Martin Radwin

From "A Choice of War Criminals", by Arthur Silber. http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/...-criminals.html We have witnessed an ongoing series of monstrous war crimes, a genocide, countless lives destroyed forever -- but to hold even one person responsible would be to engage in "a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus." In his speech tonight, Barack Obama said not a word about holding anyone responsible for these crimes. But as noted above, how could he? He would have to hold himself responsible, too. Besides, if Obama is elected President, it will be time for "unity," and time "to move on." Accountability? Justice? Forget it. And that brings us precisely here: You desperately need to understand this: the next President of the United States, no matter who it is, will enter office knowing that he or she can systematically and regularly authorize torture, order mass murder, direct the United States military to engage in one campaign of criminal conquest and genocide after another, oversee uncountable acts of inhumanity and barbarity -- and he or she will never be challenged or called to account in any manner whatsoever. It may have taken the Bush administration two terms to bring us to the point where such evils are committed and even boasted about in broad daylight, while almost no one even notices -- but this will be where the next President starts. And for this monstrous, unforgivable fact, you can thank the Democrats and those who whore themselves for the Democrats' success in our disgustingly meaningless elections. If you vote for the candidate of one of the two major parties, this is your choice: John McCain, war criminal -- or Barack Obama, war criminal. In view of all this, are people still going to seriously tell me -- are they going to seriously tell me -- that it is crucial to vote for Obama, because McCain is a crazy old man? Why exactly? Are they going to tell me it is critical for Obama to be the next President so that he can systematically and regularly authorize torture, order mass murder, direct the United States military to engage in one campaign of criminal conquest and genocide after another, oversee uncountable acts of inhumanity and barbarity -- and never be challenged or called to account in any manner whatsoever? But, they will whine, Obama would never do that. They may hope he will not, and I hope they are right -- although the prospects are alarming in the extreme -- but he will have the power to do all of it. There is only so much I can stomach, and there are limits to what I will support. I will not vote for a war criminal, especially a war criminal who has insulated himself from all accountability for his own acts. Barring unexpected developments, I refuse to vote for either of these men. They are both vile, cynical, lying, ignoble, contemptible, sickening human beings. I therefore intend to follow a very different course. But one of these men will be the next President. May God have pity on us, and may God have pity on the world.

You have obviously not yet been assimilated into the Borg collective. Perhaps resistance is not so futile after all! Martin

Too bad none of these very intelligent questions will ever be asked. Most mainstream journalists are simply too stupid and/or uninformed to even think of asking any of them. And if any journalist in a position to ask such a question of a presidential candidate or member of congress ever did, he or she would forever after be denied access to any politicians with rank higher than city dog catcher. Mainstream journalism has long since become the provence of ass kissing lap dogs. Radley Balko, fine journalist that he is, has never been granted access to any high-level politician. Neither has James Bovard, a man who is, in my opinion, the greatest journalist of our generation. Neither has ever been invited to any white house press conferences. And they never will be. Martin

In the SOLOP Veitch thread, http://www.solopassion.com/node/4987#comments James Heaps-Nelson writes, "The motive for this voyeuristic glee at Tony Veitch's downfall is hatred of his virtues. Brilliant men will not always be perfect and the soul-sucking mob will always have an insatiable desire to expose their warts in an attempt to destroy their virtues." So this is the only possible motive of anyone believing that Tony Veitch's downfall is a good thing? What about the motive of seeing justice done to a miserable son-of-a-bitch who broke a woman's spine? I guess that in James Heaps-Nelson's world, the only possible motive is envy, not a desire for justice. Isn't justice one of the primary virtues of Objectivism? Later in the thread, Elijah writes, "So she preferred to trouser a six figure sum rather than lay a complaint with the Constabulary...and engaged in subtle blackmail to get the money." So receiving $170,000 in compensation for having her spine broken is "subtle blackmail", rather than meager compensation for being the victim of a despicable act of violence? I wonder whether Elijah would volunteer to have his spine broken in exchange for a $170,000 payment? Martin

"'Whatever they do, I can undo it. Let them build a track - I can come and break it, just like that!' He snapped his fingers. 'Just like breaking a spine!' 'You want to break spines?', she whispered, trembling." Of course, Perigo would vociferously deny that his "sense of life" has anything in common with James Taggart. Martin

