Aggrad02

Happy Birthday Barbara.

It would have been one thing if the U.S. military stepped in to enforce contract rights by guarding or retaking the oil fields from the Iranian government originally owned and operated by U.S. oil companies.

It would have been something if U.S. forces would have done that. It is not the role of our military to enforce private contracts with foreign nations. Especially contracts that were made by a dictator set up by western forces. Also the companies that had their oil leases seized were not even American they were British (I believe).

--Dustan

studiodekadent,

I think you are partly misreading the topic. I am talking not about political programmes per se but about anti-fundamentalism. By "Religious Liberals" I mean THEOLOGICALLY liberal, which I defined in my earlier post.

The problem is that the question must be framed within politics. The main reason that Fundamentalist are a threat to our civilization is because they seek to use force, either directly (Muslim Terrorist) or through the state (Fundamentalist Christian Conservatives), to impose their belief systems on others. Fundamentalist that do not seek to use force on others are not a physical danger (from direct force or the state).

This goes back to your original question: Should we form alliances with theologically liberal Christians? The question to your question is WHY?

The only answer to WHY we (objectivist) would form alliances with theologically liberal Christians, lies in whether they believe force should be used (direct or state) to impose ones values on others. In your example, Andrew Sullivan is a Christian, I do not know to what degree he practices his Christianity, but just because he is a homosexual does not mean that he is a liberal Christian. To be a homosexual and still cling to Christianity in the face of so much persecution from that community shows a great amount of faith, I would bet that Sullivan is a closer Christian in the image of Christ than most Fundamentalist. But on the other hand Sullivan is a classical liberal (conservative libertarian) politically. He does not think that one should force ones values via force or the state onto others. He is clearly an ally against Fundamentalist who seek to use force, or anyone else for that matter who seeks to use force.

On the other hand Sam Harris is a fasci-socialist, while atheist, he believes that the state (force) should be used to form society to the good of the group(collectivism). While he is also anti-Fundamentalist, I would say he is not an ally because the socialist atheist and the fundamentalist are fighting over the same cookie, state power. Also while Hitchens (and many other socialist) may not believe in dictatorial power, they do subscribe to the idea that democratic socialism (socialism of the majority) is ethical (which it is not). There is no difference in the fasci-socialism of a dictator and a majority.

Remember that Ayn Rand fled the atheist Soviet Union for the secular but majority-christian United States because of liberty. Do not let your hate for the Witch Doctors persuade you into forming alliances with the Attila's. Be concerned about those who wish to impose upon you and find those that have a moral view of the purpose of government. Philosophically (outside of politics) the Chrisitans are not allies because they believe in Mysticism, but be careful which atheist you align yourself with because not all base their metaphysical beliefs and arguments in firm foundations of reason.

--Dustan

I will add more later once I can think more about this, but...

First you have to define liberal. Liberal in the classical sense like the Founding Fathers? or Liberal in the modern sense which is a misnomer. Modern Liberals are mainly global fascist progressive socialist (Wilson->FDR->Kennedy->Obama) i.e. collectivist/statist. Most of them (whether they know it or not) hold pragmatic/existential world views, and worship the state.

Sam Harris quotes which concern me:

"Only openness to evidence and argument will secure a common world for us"

"Examples of well-behaved and comparatively atheistic societies like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark--which surpass us in terrestrial virtues like education, health, public generosity, per capita aid to the developing world, and low rates of violent crime and infant mortality--are of no interest to our electorate whatsoever"

"Despite all that he does not and cannot say, Obama's candidacy is genuinely thrilling: his heart is clearly in the right place

"I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror"

"While we hold the moral high ground in our war on terror"

On Christopher Hitchens:

"He does not object to being called a "former" Trotskyist, his affection for Trotsky remains strong, and he says that his political and historical view of the world is still shaped by Marxist categories"

"Hitchens is seen as part of the "pro-liberation left" or "liberal hawks" comprising left-leaning commentators who supported the 2003 Invasion of Iraq."

"This Enlightenment will not need to depend, like its predecessors, on the heroic breakthroughs of a few gifted and exceptionally courageous people. It is within the compass of the average person"

Don't be fooled by most of these Atheist. While they give great arguments against God, they are still religious none-the-less, they have just replaced God with the State. They are clearly in the Neitzsche and Marxist mold. There is no difference between a conservative Christian using the state to beat the bible on your head, and a socialist Atheist using the state to beat wellbeing onto you.

Now on the other hand Ali is not a socialist (any longer) and neither is Dennett or Sullivan. They are probably better allies. Also the largest pool to pull allies from is from liberty-minded Christians/Jews/Muslims/(which ever faith). These people while holding on to their faiths do not seek to impose it upon others, but to merely leave each other alone, this is good enough for me.

