files, but I have no intention of getting involved or voting Libertiarian as a crusade unless matters change greatly.) Even Ron Paul ran as a Republican. I don't care much for devoting time, money and energy to ineffective organizations. I do know that voting for Barr is essentially the same thing as not voting in terms of what the final outcome will be in the present election. This is a gesture that I refuse to make. I actually do want to make a difference in this election.

I hope that clarifies my views a bit more.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Palin is not fit to be President issue, I think she is.

Nothing prepared her to be Governor, but she became one. A damn good one who wielded power effectively and produced results—very good results when compared against her predecessors. And, as icing to that cake, she is one of the most popular Governors in the country.

If she becomes President, she'll do just fine. The elite will hate her, but they hate any outsider they did not groom.

I don't agree with Sarah Palin on some things, but she is a good person. I look at her deeds and see this, but it also radiates from her charisma. I like good people.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Palin is not fit to be President issue, I think she is.

Nothing prepared her to be Governor, but she became one. A damn good one who wielded power effectively and produced results—very good results when compared against her predecessors. And, as icing to that cake, she is one of the most popular Governors in the country.

If she becomes President, she'll do just fine. The elite will hate her, but they hate any outsider they did not groom.

I don't agree with Sarah Palin on some things, but she is a good person. I look at her deeds and see this, but it also radiates from her charisma. I like good people.

Michael

Thankyou for clarifying your views. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

However, I do think you are being excessively optimistic about Governor Palin. Note, that I do not condemn you for this optimism... it is one of the traits that is quite distinctive about your attitude to Objectivism, in that you assume the best in people will win out (except in very extreme cases). I can often assume this but upon the subject of Governor Palin, I cannot assume she is a good person. She has been indicted for abuse of power (Troopergate). She is militantly pro-life and antifederalist (she supports constitutional ammendments to ban gay marriage and abortion). You, as a supporter of checks and balances, should be quite scared about what she might do to these checks and balances.

Regarding taxing the rich and government spending, if the tax hikes are enough to fund the government expenditure then no inflation will occur. What will happen is that investment will slow down (as income goes up, Marginal Propensity to Invest goes up, thus taxing the rich does disproportionately affect the amount of money invested. This sucks, agreed, but it is not inflation. Of course, if credit expansion ALSO occurs along with the spending you will be correct, but Democrats usually don't have the aversion to tax hikes that Republicans do, and as such I think Obama would be more likely to avoid having to print money to fund his promises (I admit, this is not certain, I just think it is more likely that Obama wouldn't have to inflate to fund his spending binge).

Also, McCain's policies are, in my judgement, also inflationary. The Republican aversion to tax hikes plus the potentially higher level of, ahem, 'defense' spending McCain would make compared to Obama would suggest to me that the inflation under McCain would be worse.

Looking at Obama's advisors, I see a team with all the standard faults of current popular economic wisdom. They aren't different to the current crowd, nor are McCain's. Obama's pseudo-Marxism seems, to me, purely populist. And McCain has entertained the rhetoric as well, damning Wall Street for "greed" very frequently.

Whilst Im not trying to forgive Obama's lunacy (I support dissecting all of his problems and exposing him to philosophical scrutiny), I think that Obama is more likely to be a moderate, relatively innoffensive president, than McCain is (or Palin would be). I concede, I may be wrong, I'm simply going on the basis of what I have seen and read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew,

I do admit that Sarah Palin might not be very... er... sympathetic to Gothics...

:)

Well, I don't think that "the goth community" ever was a large constituency, but you are probably right. After Columbine the Christian Right basically framed us goths as public enemy number one. We were cast as a child-corrupting cult out to make your children renounce god and accept satan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael: "I see it as a choice between the greater of two good men."

"I have stated that I am proud of the high quality of the two candidates."

Just for reference, has there ever been a case where, at the time of the election of non-incumbents, you thought that one of them was not a "good man" or not "high quality"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

The coming inflation is baked into the system and cannot or will not be vitiated. Frankly, the only good thing about Obama is he's intelligent and he might pull a rabbit out of his hat. However, he's essentially empty-headed and the empty-headed electorate is his natural constituency. I think of all the stupid/passive/non-thinking kids I went to school with and how many grew up to be teachers teaching the next generation to be even dumber and how this public-education avalanche is finally over-whelming American politics.

