Mike Renzulli

I thought you all might like to know that I sent the forms to give RMI 501©3 status to the IRS today. I expect within the next few months we will obtain it. Once we do I would like for us to be able to raise money in order to hold a conference in Phoenix. I will keep you all informed.

At best I tend to be unconventional in terms of quoting responses of my posts due to the fact of the confusion I, and I am sure many others, on these boards experience when following along a conversation. However, I do not usually respond to insults yet your having done so after I have calmly replied and outlined my objections/thoughts to your statements. Consequently, I would not assume you were a pacifist or anything you were not unless I had specifically said so. I usually do not accuse unless it is in the context of arguing only for the purposes of goading my opponent to expand upon their accusations against me and in hopes of pointing out the fallacies of their irrational conclusions. Suffice it to say, I reject neo-conservativism and (despite your accusation) at face value the Objectivist view on foreign policy may seem similar to what neo-conservatives call for but, in reality, is not. If you knew anything about Objectivist philosophy you would know that Objectivists not only reject neo-conservatism as a philosophy but also do not subscribe to the neo-conservative view that war is a means to the end of giving life meaning, fomenting bravery and patriotism. As far as Objectivism itself is concerned with regards to war, I would refer you to William Thomas's essay on the matter found here: http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/war-objectivist-view and Thomas's essay on Pre-emptive Strikes and Iraq: http://www.atlassociety.org/pre-emptive-strikes-and-iraq The movie in and of itself is highly informative and (I think) factually driven despite what might be an element of hype. Yet the makers of the film obviously have to balance the presenting facts to make their case while keeping the audience's interest.

It is not hypocritical to attack a dictatorship, in this case Iran, that has openly said it is at war with the United States (whom they call The Great Satan) and has used the revenues generated from its oil sales to support terrorist groups and activities directed at the United States. I admit blowing up the theocrats in charge wouldn't convince them they are wrong but it certainly would be the best act of justice that can be exacted not only for the people of the country we liberate but for the people of the United States who would no longer have to fear a terrorist attack in the U.S. or abroad. Simultaneously taking out the Iranian dictatorship would send a message to other dictators and terrorst groups the Iranians supported they could be next. You cannot convince people who are irrational and subscribe to a apocalyptic theology who view present day events as an indication of the end times and want to conduct nuclear annihilation in hopes that it will contribute to the retrun of the Tewlfth Imam which is a prophecy told in Shia Islam. If you remember during the Cold War that there was this fear about a psychopath having the ability to press the Red Button in order to set off World War III? Iran is a real life example of this very fear that was expressed at that time. Don't believe this is the case? Watch the movie and see the interviews from experts (like Bernard Lewis) who explain this. I am getting the impression that you are not aware of or will not consciously admit the danger of the threat the U.S. faces. Not just from Iran but other dictatorships (like Venezuela and North Korea). I admit we cannot take them all out but we can render them useless or marginalize them. In the case of Iran that is the country that poses the largest threat and deserves to be taken out first.

BINGO, Ted! You nailed it right on the head! The actions or mistakes of present policy makers share no blame or guilt for mistakes of the past. Though I do not think that installing the Shah was a mistake, according to Shayne's logic he seems to allude that very point based on the issue you raise in your question. Regardless of how one feels about the 1953 or any other coup conducted by the U.S., foreign policy mistakes of the past should not be a distraction from defending ourselves when there is a clear and present danger in our midst. In this case, it is the Iranian regime. So your premise is that because the people who were in power in 1953, and are now long dead, did something bad, that, out of shame and guilt for the actions of these dead men, we who are alive now and innocent of those acts should not defend ourself from the current murderous religious dictatorship?

Okay well then that clears it up. However, I will bring up one other point. Since you agree that people would not consent to dictatorships and it is historically and evidently true that totalitarian states will support movements or groups who will commit acts of violence abroad in order to spread said totalitarian state's ideology would you agree that it makes sense that free countries that neighbor it or subject to said dictatorship's affiliate group attacks should take the host country committed to spreading communism, Islamism or fascism out by clandestine or military force if necessary?

So am I understanding you correctly that you think that people consent to live in dictatorships?