Vince was not only a modern day libertarian pioneer and hero, he was also one of the nicest guys you could ever hope to meet. Despite all the incredible work he did building ISIL as the premier international libertarian organization, he never let his great achievements go to his head. He was always eminently friendly and approachable. I used to regularly attend Jeanie and Tim Starr's "Free Exchange" libertarian meetings, which were held every month in San Francisco. Vince was always there; I don't recall him ever missing a Free Exchange meeting. I would always say hello to him and ask him about the progress of ISIL and the status of past or future ISIL conferences. I never did make it to any ISIL conferences, but I always greatly admired Vince and his ability to almost singlehandedly organize these conferences and to bring together libertarian activists and thinkers from around the world. I still remember the time my wife Liz and I went shooting with Vince and some other regular Free Exchange attendees at a shooting range in Hayward. Phil Coates was there at the shooting range with us that day. This was in November, 1999. I would not have recalled the exact time, but Liz was pregnant with our daughter at the time and remembers the event pretty well. Afterward, we all went out for dinner at a Chinese restaurant that she suggested. Liz was talking to me tonight about how warm and friendly Vince always was to her, even though he knew her only casually. That's just the kind of man he was. Vince, we will really miss you! Martin

Some of the ideas that some of their members are pursuing may certainly be "crackpot" ideas. Some of the members are undoubtedly "crackpots" too. But what's interesting about NPA is that most of the members are physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, engineers, and mathematicians, not philosophers. They have a conference every year in which scientific papers are presented on a wide variety of subjects. Some of the members are very distinguished scientists, such as Grote Reber and Halton Arp. The page "Notable Members of the NPA", http://home.comcast.net/~deneb/Notable.htm lists some of the more notable NPA members. These people are not a bunch of orthodox objectivist hacks. I am not, by the way, making an argument from authority here. The fact that some of the members have distinguished themselves in various scientific fields does not mean that they don't have some crackpot ideas. But at least they are arguing for their ideas in the language of science, as in proposing specific scientific tests for their theories, rather than resorting to philosophy to trump science. Martin