It doesn't matter how "good" the candidates are; being "bad" is like running around naked with ugly bodies and nobody's that stupid except certain naturalists who only associate with the like-minded. It's how good and bad policies and ideologies are. It's doing good, whatever that is, not bad. It's not getting educated in foreign policy with the price of New York City being blown up.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**Voting for President Essentialized**

Since politicians lie, pander, or are confused there is only one thing to consider when choosing between Obama and McCain: What is he likely to -do- as President.

To use language from the physics course I'm teaching, a President's choices are a 'vector sum' of the following forces:

1) His actual convictions or political philosophy (help the poor, keep people free, be loved abroad, carry the fight to the terrorists)

2) What his advisors convince him of (you have to study the people he has kept around him in the past)

3) Domestic politics (what Congress will go along with, what the press is shouting, what the people seem to be willing to accept).

Number one is measured by what the man said and did *before* he started running for President. You can take everything since then and almost completely disregard it.

Number two is important because no man is an expert in every area and he must rely heavily on what people tell him. And past advisors are likely to be somewhat predictive of future advisors.

Number three is the least easy to predict. And depends on whether he is weathervane who moves with the prevailing breezes or a tough-minded person who will often not take the easy course.

In the case of Obama, 1) and 2) seem much worse than for McCain on most issues. Domestic: Regulation, Spending, Taxes. Foreign: Appeasement vs. Strength and Willingness to Stop Iran and Terrorism. Those are the five LIFE AND DEATH / FREEDOM VS. SLAVERY issues for the next five or ten years.

Don't even THINK about voting for President based on any other issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael: "I see it as a choice between the greater of two good men."

"I have stated that I am proud of the high quality of the two candidates."

Just for reference, has there ever been a case where, at the time of the election of non-incumbents, you thought that one of them was not a "good man" or not "high quality"?

Dennis,

Bush (the younger) versus Gore. Two old-boy crony politicians.

I didn't like either.

I consider old-boy crony politics to be poor quality. Personal profit for their tribe always takes precedence over all other considerations.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studakent; Sarah Palin was not indicted for Trooper Gate. She would be facing a trial. She isn't. Since you are from outside the US I can see how you might get your facts wrong.

I agree with Michael and think that if Gov. Palin is elected Vice President she will do just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I just posted elsewhere on OL. I will be adding a transcript later.

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

From the blurb:

Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!

In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth!!!

This Video Exposes the radical underneath the rhetoric!!!

More coming.

Michael

EDIT:

My source of the YouTube link:

DrudgeObamaRedistOfWealth.jpg

Doubts anyone?

EDIT AGAIN: Transcript of the video here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the video in post #27. When asked about Obama wanting to spread the wealth around, Joe Biden responds. "The only person who has spread the wealth around has been George Bush and John McCain's tax policy. They have devastated the middle class. For the first time since the late 1920's 1% of the American people make over 21% of all the income in America. That wasn't the way before George Bush became President." A bit later Biden says: "He [Obama] is not spreading the wealth around. He's talking about the middle class getting the tax breaks they use to have."

Biden is a demagogue and spreading falsehoods. While the share of income of the top 1% or the top quintile has risen in recent years, it is as much or more due to new entrants in the lowest quintile (probably to a great extent Hispanic immigrants) than those at the top earning more.

Here is a simplified example to illustrate. In the following two sets of data the incomes for 100 people are identical. The only difference in people and incomes is that the 2nd set adds 10 people with low incomes. But look at the shares column. Shares of income are higher in the second set for the 4th and highest quintiles, despite no change in income for the individuals. (In the second set each quintile has 22 people.)

people income quintile share

20 ...... 15900 .... Low ..... 3.7%

20 ...... 37400 .... 2nd ..... 8.7%

20 ...... 58500 .... Middle . 13.7%

20 ...... 85200 .... 4th ..... 19.9%

20 ..... 231300 ... High .... 54.0%

people income quintile share

10 ...... 12000 ... Low ..... 3.6%

20 ...... 15900 .... 2nd ..... 7.5%

20 ...... 37400 ... Middle . 13.4%

20 ...... 58500 .... 4th .... 20.4%

20 ...... 85200 ... High ... 55.2%

20 .... 231300

Another comparison is worth noting. The shares of the 2nd and middle quintiles are less in the 2nd set. Hence, it appears that "the middle class is worse off." That is clearly not the case. The relevant people have the same income in each set.