Edit: Btw: Considering the modern movement of the Progressive Atheist, I have quite using that term ( I dislike terms anyways), now if people ask what church I go to, instead of saying I am atheist, I tell them I have no belief in a god, which is closer to the truth anyway.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...15/065njdoe.asp

The Silent Scream of the Asparagus

Get ready for 'plant rights.'

by Wesley J. Smith

05/12/2008, Volume 013, Issue 33

You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.

A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.

A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."

Just in spite of this article, I went and walked around my grass and then kicked a bush before I walked back in.

--D

Wolf I agree with you on how the government has ignored the Constitution. And there were major problems with the SCOTUS way before Roe v. Wade.

--D

Our Constitution was a limit on the power of government and nothing more.

Er, no. It was a charter that explicitly granted and ceded powers to the Federal government. You could argue that the Bill of Rights was hurriedly adopted to limit the exercise of Federal power, but subsequent Supreme Court interpretation made it debatable and uncertain whether any of the first 10 Amendments afford substantive personal rights. The weight of legal opinion and political tradition in the United States clearly concedes to Congress (the will of the majority of the electorate) sovereignty in terms of taxation, internal police power, regulation of commerce, public works, immigration, education, etc. The Executive was supposed to be 'vigorous' and constitutionally co-equal, according to the Founders.

Nothing in the Constitution of 1787 or today's political understanding suggests that the constitution is a limit on the power of government. I'm not sure that Americans ever understood Thomas Paine, who rightly said a government cannot lawfully author or amend its constitution. That's the basic problem with democracy. Flatter people with political representation, a piece of the pie so to speak, and they soon forget that government is inherently evil.

Article 1 Section 9 is full of limits:

writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended

no bill of attainder or ex post facto law

no capitation or other direct tax (repealed by 16th)

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles from state to state

No preference shall be given to any port

No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations

No titles of Nobility

Section 10:

No state shall enter into a treaty...

No state shall lay any impost on imports or exports

No state shall keep troops....

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights (Bill of Rights) shall not be construded to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

Note: The Constitution would not have been ratified with out the promise of the Bill of Rights. So you cannot talk about the Constitution of September 13, 1788 without also including the Bill of Rights. They were not completely hammered out by the Constitutional Convention but they were on the table as part of the deal in a raw form. As seen especially by the 9th and 10th amendments, the Constitution is clearly a limitation of the power of government, now that is not followed today, but that is what it was meant to be.

A huge contingent of the populace are practically another species when it comes to critical thinking. They are the Neaderthals who live among us, sit next to us at sporting events, whether it is a NASCAR race, a football game, or sit next to us in church or in a movie theater.

Well, actually, everything you cited is CRO-MAGNON activity. If you understood the Neanderthals, you would know that they had larger brains -- might have been telepathic -- and lived in small clusters and were individualists. The Cro-Magnon (that's us) were tribalists with small brains. Cro-Magnons cut their own fingers off... and the cutting of things continues... Every way you look at it, we are here because intelligence is not necessarily a survival trait, but brutality is.

Sadly Collectivism is very good with the survival thing.

That is awesome.

"Don't worry, folks, you will not have preserve the Constititution or fight the Federal Reserve, amend the Constitution to remove the income tax, or figure out how to balance the Federal budget, because I will do all of that for you. But don't vote yet! Look what else you get at no extra charge: lip-service to the ideals of our nation, homage to the founders of the republic, frequent references to your own fine character, and striking fear into the heart of your enemies."

This is a total misrepresentation of Ron Paul's campaign, but I would expect it out of Marotta.

However the people who vote in primaries hardly represent the population at large.

Right you are! The people who vote in primaries are better informed, more involved, more likely to write checks, more likely to be educated.

I disagree with the both of you. The people that vote in the primaries are very representative of the voting population at large. (Generally) Neither are very well informed nor more likely to be educated. Some of them are more involved (most are not) and some are more likely to write checks (most are not). I know this from experience.

Example, at the Brazos County Republican Party Resolution Meeting, one of my friends had to explain what the Military Commissions Act was. I am not talking about whether it was good or bad, just what it was. Most activist use the political parties as social clubs and have no idea what the issues are. Some people golf, some hunt, some post on OL, some watch football on Sundays and some join political parties. They vote in the primaries but they have no clue what is going on in our government.

-Dustan

The War Powers Resolution was necessary 316

Nothing down (sic) by Government is NECESSARY, maybe EXPEDIENT, but not NECESSARY.

He didn't say it was.

--Brant

Either he endorsed the views that he posted or his post didn't say anything at all and was pointless.