Is anyone here familiar with the Natural Philosophy Alliance? From the Natural Philosophy Alliance home page, http://home.comcast.net/~deneb/index.html "The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. Such reforms have long been urgently needed; and yet there is no area of scholarship more stubbornly censorial, and more reluctant to reform itself. Reigning paradigms in physics and cosmology have for many decades been protected from open challenge by extreme intolerance, excluding debate about the most crucial problems from major journals and meetings. But the founding of the NPA in 1994 provided those struggling against this irrationality and intolerance with the strength, visibility, and credibility that comes from numbers and from collaborative, purposeful effort. It has also enabled them to share, expand, and refine their individual knowledge through contact with many other critical scholars, at NPA general meetings--held at least once per year since 1994--and by phone and mail, both postal and electronic. We call the NPA an "alliance" because our members hold a wide variety of different views, yet have joined forces in a common effort. We agree unanimously on little more than that something is drastically wrong in contemporary physics and cosmology, and that a new spirit of open-mindedness is desperately needed in order to correct this situation. Yet we do specialize on certain topics, and broadly share certain evaluations. The great majority of us are intensely critical of special relativity, general relativity, big bang theory, and Copenhagen quantum physics. Revision and/or replacement of Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics is a common theme. Most of us accept some type of an electromagnetic aether. Common to nearly all our critiques, and to the alternative concepts and theories many of us offer, is a very strong emphasis on objectivity and rationality --both accorded very little respect in today's physics--as essential to proper scientific endeavor. "Natural Philosophy" is the name by which "physics" was known in the time of Isaac Newton, and well into the 19th century. We return to it mainly in order to emphasize that the more profound and circumspect approach to nature during those years is needed once again. We seek renewed respect for philosophy, especially for logic; and also for the everyday application of reason and of respect for evidence known as common sense -- which should be considered a foundation for, rather than a contrast to, genuine science. Modern physics regularly disdains both logic and common sense, and prefers interpretations of evidence favoring the bizarre and irrational. The resulting theories reflect the real world much less than they do the special biases of the interpreters--as suggested by the critical movement of constructivism, based largely on the thought of Thomas Kuhn. Other and more logical interpretations of all the same evidence and applications (even of nuclear energy) alleged to confirm special relativity, etc., are quite possible. Our foremost watchword is tolerance . Physics has sunk into its current mess largely because of lack of it, while some other sciences, such as the earth sciences, have made remarkable progress since 1950 by practicing it. Beyond science, we also strongly oppose political, religious, racial, and ethnic bias: for example, our criticisms of special and general relativity do not involve any kind of criticism of Einstein as a person, or of his political and ethical views--or even, in most cases, of his other valuable scientific work. Several NPA members believe that the main benefit of criticizing and replacing special relativity may be--beyond even the likely development of new energy sources this will facilitate--the undermining of the relativism and subjectivism that have increasingly infused many areas of thought over the past century, since the iconoclastic amorality of Nietzsche. It will then become more difficult to support ethical relativism, and to argue that truth and values are not objective, absolute, eternal, and/or rationally based." From the section of the site entitled "Ideas the NPA stands for", http://home.comcast.net/~deneb/Steps.htm "The Natural Philosophy Alliance, quite unlike establishment physics, does not impose any particular ideas on its members, whose ideas are so diverse that generalization about them is very difficult. Aside from virtually unanimous agreement that contemporary cosmology and physics--especially modern or 20th-century physics--are in dire need of a thorough overhaul, and that a much more tolerant spirit than has recently been shown in these fields must be practiced in order to achieve the needed changes, not very much comes close to achieving unanimous approval among NPA members. Nevertheless, certain interests and themes are very widespread, and certain opinions are subscribed to by a very large majority. The central theme that concerns nearly all members, both because of its highly honored position in current dogma and because its rather simple mathematics makes it comparatively easy to deal with, is special relativity (SR). A very large majority in the NPA believe it is seriously flawed, and a clear majority believe it is totally invalid. I earnestly subscribe to the latter view: SR has no validity whatsoever. I agree with most of my NPA colleagues that SR never was valid, never will be valid, and in fact cannot possibly be valid. This viewpoint is so diametrically opposed to that of the vast majority of academic and research physicists in the world today, one of whom once wrote to me that SR is "the most thoroughly proven aspect of human existence," that the contrast boggles the mind. There is no other issue on which the authoritativeness of modern physics can be more effectively challenged; and so I have urged my NPA allies to concentrate our efforts most intensely on criticizing and replacing SR. Some argue that it is far better to spend one's energy promoting a new and better theory, than to concentrate on tearing down an existing one; and yet since we are far from widespread agreement on what alternative theory to promote, it seems that more can be gained by convincing as many as possible of the inadequacy of the current theory, thus enlisting more help in the search for and perfection of a new one. And of course if we in the NPA--and others not in our group--succeed in this seemingly insurmountable task, it will then become much easier to find an audience on a variety of other issues." John E. Chappell, Jr., who wrote this section, goes on to write a series of points disputing the validity of special relativity: "5. REALIZE THAT A GREAT DEAL OF SCIENTIFIC DATA CAN BE INTEREPRETED IN MORE THAN ONE WAY. You only have to consider the sun in the sky to realize this. We even use the language of the long-discarded Ptolemaic theory to describe how it rises, moves, and sets, even though we believe it is really the earth that is moving. Thus both interpretations still live. The question here is not which is correct (and if we took SR truly seriously, we would have to cast this matter into doubt again), but simply the fact that there are two possible interpretations. The 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment can be interpreted in at least four other ways that do not support SR. Every last experimental test and technological application alleged to confirm SR, including the CERN meson lifetime experiments and nuclear energy, can definitely be reinterpreted in terms of other, more objective and logical, theories. 6. PHYSICISTS TODAY OFTEN MISINTERPRET THE MEANING OF WELL-KNOWN EXPERIMENTS, EVEN THOUGH THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION IS EASILY AVAILABLE IN THE BASIC LITERATURE. The best example of this phenomenon occurs when the 1887 M-M experiment is said to disprove the idea that light velocity can be added to that of the source, or to prove that aether cannot possibly exist. In fact, as was realized from the beginning, and as is often stated in early 20th-century literature, assuming that the light moved at c + v or c - v leads to the very same null result (assuming the tiny fringe shifts were within the range of experimental error--which not all today agree with) that is used in support of SR. Only DeSitter's double star argument, first published in 1910, was historically decisive in pushing aside Ritz's competing additive-velocity theory (but several strong arguments have since been advanced against DeSitter, too). As for disproving the existence of the aether, all the 1887 M-M experiment could possibly do in this regard was to show that a device of this kind cannot prove that the aether exists, if it does. Likewise, you can't prove that there are no creatures roaming the jungles of Madagascar at night, if you try to photograph them at midnight with ordinary film; it would take infrared film to detect them then. 7. TAKE THE SAGNAC EXPERIMENT SERIOUSLY. In this case, the "infrared film" needed was provided by Sagnac in 1913, when he looked for the aether with an interferometer that rotated, instead of translating in a near-straight line. Something caused his fringes to shift as viewed on the rotating platform, and these shifts meant that the velocity of light was remaining constant relative to the laboratory. Sagnac advanced this as experimental proof against the second postulate of SR, which it actually was. His method has been modified and repeated many times since his day, and currently is being tested constantly among the satellites of the Global Positioning System (GPS). Every single time, when rotation of a light path within a surrounding dominant coordinate system occurs, fringes are shifted, light velocities are altered, and the existence of a luminiferous aether is strongly inferred--all contrary to SR. Establishment physicists have usually ignored the Sagnac effect, or once in a while they have attempted to explain it in terms of special or general relativity--but all of these attempts have fallen short." Is this "crackpot" physics? Or are these plausible arguments, even though they are attacking such an established theory as special relativity? Martin