On an ROR thread Michael Marotta gave a link to some income and tax statistics. Have a look at the numbers in Table 1C of the Excel file on the linked page for shares of pre-tax or after-tax income. I think my explanation above largely explains the trends in the numbers. Table 1A also shows that the effective individual income tax rate for the middle quintile has been on a steady decline since 1981. Indeed, the effective rates in the Clinton years was 5% or more, and less than 4% in the George Bush years. Table1C also show incomes. The statistics belie Biden's claim.

Incidentally, I conjecture that the pattern of numbers for the highest quintile since 1995 are due to stock market performance, more exactly capital gains and income from exercising employee stock options.

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The transcript of the video in Post 40:

Announcer: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ, Chicago, 91.5 FM. And we're joined by Barack Obama, who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and a senior lecuturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

Obama: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order. And as long as I could pay for it I'd be OK.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more (cer...) basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.

And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as has been interpreted. And [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the States can't do to you, says what the Federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the Federal government or the State government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies the of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

* * * * *

Announcer: Let's talk with Karen. Good morning Karen. You're on Chicago public radio.

Karen: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is, with economic changes, my question... is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?

Announcer: You mean the court?

Karen: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?

Obama: You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributed change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.

* * * * *

Obama: You know you just [at?] look at very rare examples where, during the desegration era, the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local school district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out.

You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

* * * * *

Obama: The court's just not very good at it and politically it's just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I mean I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know I think you can... any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for brining about economic change through the courts.

* * * * *

Joe the Plumber: ... plan's going to tax me more, isn't it?

Obama: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

This thing reads like parts of it were taken whole from Atlas Shrugged.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any presence in any country? Or just presences you disagree with? And what if the military presence is of critical self defense value and voluntarily welcomed by the host nation which is a representative free nation?

I disagree with a military presence in all countries. It's just the same way that I don't ask my neighbor to keep my guns in his house.

Even when it is of strategic value to both you and your neighbor? That is naive. It is the proper function of a government to provide self defense, and it is proper to combine resources with allies who have a harmony of interests to do so. It is murderously stupid to not recognize common values with allies (even if they do not share every single value) and act in co-operation with them against common enemies.

So it should ignore absolutely everything that goes on in every other country, lest it is an 'empire' in your eyes. Shall we build a giant wall, close our borders, and look only inward?

That's a straw man. I have never advocated any such thing. Rand herself understood the connection between foreign trade and peace. I do as well. It means commerce and trade with everyone, just like Jefferson advocated in his first inaugural address. Governments don't trade. Countries don't trade. Individuals and businesses do.

Great, so if I manufacture stinger missiles, as an individual, can I go ahead and sell those to the taliban? If I run a nuclear power plant, can I sell weapons grade uranium or plutonium to the highest bidder, even if it's a murderous tyrant who wants to build a nuclear bomb and attack a major US city?

And it's no straw man, you specifically saw we should 'mind our own business' that means, explicitly, not only not interfereing with the affairs of other nations, but ignoring those affairs.

Free trade with murderous tyrannies?

This is up to the people doing the trading. Individuals and businesses trade.

If it is a proper function of the government to provide self defense, how is enabling the armament of enemies not a violation of that?

Free trade with murderous tyrannies which invade our allies?

I generally don't believe in alliances. I do believe in goodwill. Individuals and businesses engaging in free commerce promotes goodwill. It also promotes our ideals and makes murderous tyrannies less likely.

You form an alliance with your neighbor in paying for police to protect your neighboorhood. Even though a thug didn't mug YOU, your money is still used to apprehend, sequester, and punish him. Why? He didn't attack YOU? he attacked someone else, why should you care! Because it is in your own rational self interest to oppose any violations of rights on your neighbor punish those who commit those crimes. To not do so would mean a thug is free as long as he actually kills his victim. To not do so actually encourages the violent violation of rights by thugs. Similarly, it is in your own long term rational self interest to recognize the harmony of interests you have with neighboring *countries* that share the same earth that you exist on, and allying with the oppose and punish perpetrators of violent crimes, assaults, or wars, is as rational and proper as allying with your neighbor to do so against a thug who never touched you.

If the United States had adopted your 'alliance free' and 'mind your own business' ideas during the cold war we would today be a client state of the soviet union.

Of course, how would we even know if they were a murderous tyranny or invading our allies if we can't 'poke our nose' in other places.

I take my car to a mechanic to get the oil changed. I don't care if the mechanic is male or female, white or non-white, young or old, straight or gay. I only care that the mechanic does the job.