Another quote by Ayn on the US Constitution:

"Ours was the first government based on and strictly limited by a written document- the Constitution- which specifically forbids it to violate individual rights or to act on whim. The history of the atrocities perpetuated by all the other kinds of government- unrestricted governments acting on umprovable assumptions- demonstrates the value and validity of the original political theory on which this country was built"

The War Powers Resolution was necessary

Nothing done by Government is NECESSARY, maybe EXPEDIENT, but not NECESSARY.

He has pointed out that the reason for the current state of our economy and our involvement in foreign affairs which is responsible for our growing national debt and the danger of the collapse of our currency is failure to adhere to the limits spelled out in the Constitution.

The error of structual functionalism asserts that no matter who is in a society, it can be made or remade to any desired outcome according to a plan that creates institutions and defines their operation.

The error of structural functionalism fails to explain why so few of the perhaps 300 constitutions in the world actually create the societies they putatively intend.

Institutions precede constitutions.

... by the way, most of the people who are less than three days dead have noticed that the American dollar is not in danger of collapse, but actually collapsed about 75 years ago and then did a dead cat bounce before settling in to permanent decay about 1972... I was born in 1949. Today's dollar buys what a nickel did in 1958: a Snickers bar. Gasoline that was 20 cents a gallon is now 4 dollars per. I went to buy a suit a couple of weeks ago. Guess how much it cost? (Hint: What is the price of gold?)

The problem with this is our Constitution was not created to make our society which probably 299 of 300 of the constitution of the world look to do. Our Constitution was a limit on the power of government and nothing more.

Here in the real world, the Constitution is what it is, independent of your hopes, fears, wishes or dreams. At least, that would be an objective perception by anyone commited to reality.

You somewhat contradict yourself here. Our Constitution is what it is, and to find out what that is all you have to do is read the Founder's documents including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers(this is objective). But in the top quote you imply that no matter what our constitution says objectively, how our society is formed will determine our government independent of any institutions such as the Constitution, implying that if one can affect a change in the thinking of society then one could change the interpretation of the Constitution, but you told Galt that no matter what his hopes , fears, wished or dreams are that what happens is independent. Well it seems that either the Constitution is what it is via our founders, which matches up exactly to Galt's wishes and dreams, or how our society is formed will determine our government and as long as Galt fights for what he wishes and dreams, he can change society (Which is what he is doing by pointing out and educating people on what the Constitution is objectively). Either way Galt can win.

--Dustan

He has pointed out that the reason for the current state of our economy and our involvement in foreign affairs which is responsible for our growing national debt and the danger of the collapse of our currency is failure to adhere to the limits spelled out in the Constitution.

Apparently, you do not know the actual U.S. Constitution, and apparently, neither does Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul.

Come On, claims with no explanation are worthless.

Please show how the either the Constitution has been followed in the manner in which was intended by our founders(which you already said it wasn't) or how our economy and national state of affairs has nothing to do with the socialist unconstitutional federal policies berthed by Wilson and FDR and continued by just about every President since.

Or give some other explanation of your position which I might of misunderstood.

--Dustan

First choice I would make is find another place to buy your suits or have your suit made and tailored from scratch.

Once you see a roomful of sales trainees in cheap suits, you never want to look like that.

Michael

LOL... Very True

Michael:"The state has used guns to violate the rights of peace-abiding citizens to raise their children as they see fit and confiscated the children from their lawful mothers."

And: "It [the state] is trying to punish good people for doing what they thought was good."

And: "But to prosecute these people for pedophilia??? Keerrisst! These fundamentalist Mormons honestly believe they are serving their God by doing this. They think this is virtue! If the state wants to go this route, justice demands that it first provide an educational policy with warnings, deadlines, etc."

Michael, I don't understand your reasoning. Clear evidence of children forced into "marriages" -- that is, forced into having sex with middle-aged men and often being made pregnant-- at the ages of ten and up has been been gathered. How can this be allowed to continue? And what does it matter that the parents might have thought this was a good thing to do, or that they were serving their God by so doing? Pedophilia is against the law, as it should be,. The law is clear, and a further educatiomal policy is not required -- and certainly not required when more children would be victimized while such a policy was being put into effect. Surely you would not say that if mothers thought that beating their children senseless and starving them almost to death was good, and was service uo their God, it should be permitted on the theory that "they think this is virtue." Nor do I think you would say that further education is required before the law should be enforced. Why should pedophila be allowed to continue under any circumstances? It should be stopped the split second it is discovered to exist. Parents do not have the right "to raise their children as they see fit" if they see fit to deliver them up to pedophiliacs.

Barbara

Great Response Barbara, Right On.

-Dustan

Really Sad.

I also had many discussions with Nick on Existentialism and Objectivism. I recently just boought about 20 Exist. books to read to discuss with him the in the future.

Rest in Peace,

Nick

I have made a commitment that if they (the collective) are going to try and take my liberty, then I am not going down without swinging.