I thought I did in my previous posts. Then I will attempt to again and this will be my final post on this matter. The reason why it was relevant or proper to kick out Mossadegh was that with him in charge Iran could have ended up going the way of Cuba by eventually becoming a communist state. Especially since he had the strong backing of Iran's Stalinist-leaning Tudeh party in the Iranian parliament. I think and the C.I.A. concluded that, like Fidel Castro, Mossadegh was a communist at heart. He would not openly admit it. States based on collectivist ideologies that become or are dictatorships are a threat to civilized countries since most times will not only commit humanitarian crimes internally but will also export their ideology. By and large dictatorships or totalitarian states support groups or individuals that achieve their revolutionary goals like what was seen with the U.S.S.R. with its support of communistic movements and Iran with its support of terrorism. This goes back to my point that there is no right to enslave and that the people of Iran would not consent to a communist or Islamist state anymore than the people of Italy would consent to a fascist one.

The U.S. and U.S.S.R. mutually agreed to a state of detente between the 2 countries. This I believe means that neither country would directly attack the other and verify in times of hostility in order to avert a nuclear exchange. However, this did not mean they would stop the cat and mouse game when it came to foreign affairs. Including when it came to the U.S.S.R. seeking sattelite colonies in and outside of its region of control such as its support of left-wing movements (politicial or violent) in Latin America. The U.S. would kick out people or governments friendly to the U.S.S.R. (like seen in Iran, Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala) and install ones not only friendly to the U.S. but also embraced semblances of capitalism such as seen in the case of the Shah but also Augusto Pinochet and Alberto Fujimori. Regime changes were (rightly) done by the U.S. to stamp out the spread of communism and, by and large, fortunately such actions were successful since they avoided direct military conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union since doing so could lead to a nuclear exchange which neither side wanted. Free countries (like the U.S.) have the right (though not an obligation) to conduct acts of aggression against dictatorships since they are based not only on the complete destruction of the individual but also rule by fear, intimidation and force. Ms. Rand said it best that a country guilty of the outrages specific to a dictatorship forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw. What does "technically being at war" mean here? --Brant

Yes and my coup strategy was also welcomed by many Iranians so what's your point? You notice the Shah remained in power for some twenty years before there was another revolt. Even still, I think the revolts that took place in the seventies were the result of communist and Islamist influences in which they got the revolution right that time. You will also note in the movie that once the Islamists took power in Iran they killed all of the people associated with the Shah in and outside of Iran. I am sure they also executed many of the people who helped them too such as the communists and secularists who helped with the protests against the Shah. In terms of Mossadegh being democratically elected, I would advise caution on your part when making an assertion such as this. My family grew up in Italy when Benito Mussolini was dictator. Mussolini was democratically elected at first like Mossadegh was and then consolodated his power just like Hitler did in Germany. I am sure Mossadegh if given time might do the same thing. No one would elect to have themselves enslaved either by fascists or communists. Simultaneously there is no right to enslave individuals which, as I am sure you are aware, the destruction of individuality is the central tenet of fascism and communism. You do not strike me as such as person who would prefer people to live under the iron-fist of collectivism yet the logic behind your point will lead to such a result.

The reason why the movie didn't go into the Shah being installed over Mossadegh was that the event obviously had/have no relevance. The U.S. took up the task of staging the coup as the result of a request by the British for the U.S. to do so. Obviously there was a fear or some sort of intel that the Soviets were assisting Mossadegh. The U.S. had a right to kick out Mossadegh and put in the Shah because the end result would have been a communist state for the Iranians also friendly to the Shi'ite Islamists who also hated the Shah. The 1953 coup was in the context of the U.S. technically being at war with the U.S.S.R. Therefore it was legitimate for the U.S. to install the Shah. Dictatorships (especially communist ones) are outlaws and have no rights. When Mossadegh was in power and made the moves that he did to enact communist economic policies (like nationalizing the Iranian oil fields) which would have confiscated the British company who was refining and extracting the oil at the time, all bets were off and it was legit for the C.I.A.to kick him and the communists out via the coup.

The U.S.'s actions during that time were completely justified. I think that the rumblings on the part of the opposition to the Shah were the result of actions mainly by the U.S.S.R. hoping to have an ally on its southern border. Technicaly the U.S. was at war (albeit "cold") with the U.S.S.R. in which it was the Soviets supporting overthrowing the Shah and supporting Mossadegh and the people allied with him. As near as I have been able to figure out the Islamists also wanted the Shah out because of the secularism and capitalism he embraced. Fortunately, the U.S. halted both side's advance by reinstating him. He was one of our best allies in that region at the time and that anti-Semitic bastard Jimmy Carter withdrew his support naively thinking that Khomeini and his cohorts would be better for the country.