Oh, and maybe your mechanic did a good job on YOUR car, but screws over everyone else. And so we develop as system, with our neighbors, in alliance with them, to rate and judge the competency of your mechanic. Lets say you are jewish, and your mechanic a neo-nazi, every dollar you pay him to fix your car goes into making life for you, and probably many people you care about, more difficult. Who cares though, he doesnt know your jewish, and he fixes your car well! In your alliance free world, I can be a murderous scumbag, rape, molest, and kill your neighbor, then, with blood dripping from my hands, smile and offer to mow your lawn. "How much?" you'll say "Just don't get any blood on my lawn"

Perhaps we should sell nuclear bombs to Islamic terrorists?

Selling munitions automatically makes you an ally in any war. I personally don't sell any nuclear bombs. In this sense, I don't think the US Government should sell munitions to anyone.

So can private US citizens sell nuclear bombs to terrorists and enemies of our nation?

Now, if Joe the Farmer wants to sell or give cabbages and lettuce to Islamic terrorists, I don't care. A food fight would be better than nuclear war anyway. In that same sense, if an American nuclear scientist wants to go to work for them, that's his business.

Sure, but what if he BUILDS nuclear bombs HERE, and sells them to those islamic terrorists. Hey, Free Trade you say.

So does the independent individualist or the productive man of rational self interest, inspire hatred from most everyone else around the world. Does that mean he should not be an independent individualist, or a productive man acting in rational self interest?

Here we go with Objectivist martyrdom. It's a psychological confession. bla bla bla

That's not the point, the point is whether or not people like you is completely irrelevant to whether or not what you are doing is right. You draw no distinction. You can be doing everything right, as a nation, or a person, and many people will still hate you.

So lets imagine ourselves in 1979, and instead of invading Afghanastan, the Soviet Union actually invades Canada.

Let's deal with reality instead. The Soviet Union puts missiles in Cuba. In that isolated context, I do think John F Kennedy acted correctly. The "crisis" was over without firing a shot. More significantly, the Soviets threw out the guy who was responsible for it. Above all, it showed that they really didn't want a war.

Because our "allies" let us put nuclear missiles on the doorstep of the soviet union without our 'allies' which you don't believe we should have, we would have had no bargaining position with which to get the soviet union to remove their nuclear missiles from their allies from our doorstep. In your alliance free isolationist world, the soviet union would have laughed, and said 'ha, what will you do if I do not remove my missiles, not sell me things?'

In the case of an invasion of Canada, it wouldn't work. There is too much land. It actually would have brought down the Soviet Union faster than the invasion of Afghanistan would have. The system couldn't sustain an empire, as it clearly showed. The US wouldn't have had to do anything.

More of that inept libertarian fantasy world which conveniently ignores the historical fact that virtually EVERYWHERE the United States could oppose and contain communism it did so, and THAT more than anything else contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the height of the Vietnam war, fully half of the Soviet Union's GDP was going into that conflict, our's never passed over 6%. Today the areas which make up the former Soviet Union consist of 6% of the worlds population and yet only 3% of it's GDP. The US, at 5% of the worlds population, makes over 20% of the Worlds GDP. Every dollar spent to fight the Soviet Union cost the soviet union over $10 to combat. Same for Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc etc etc. The only reason the US and the USSR avoided an outright war was because they fought them in every other country. Your 'alliance free' dream world would have let the soviet union take over every single other country on the planet (which was it's explicit goal and one of it's founding principles) until the US could pose not threat whatsoever. Not that you would even know that the entire world had become a rights crushing totalitarian regime, because you would be 'minding your own business' and selling them the very goods and weapons they will use to defeat and enslave you.

Communism wasn't productive. The less productive a country is, the less likely it is to succeed in war.

And yet it steamrolled through about 1/4 of the nations on the planet, invaded or instigated revolutions in about 1/2 of them, and killed almost 170 million people during it's reign. The reason it's reign lasted less than 100 years and not 1,000 is because it was actively opposed every step of the way by allies with common interests. Sure it would have collapsed eventually, but the feudal religious tyranny of the middle ages took 1,000 years to collapse. I personally see no reason to sit and wait a few hundred years for communism to collapse because it has killed every productive person and devolved humanity into disgusting nihilistic parasites.

I would advocate some preparedness. Putting troops near the Canadian border would certainly be wise.

And putting a base in Canada, and combining forces with Canada to fight this murderous tyranny, would be even wiser. Your foreign policy and alliance free world is murderously naive and suicidal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the several posts I made today, I have just about Obama-bashed out.