--Dustan

BTW: I would just like to point out that my post had nothing to do with the conspiracy theory mentioned in the first post, but rather to activism in general. Just don't want to confuse anyone.

-- D

Happy Birthday.

I am not sure if the people on OL have their head in the ground or not. I have been posting on these boards for a little bit, and there does seem to be a lot of discussion here about a wide range of topics. Basically if you bring it up in intelligent manner, people here will discuss it. Now expecting them to agree with you.... Well we are a bunch of individualist right?

On the other hand, I am not sure what people who post here are doing to actively change the world we live in, other than living objectively. Philosophy is the undercurrent of the expression of our society and how we think, react and interact with each other is based largely on our individual philosophy. Therefore, I believe that the academic and political arenas are best suited for our activism. The academic seems to be the area that most objectivist focus their attention. Whether through educating people one on one, lending them a copy of Atlas Shrugged or even through the efforts of the Objectivist Center and ARI, it seems that most of the focus of objectivist is towards education, while most objectiist have neglected politics (other than complaining and voting). While the intellectual battle has to be won over the long haul through education, politics is one of the direct expressions of the philosophical attitudes of our society, it is also the place where a small minority can vastly change the philosophical attitudes of a large group of people in short period of time. It is also a place where we must hold back the forces of collectivism, since government is at the heart of collectivism (it is collective by its very definition). To be truly effective force in our society I believe that we must not only educate, but be actively involved in local and national politics by either helping good candidates or becoming candidates ourselves.

So I was wondering what other OL'ers have been doing in our world to help change it?

I will go first,

Here is what I have been trying to do:

In 2006 I started to become politically active. I volunteered for local guy that was running for Congress, unfortunately we lost the primary. Then this past year I was inspired by Congressman Paul's run for President. Since last year, June '07. I have been working very hard trying to get the message of liberty and Ron Paul out to masses. While campaigning for Paul, I have also convinced many people I have met to read Atlas or the Fountainhead. I also started 3 meetup groups within 2 hrs of my home to promote RP, and became an assistant in my hometown meetup group. Once these meetups got off the ground I passed them on to local organizers. I can say that these meetups now have a collective total of over 300 politically active members. Last year I also became the Republican Precinct Chairman for my precinct, I then ran for the position unopposed in the last election and a month ago when our county chair had to step down due to family reasons, I was voted in as Republican County Chairman for Robertson County Texas. I know that may make some of you cringe, but oh well, that is what we have to do to change the path of this country. I will also be attending the Texas State Republican Convention as a delegate. Furthermore, we have turned our local Ron Paul Meetup group into a branch of the Republican Liberty Caucus (rlc.org), and plan on multi-pronged approach including continuing education of the public, public debate between different groups as well as locating, supporting and fostering the development of liberty minded candidates within the Republican Party.

I have made a commitment that if they (the collective) are going to try and take my liberty, then I am not going down without swinging.

--Dustan

Welcome Timur,

Good to have you on board.

--Dustan

Jail. Let the message go out: abuse, starve or beat your child you go to jail. Prayers are irrelevant. Maybe the stupid, irrational people will get the message: You can pray driving to the doctor. "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

Now: three-hundred more posts?

--Brant

Wolf DeVoon Posted Today, 12:54 AM

If I was the district attorney, I'd have them arrested and seek a grand jury indictment for murder 2, perhaps plea bargain to manslaughter or felony child abuse, but with mandatory jail time, at least 5-7 years.

W.

What good is putting them in jail going to do? Make sure they have no more children would be a much better action plan.

Doesn't jail prevent them from having children?

GG: Why are you posting this here?

--Brant

To help save the country!

Galt,

I agree with Brant. I love Ron Paul and have worked my ass off for him, but bring him up in sections where it is not appropriate will just anger people instead of intriguing them. Also OL is a small community. Just about any post you make in the appropriate section (Stumping in the Backyard) will more than likely be read by everyone.

Just my 2 cents.

--Dustan

So, should the law insist on licensed medical treatment for all children?

Michael

Hell no, I don't want the government telling me how I should treat my child responsibly. Especially by people that the government has licensed. They tried that here in Texas, where Governor Perry wrote an executive order requiring parents to vaccinate their child against the HPV virus. Pharma's were about to bank before our legislature threw it out.

I think our laws in this situation are adequate. Parents are responsible for caring for their child. If a district attorney thinks that any parents have been negligent, and this has resulted in harm or death to the child then he can bring such evidence to a grand jury and seek indictment. If indicted, then a trial, judged by ones peers decides if the parents are at fault and what any punishment should be. Great system of checks and balances; parents decide what is best for their child, d.a.'s keep them in check, and they are judged by their peers in cases where they have not been responsible.

--Dustan