Wow, Tina looks great! Happy 18th Birthday! Buy yourself a bottle of French champagne, you deserve it! A great idea, except for one small problem. The legal drinking age in the US is 21 in every state, due to an act of extortion by the US government in which it threatened to cut off all highway funds to any state that didn't raise its drinking age to 21. So an individual becomes a legal adult at 18 in every respect but one. So, Tina, get yourself a nice bottle of French champagne (or California sparkling wine) any way you can. If it involves a technical violation of the law, all the better. There are lots of fun crimes involving violations of stupid laws. Happy birthday! Martin

Sounds reasonable to me. There are many things that "sound reasonable" if one doesn't give them more than a few minutes of thought, but that can be easily determined to be paving a path to hell if properly analyzed. It's only paranoia if they're not really out to get you. If they are really out to get you, to refuse to recognize this reality is a lethal form of denial. Here is a link to an article by James Bovard, entitled "The Martial Law Act of 2006". http://jimbovard.com/blog/ From the article, "The new law vastly increases the danger from the actions of government provocateurs. If there is an incident now like the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993, it would be far easier for the president to declare martial law — even if, as then, it was an FBI informant who taught the culprits how to make the bomb. Even if the FBI masterminds a protest that turns violent, the president could invoke the “incident” to suspend the Constitution. “Martial law” is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights before they are locked away. “Martial law” means: Obey soldiers’ commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in Southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug. Section 1076 is an Enabling Act-type legislation — something which purports to preserve law and order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree. Bush can commandeer a state’s National Guard any time he declares a “state has refused to enforce applicable laws.” Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood — or to the “laws” after Bush “fixes” them with a signing statement? Unfortunately, it is not possible for Americans to commandeer the federal government even when Bush admits that he is breaking a law (such as the Anti-Torture Act). Section 1076 is the type of “law” that would probably be denounced by the U.S. State Department’s Annual Report on Human Rights if enacted by a foreign government. But when the U.S. government does the same thing, it is merely another proof of benevolent foresight. The “comfort blanket” on Section 1076 is that the powers will not be abused because the president will show more concern with the Bill of Rights than Congress did when it rubberstamped this provision. This is the same “pass the buck on the Constitution” that worked so well with the PATRIOT Act, the McCain Feingold Campaign Reform Act, and the Military Commissions Act. As long as there is hypothetically some branch of the government that will object to oppression, no one has the right to fear losing his liberties." Martin

Mike, Excellent post, beautifully written and cogently argued! I fully agree with you about the ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity of ARI. Anyone whose primary source of information about history is ARI op-eds is going to be both severely misinformed and, most likely, convinced both of their own brilliance and their own absolute moral rectitude. Martin

I love the Montessori approach to learning. My daughter went to a Montessori preschool and is now attending a Montessori elementary school. My wife and I really love this school. Based on its educational philosophy, her school could perfectly well use a picture of Dewey as a dartboard. But that would be very contrary to Montessori philosophy! Martin

Bob, What the hell is this? You are preaching desolation? The primitive tribalism of killing off family lines? I looked up Amalek because I did not know what it was other than some Biblical tribe. Then I read that the Jews did to Amalek what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews—a "sacred war of extermination," except the Jews got away with it. The Nazis didn't. In our modern times, the Jews would not be allowed to get away with it again. Nobody is allowed to do that anymore even though they might try. Thank God I live in modern times! You are preaching genocide. You are preaching racism on a site devoted to reason. What is wrong with you? I will not have this on OL, especially not as a regular feature. There is flexibility here and that is sometimes misconstrued as weakness. Well, you have stretched the goodwill to the limit with your preaching of racial hatred. The next such outburst will be deleted and I will moderate your posts. I am only keeping this one up as the last example. I simply do not have time to babysit you anymore to get at the decent part of your thuggish primitive soul. You are a grown man. Take your racism elsewhere. OL is not the venue for it. Racism is disgusting and contemptible. Your kind of mentality never learns and I am tired of having this crap near me. It has stopped being an intellectual challenge and has started becoming an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of every person of goodwill and productivity who reads OL. I totally reject your worldview as a step backwards in mankind's evolution. Michael Michael, Bob has been preaching exactly this form of genocide on this site for many months. Are you really surprised that he is still preaching genocide here, just as he always has? He has never stopped preaching genocide here. And he never will. In case you haven't had enough of Bob's genocidal ravings on this site, you can always read them over at the Rebirth of Reason site, where he's making exactly the same arguments. Happy reading! Or not. Martin