I got the essential information about Obama up for those interested in the facts on record and not just the pretty words. See my thread on Hannity's videos. Barbara also posted an extremely pertinent and disturbing article from Mark Levin: The Obama Temptation.

Barring a major change of some sort, like Obama's redistribution of the wealth interview that emerged today, I will not be posting much more on this. I have to get back to work. (I know I won't be able to avoid quips, but that is another matter.)

I still consider Obama someone in the Center who got there from the Far Left. In his campaign speeches today he emphasized common sense over ideology. I prefer a principled person, but in someone like him, I find common sense over principle a plus. Also, his demeanor is very reasonable and I expect that to continue regardless of which way the election goes. The problem is that Obama might gravitate back to where he came from if he gets in power and gets real comfortable. I do know he has favors outstanding and will have to pay a few. We all know they will lean left.

My opinion that McCain will result in some inflation and Obama will result in high inflation is unchanged. I admit, though, that I am more disturbed now about an Obama Presidency than I was a few days ago.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the several posts I made today, I have just about Obama-bashed out.

I got the essential information about Obama up for those interested in the facts on record and not just the pretty words. See my thread on Hannity's videos. Barbara also posted an extremely pertinent and disturbing article from Mark Levin: The Obama Temptation.

Barring a major change of some sort, like Obama's redistribution of the wealth interview that emerged today, I will not be posting much more on this. I have to get back to work. (I know I won't be able to avoid quips, but that is another matter.)

I still consider Obama someone in the Center who got there from the Far Left. In his campaign speeches today he emphasized common sense over ideology. I prefer a principled person, but in someone like him, I find common sense over principle a plus. Also, his demeanor is very reasonable and I expect that to continue regardless of which way the election goes. The problem is that Obama might gravitate back to where he came from if he gets in power and gets real comfortable. I do know he has favors outstanding and will have to pay a few. We all know they will lean left.

My opinion that McCain will result in some inflation and Obama will result in high inflation is unchanged. I admit, though, that I am more disturbed now about an Obama Presidency than I was a few days ago.

Michael

Michael, Obama's emphasis of "common sense over ideology" is an echo of the PRAGMATISM of the 60s. Re-read Rand's "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus." I work 5 days a week in a band, several of which are rabid liberals (some frothing more than others), and part of their current schtick is that ideology (i.e., principle) is dangerous, divisive, and destructive, and that we need to solve problems, "find what works," and be "pragmatic." Sound like Obama's "common sense"? Yup.

Also, bear in mind that if Obama is ~truly~ pragmatic and "common sense," rather than a closet ideologue (wanna put money on that??), then he will be pushed strongly to the Left by those who ~are~ principled statists. Forget about his obligations and debts. Just consider Rand's insight that the more consistent person in a dispute will win, and you have to fear for the triumvirate that we are on the verge of electing. Who among principled individualists, let alone conservatives, will balance this influence, and how?

Also, I ~guarantee~ you that if Obama is elected, then in 2-3 years, when the economy is ~further~ damaged by their insane policies, there will be a big push to nationalize one or more industries. (Precedent in the financial sector, don't you know.) When we and ARI and CATO and Rush and Hannity speak up, what will happen to us? Not long after the big push for nationalization, there will be a big push for censorship and/or suppression of dissent. Then perhaps it will be time to shrug -- or revolt.

Maybe the electorate will come to its senses next Tuesday, and it will be "morning in America" once more. We'll see.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a comment on the question of integrity and deceit.

I recently saw an interview with Curt Schilling, the Red Sox pitcher and he made an interesting comment that resonated with my inner Objectivist strings.

He mentioned that integrity means doing the right thing even when no one is looking. Whether one agrees with all of McCain's views or not, he is very forthcoming about his principles and I have no doubt whatsoever he will act on them with the lights on or off. He is a man of principle to the core. In a torture chamber in Vietnam he did what he thought was right when no one was looking and it cost him more torture and confinement. But he did it.

That, I submit, is acting on principle.

We see Obama denying and minimizing the ugly parts of his past. We also see a strong pure left-wing consistency in his past that he downplays. He was not caught saying empty campaign talk with the Joe the Plumber incident. His core values were exposed. He even lives in the same multi-million dollar neighborhood with some really ugly leftist people. This is not just coincidence. He moved there on purpose and they helped him do it.

(See the videos I put up that document this.)

In effect, the feeling I get with Obama is that the electors will vote for one thing and get another. I am more and more coming to the conclusion that he will act strongly on his agenda if he gets power and will keep cooking up shaggy dog stories to tell to the public to cover his purpose.