Come on, Jeff, tell us what you really think! REB The first paragraph of Jeff's post was also rather interesting, although not as relevant to this thread. He wrote, "Were you criticized for associating with conservatives (the Heritage Foundation)? Were you under any illusions about the nature of their political movement? Why would a good Objectivist lend implicit moral sanction to a bunch of traditionalist authoritarians? It was not for nothing that Ayn Rand wrote, in the very first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, that "Objectivists are *not* conservatives." This is a lesson that many self-identified objectivists have still not learned. Martin

There is no "fight against drugs". Drugs are inanimate objects; they can't fight back. A better description is that the government is fighting against people who wish to take drugs of which the government does not approve. This fight can be funded forever by the government if it so chooses, but it can never be won. Governments, no matter how powerful, cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. If a certain number of people wish to use drugs banned by the government, a price will be reached at which supply and demand are balanced. The more successful the government is at suppressing the supply, the higher the price of the banned drug will go, encouraging criminal gangs and cartels to supply this demand. This constitutes a negative feedback market mechanism which insures that there will always be a supply of the banned drug. If a major supplier is put out of business, this will temporarily disrupt supply, causing the price to rise and insuring that new suppliers will enter the market to fill the temporary void. In other words, you are wrong -- it can't be done. The US tried alcohol prohibition many years ago, and the results were an unmitigated disaster, leading to the rise of large scale organized crime and societal chaos. The US has been fighting a futile war to ban narcotics and various other prohibited drugs for the last almost one hundred years. Trillions of dollars has been spent on this futile crusade, with absolutely nothing to show for it except for millions of lives ruined, not by the drugs but by the criminally stupid war. There is no equivocation. The word "choice" refers to any situation in which an individual is free to select from two or more alternatives. There is no implication in this word that all of these choices are all equally trivial or easy. There are easy choices and hard choices, choices with minimal impact on the chooser's life and choices with a huge impact. There is the choice of whether to eat a hamburger, a hot dog, or a salad. There is also the choice of whether or not to sacrifice one's life in order to save a loved one. And there is the choice of whether or not to stop smoking, even knowing that one will go through some unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. These are all choices. Some of them are more difficult choices to make than others. But they are all choices. At the same time that you are arguing that the smoker has no real choice of whether or not to stop smoking (a belief that is contradicted in real life by the many millions of people who have chosen to stop smoking), it is you who actually propose to really deny choice to people by banning tobacco, overriding their desire to smoke by force. It's only paranoia if they're not really out to get you. There's nothing at all paranoid about my suggestion, for this is exactly what has happened in the united nanny states of America, where our government is becoming more and more dictatorial and authoritarian in its regulation of our personal lives, using exactly the justification you have used here. Our prisons are filled with non-violent criminals, victims of the drug war (as I recall, 70% of all inmates of federal prisons are there for non-violent illegal drug use). Our police forces have entire "vice squads" dedicated to arresting drug users and prostitutes. Police justify harassing and arresting prostitutes by claiming that they don't really choose to become prostitutes either, that this is not a real choice at all. Since it's a lot more fun and less dangerous arresting prostitutes and drug users than going after violent criminals, this is how police resources are allocated. The "war on drugs" has led to the evisceration of American's rights against search and seizure without cause. It has led to the militarization of police across the country. It has led to the creation of asset forfeiture laws which enable police to seize the cash and property of innocent people by merely accusing them of being involved in the drug trade. This is all part of the price we have paid for this futile, stupid crusade. Tobacco has a benefit, one that you fail to recognize. The benefit of tobacco to users is that they enjoy using it. What they are doing is trading off the benefit of the enjoyment they get from using it against the potential health hazards that they will face as a result of their choice to use it. People make such subjective trade offs all the time, by engaging in activities that they enjoy but which have potential minor or major risks. If people eat a diet high in red meat, they are more likely to get heart disease, colon cancer, and various other afflictions. If people eat a diet high in carbohydrates, they are more likely to get diabetes. Should the government ban red meat and donuts because of their potential health hazards? Or should these choices be left up to each person to make for him/herself? I also have a child, a daughter who is now almost eight. I really, really hope that she doesn't become a smoker. I'm sure I'd be as unhappy if she took up smoking as you would be if your child became a smoker. But I don't think that my fear of her becoming a smoker justifies me taking away the freedom of other people to smoke, if that is their choice. All I can do is try to set a good example for my daughter and do my best to teach her about the health hazards and general unpleasantness of smoking. And that's exactly what I'm doing. Martin

Then you presumably think that the government has the right to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodies, and to enforce its edicts with fines or imprisonment. This is the belief behind all "victimless crime" laws and the overriding theory behind the catastrophic "war on drugs", which has done more to destroy the civil liberties of Americans than any other government program. It has also led to massive destruction of countries involved in the illegal drug trade, such as Columbia and Afghanistan. It has turned American inner cities into war zones, controlled by violent gangs. It has created international drug cartels to supply a product that some Americans want. And the proceeds of illegal drug money are being used to fund terrorism. Quite a price to pay for trying to stop people from using highly addictive substances. Tobacco is not evil. You are anthropomorphizing a plant. People who choose to use tobacco are not evil either. It's their body. They should have the right to do with it whatever they wish. What they put into their own bodies is none of your business or mine. That's called freedom. Tobacco companies are not evil either. They are supplying a product that some people want. If they don't supply it, criminal drug cartels will. That's the way black markets develop. People are responsible for their own choices in life. So you're proposing that people should have the right to smoke, but have no legal means to acquire tobacco. This would turn people who wish to smoke into criminals by forcing them to acquire tobacco on the black market through illegal tobacco dealers, just as people who now wish to use marijuana, cocaine, etc. are forced to acquire them illegally from drug dealers. If you think the war on drugs is bad now, with our prisons filled with non-violent drug users, just wait until millions of tobacco users are turned into criminals. Martin Quite honestly I understand your argument, but its wrong. What your argument relies on is the simplistic notion of freedom and choice and how dare anybody try to take choice away - I get it. The problem you conveniently skip over, and it's the most important point of all, is addiction. Once addiction is involved, choice becomes fuzzy at best and often disappears. How many lives (including family members and not just the addicted person) have been ruined by addiction? You think that is a choice as you've described it? Choice most certainly does not disappear, even when a person is addicted to a drug. Addiction means that a person will experience unpleasant withdrawal symptoms if he stops using the drug; this does not mean that he loses the ability to choose to stop using the drug. Millions of people have chosen to quit smoking and have in fact quit smoking. The fact that they experienced some withdrawal symptoms didn't stop them from making this choice. People addicted to alcohol, heroin, cocaine, and other such substances have also managed to break these addictions as well. Their power of choice overcame their addiction. Have lives been ruined by addiction? Certainly. But lives have been ruined by many bad choices that people make in their lives. This certainly provides no justification for the government criminalizing such bad choices. Otherwise, the government could use this justification to control virtually all aspects of people's lives. There is no equivocation or double definitions here. Choosing to smoke is still a choice, and people do in fact choose to stop smoking all the time. If a person is addicted to smoking, this makes the choice to quit more difficult, but so what? Some choices are more difficult to make than others; choice is an analog sliding scale of difficulty, not a digital on/off. If a person has a high paying job that he hates but really needs the money to support himself and his family, this might make the choice to quit his job agonizingly difficult. But it is still his choice to make. The choice to break addictions is no different. Because, as I have made very clear, choice is not removed. Yes, I really believe what I have written. It is impossible to properly police the drug world. Attemps at prohibition always fail and have catastophic consequences for liberty and the rule of law. One does not help to protect people from potential addictions by turning them into criminals and imprisoning them. This is a utilitarian justification for drug decriminalization. But the real justification for drug decriminalization is moral. I will state this justification in personal terms. My body belongs to me and me alone. Noone has the right to tell me what I can do with my own body, because it's mine. It's noone else's business what I choose to put into my body. If you don't like the choices I make, too bad; what I choose to do with my own body is my own business, not yours. That's what liberty is all about. Drunk driving is a completely separate issue, since the basis for laws against this is that a drunk driver represents an unacceptably high risk to the safety of others. The solution to drunk driving is to enforce laws against drunk driving, not to criminalize consumption of alcohol. Martin