It has become very faddish for USA Presidents to not be too concerned with aligning their words with their deeds, whether Clinton making a bald-face lie about Lewinsky or Bush's smokescreens to cover cronyism. Obama is merely cashing in on what others have prepared for him. People are used to it.

Well I lived in Brazil where this is all you get and I am not used to it. Not in a USA President. Reagan didn't have that problem. What you saw is what you got. You may not have liked what you got at times, but there was no doubt it was what you saw.

McCain has that. Obama does not.

Here is how this difference plays out in a practical ugly matter, especially for Objectivists and libertarians. Both McCain and Obama voted for the $700 billion bailout, pork and all. Both said it was for an emergency and both want to fix the emergency. But there the similarity ends. McCain wants nothing more from that money than fix the emergency. On the Obama side, I get an image of hungry statists salivating over the precedent and using it to jockey for more and more and more. Look at all the campaigns right now for more bailouts.

In a recent interview on "Meet the Press," Brokaw tried to push McCain into a corner with the automobile industry currently asking for $15 billion. McCain's answer was that they haven't even received the $25 billion in loans assigned to them yet, so the best course is to get that to them, then see. I believe this is what he will do, too. Does anybody have any doubt that Obama's people would be in a back-room cutting a nasty deal over this and scheming about what to say to the public?

I fully believe that there is room for recognizing character in Objectivist ethics, even when some other values conflict. McCain has character and he has integrity, just like Reagan did.

He is reasonable, too. If he can be convinced that something is right when he has believed otherwise or not thought about it too much, he will preach it and act on it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I can not believe that How some people listen to Prank Call From Fake French President

and then don't ask themselves who I am voting for?,,,,,I am sorry but a minimum IQ is necessary sometimes.

And I am surprised how McCain could be so careless to choose her?

Michael really you don't worry about McCain will repeat these type of errors and carelessness.

I am wondering How easily you close you eyes to reality. Closing eyes to reality is not Objectivist Living..

Judging from emotions is not Objectivist Living.

I wonder how some people call themselves objectivist...

Shahram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shahram or whatever the hell you call yourself in your anonymity,

Deep...

Here's a reality check.

The issue in this thread is the election.

Funny how people miss the obvious, ain't it?

:)

Michael

EDIT: I am not a big fan of anonymous sniping, nor making anonymous pranks. I prefer an open and honest view of whom I am addressing. I am sure Palin feels the same. I have little doubt another prankster will have the chance this mediocrity did.

Ah... the vain...

Big vanity... Little actual courage...

Lots of self-deception...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read your last post Michael, very nice!

Michael,

Thank you. There are so many Objectivist people bashing McCain based on a kneejerk understanding of his rhetoric, I am not so surprised to see that they miss something fundamental like character. But it needs to be said.

McCain's character is something I believe Objectivists should emulate, not ignore or bash. To reiterate, he will do the right thing according to his conscious whether anyone is looking or not.

In fact, the more I read about this man, the more I perceive that he is using the wrong words for the concepts he actually holds. When he says a man should serve something larger than himself, he is talking about a chosen moral value. What is the difference between that approach and Rand's idea that one should choose one's values and stand by them through thick and thin?

McCain's idea of country is not just government, but a way of life that involves a whole series of moral issues. He says he serves his country, but he is actually serving his choice of that way of life. His devotion to government is solely to protect that way of life. How is that different than Rand's use of individualism and reason as a way of life she would be willing to give her own life for? Notice that McCain does not say other people should choose your large moral values in life. He makes it clear that this is an individual choice. (Obviously, I leave out the abortion issue in this evaluation.)

Contrary to agreeing with all the McCain bashing by Objectivists I have read, I believe they are thinking with words only. They are especially strong on the slant they give the words from the standard bashes Rand made, and I do not perceive the concepts behind the words in their McCain-bashing arguments.

McCain is a much greater man than Objectivists give him credit for. I do admit that he is not much of an intellectual and has a very poor choice of slogan words. But look at his acts. If you put politics aside, ss Rand would say, metaphysically the man is a valuer. He has a life premise. And I might add, he is a valuer of individual choice. McCain believes in volition as a fundamental premise.

In fact, if you get away from his rhetoric, the majority of McCain's policies (excepting abortion) have volition at root epistemologically, and respect for the volition of individual citizens politically.

And he has character.

Let others bash him. I admire that man. I trust him.

Michael

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