Then you presumably think that the government has the right to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodies, and to enforce its edicts with fines or imprisonment. This is the belief behind all "victimless crime" laws and the overriding theory behind the catastrophic "war on drugs", which has done more to destroy the civil liberties of Americans than any other government program. It has also led to massive destruction of countries involved in the illegal drug trade, such as Columbia and Afghanistan. It has turned American inner cities into war zones, controlled by violent gangs. It has created international drug cartels to supply a product that some Americans want. And the proceeds of illegal drug money are being used to fund terrorism. Quite a price to pay for trying to stop people from using highly addictive substances. Tobacco is not evil. You are anthropomorphizing a plant. People who choose to use tobacco are not evil either. It's their body. They should have the right to do with it whatever they wish. What they put into their own bodies is none of your business or mine. That's called freedom. Tobacco companies are not evil either. They are supplying a product that some people want. If they don't supply it, criminal drug cartels will. That's the way black markets develop. People are responsible for their own choices in life. So you're proposing that people should have the right to smoke, but have no legal means to acquire tobacco. This would turn people who wish to smoke into criminals by forcing them to acquire tobacco on the black market through illegal tobacco dealers, just as people who now wish to use marijuana, cocaine, etc. are forced to acquire them illegally from drug dealers. If you think the war on drugs is bad now, with our prisons filled with non-violent drug users, just wait until millions of tobacco users are turned into criminals. Martin

Of course, the views of all of the other presidential candidates, both republican and democratic, are even more completely inconsistent with individual rights than those of Ron Paul, by a wide margin. So I take it that you will not be supporting any of these candidates either. Right? Martin

First of all, Ron Paul is not going to become president. The main value of his campaign is and always has been that running for president gives him valuable media exposure with which he can hopefully expose large numbers of people to small government, libertarian oriented ideas. Presidential elections are the time when more people become interested in political ideas than any other, for better or worse. Ron Paul has in fact been quite successful at achieving this objective, more than most libertarians (or probably Paul himself) ever anticipated. This despite the fact that he certainly could have run his campaign much better than he has, by running ads more focused on his libertarian views and less focused on his conservative, nonlibertarian views. Obviously, the racist newsletters have also been an unwelcome distraction and pose the unfortunate danger of associating libertarianism with racism. As to your hypothetical of what would be done under Ron Paul's auspices were he to become president, based on Paul's handling of the racist newsletters, it is important to remember that someone is going to be elected president, and it isn't going to be John Galt, as I pointed out in a post made earlier in this thread. So the question needs to be asked of whoever will in fact be elected president. What crap will be done under the auspices of John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani. or Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton? For a detailed play by play history of the crap done under the auspices of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, our last two esteemed presidents, see any of the last several books by James Bovard; he has documented their innumerable abuses against liberty in depressing detail. Should we expect anything better in the future from the existing set of candidates? Martin

Chris, I was going to mention about Marsha Enright too. You beat me to it! I actually attended a meeting here in the bay area in which Marsha Enright presented her plans for starting a new liberal arts college that would focus on teaching the ideas of the enlightenment, objectivism, free market economics, etc. I don't know what ever happened with that, or whether this is still in her plans. If it is, and she intends to proceed, the story of Founders College should be an object lesson for her and her business partners in what to do and what not to do in building a new college from scratch. Martin

It is an unfortunate aspect of reality that John Galt is not running for president. First, because he doesn't actually exist. Second, because if he did actually exist, he would probably turn down the job, just as he turned down the job of "economic dictator of the nation", choosing to be tortured instead. Given this sad state of affairs, it is important to confront the reality that the choice of candidates for president is what it is and does not include an ideal libertarian or objectivist candidate. Nor is there any reason to expect that either the republicans or democrats will ever run an ideal candidate for president in our lifetimes or, for that matter, ever. Unless Bidinotto is advocating against voting for any of the presidential candidates, I assume that he is supporting one of the existing candidates, presumably one of the republican candidates. Since he finds Ron Paul to be such a repugnant candidate, due to, among other things, his presumed racism, he presumably believes that the candidate he supports is superior to Ron Paul. As such, he should be prepared to subject whichever candidate he supports to at least the same level of scrutiny as he does to Ron Paul. I don't know who Bidinotto is supporting. But assuming that he is any of the leading republican presidential candidates, the following may reasonably be said about whoever it is: 1) He supported and continues to fund the disasterous Iraq war, which has killed over 4000 American soldiers, injured tens of thousands of American soldiers, killed probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (estimated, exact number of deaths related to the war unknown), displaced millions of Iraqis as refugees, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, led to widespread sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing, all at a cost of over a trillion dollars. 2) He supported and continues to fund the "war on drugs", which has ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and turned most major cities into war zones, destroyed foreign nations implicated in the drug trade, and led to massive violations of the civil liberties of all Americans. The "war on drugs" has destroyed the lives of more black people and done more to destroy black communities than the Nazi party, KKK, and White Aryan resistance could ever hope to achieve. It's even destroyed more lives in the black communities than the racist newsletters published by Ron Paul. 3) He supported at least some of the following legislation, as pointed out by Mark in another thread: a) Patriot Act b) Military Commissions Act c) Real ID Act d) Defense Authorization Act e) Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act As a result of this legislation, the US is now one terrorist attack away from the imposition of martial law. I could go on and on about the grievous sins of all of the major republican and democratic presidential candidates, judged by either libertarian or objectivist standards, but the above is more than sufficient to illustrate my point. So, Mr. Bidinotto, which is worse, based on libertarian or objectivist standards -- some racist newsletters published a number of years ago, or the above list of crimes committed by all of the major candidates. one of whom you presumably support? I eagerly await your reply. Martin

Thanks for pointing this out. Pipes, Goldberg, and their fellow travelers are the ultimate "big government conservatives". They are living evidence of the absurdity of the idea that conservativism as it has long been defined stands for limited government and invididual rights. They are so concerned with limited government and individual rights that they forgot to protest against any of the above pieces of legislation. As a result of this cumulative legislation, the US is one terrorist attack away from the imposition of marshal law. The organized objectivist movement, both ARI and TAS, have also somehow forgotten to discuss any of this. ARI is too busy advocating the nuking of Iran. TAS is too busy writing about the evils of Ron Paul. And so the march toward totalitarianism continues, with not even a protest from the liberty loving organized objectivist movement. Martin

What has long been called "conservativism" calls for none of these things. Limited government, individualism, free market capitalism, and leaving citizens alone are tenets not of conservativism but of classical liberalism and, carried to their ultimate conclusion, libertarianism. Under the regime of "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush, federal government spending, both military and non-military, has increased far faster than it did under "liberal" Bill Clinton. In addition to which, Bush has done more to trash the Constitution and civil liberties than any president since FDR. Bush has been aided in this effort by the many "conservative" members of Congress, who have rubber-stamped all of his depradations of Americans' liberties. What now passes for conservatives, the so-called neoconservatives, don't even pretend to believe in small government. They are open in their support of big government, both domestic and international. Jonah Goldberg is an editor at National Review Online. National Review has been an advocate of big government conservatism for years. National Review is also the magazine that published a vicious review of Atlas Shrugged shortly after it was published, written by Whittaker Chambers. National Review has been viciously attacking Ayn Rand and objectivism ever since. Considering the history of National Review with respect to objectivism, it's rather surprising that Barbara Branden would praise the work of a leading National Review writer and editor. That seems even worse than TAS inviting Lindsay Perigo as a guest speaker. I have some advice for Goldberg and his legions of big government, war-mongering conservatives, which unfortunately they will not choose to follow. My advice is, "To a gas chamber, go!" Martin

I agree with you about this. Unfortunately, the proliferation of cheap weapons of mass destruction is probably an unstoppable trend. How is your proposed solution of massive US government military intervention going to address this problem? The US government is in fact one of the principle agents responsible for the spread of military weaponry, including what are commonly labeled as WMDs, via its policy of both direct military and monetary aid given to some of the world's worst dictatorships, money which is used to buy weaponry. If, in the near future, a single terrorist will be able to kill millions of people, how are we going to prevent this? Do you think it's possible to preemptively identify and kill every possible terrorist? The American attack, invasion, and occupation of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do protecting the US from attack either by the Iraqi government or by hypothetical terrorists provided with weapons by the Iraqi government. There was never any danger of either of these things happening. The purpose of the invasion was for the US government to gain control of Iraqi oil reserves, as well as Iraqi land to build multiple permanent military bases to be used as forward staging areas for future military interventions in the Persian Gulf; these permanent military bases are being constructed as we speak. Aside from any of the ethical considerations involved in the military occupation of a small, weak nation that never attacked us and never threatened us, how does maintaining a permanent garrison of military bases and thousands of soldiers in Iraq protect Americans against possible attacks by terrorists with cheap WMDs? Martin

It certainly would have been perversely entertaining listening to Mr. Perigo screaming "Saddamite" at anyone in attendance not sufficiently enamored of his worship of an American foreign policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace, wars in which Mr. Perigo will regretfully not be able to participate due to previous commitments. But now that Saddam is dead, he'll need a new label for such heretics. "Musharrafite" might work, but Musharraf is our dictator, after all, and we American taxpayers do send him a hell of a lot of money, even though most of us, given a choice, would much rather allocate our money to more worthy causes. And "Admadinejadite" just doesn't have the right ring to it. So Mr. Perigo had better think long and hard about this, in order to come up with an appropriately pleasant sounding label. This should require all of the deep philosophical introspection of which Mr. Perigo is capable. Martin