Of course, Phil. "Iranium" documents the Iranian nuclear program that the regime is pursuing and the threat it poses not only for the U.S. but also for the middle east as well. It also discusses U.S. foreign policy with regards to the country and how Presidents since Jimmy Carter have misunderstood the intent of the Iranian regime. If there was a film that clearly documents a country that has openly been at war with the U.S. and has taken measures to fulfill it's threats I don't know what does. You will see not only the threat that Iran's acquisition of nuclear technology poses to the rest of the world but also the deception on the part of Iranian theocrats and the regimes support of terrorist groups like Hamas as well as al-Quaeda terrorists who flew jet airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. None of the actions of the part of the regime were the result of backlash from U.S. foreign policy but, as the film clearly demonstrates, the apocalyptic vision Iranian theocrats (like Mahmoud Ahmedinajad) subscribe to. The most frightening thing is that Iranian regime isn't deterred by mutual assured destruction (MAD), it is what they are hoping for.

My Objectivist club showed this film on Thursday. As it turns out you can watch "Iranium" for free on Hulu. See this movie, friends. After doing so you will better understand why we have to go to war with Iran.

As some of you may know Arizona Senator Jon Kyl recently announced he will be retiring from the U.S. Senate. Even when I was a Libertarian I corresponded frequently with Senator Kyl in which he frequently replied to my letters to him about issues of concern and for that I respected him. As a result of Kyl stepping down, Rep. Jeff Flake has jumped with both feet into the race. Flake is from a family with deep roots in the state and was Executive Director of the Goldwater Institute before getting elected to the U.S. House. He is one of the most libertarian members of Congress and I will be proud to support him. His website is http://jeffflake.com

I listened to this speech too and liked what I heard as well. I also like Mitch Daniels' record as Governor. While the Cato Institute rated Pawlenty as having a better fiscal record I appreciate the fact that he is still rated fairly high. Daniels has called for a truce on social issues on the right (link to Weekly Standard column describing this below) and isn't backing down from asserting it despite the scolding of snake oil salesman Mike Huckabee. Good for him. Mitch Daniels is high on my list of contenders for the White House. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-mitch-danielss-truce-social-issues

Phil, Thanks for your feedback. In the interim our focus will be on conducting seminars or lectures. We will start off small but if we grow (which I and the other board members will be working very hard to ensure) I would be open to doing what you describe below. The details will, of course, have to be worked out. First we have to begin the process of building the organization and I would like to build it to include what you describe. In response to Mark's comments it isn't so much appealing to people like Robert Tracinski as much as it is about being able to rebuild what, in my view, has been lost in the past few years in terms of the scholarship and activism that came out of IOS/TAS. I don't want RMI to become a clone of either ARI or TAS yet both groups conduct activities that I think are very good and can be used to help revive an independent Objectivist movement. I think it needs a good, active, well-funded organization with dedicated people that can help provide resources in order to make this happen.

Hello Everyone, Some local Objectivists and I are going to start a new think tank dedicated to Objectivist philosophy. I am concerned about the lack of scholarly work and activity on our side of the movement and think that by forming a new organization we can help revive the momentum that has been lost in recent years. The name of our organization will be the Rational Mind Institute (aka RMI). We have 3 people who are members of the Board of Directors (myself included). A little under a month ago we enacted our bylaws, just last week our incorporation was approved by the state of Arizona and within weeks I expect we will be submitting the paperwork for 501 © 3 status. The group will be based out of Phoenix and (fortunately) Arizona has a decent sized Objectivist/libertarian community. I think and hope it is that talent we can initially tap to help our group take off. It is also my hope that RMI will branch out to include and work with other individuals and like-minded organizations as well. Including people from ARI who maybe turned off by the events surrounding the purges of people such as John McClaskey and Robert Tracinski. Arizona has the Goldwater Institute which is an excellent public policy think tank. RMI can be the philosophical transmitter of ideas that is very much needed not only in Arizona but around the country. Simultaneously, we can also coordinate events and other activities with like-minded groups including (but not limited to) The Atlas Society and the people behind the Free Minds conferences. I would like to see RMI host its own conferences in addition to helping to further scholarly work in the field of philosophy. If any of you would like to participate/help it would be appreciated. You can reach our group in which it will come directly to me at rationalmindinst (at) gmail.com. We have reserved domains for a website and will have that up soon. You can also contact me through messaging on these boards as well. I am enthused about this endeavor and ask you all be a part of it.

I disagree on your interpretation but agree with what you stated and is quoted below, Michael. My comments were in a general sense and if engagement is undertaken then the deaths or injuries to civilians should be avoided and kept to a minimum if at all possible. However, it should not distract from the overall goal of taking out the enemy. Especially if the opponent calls for their deaths as a sacrifice to their cause such as what is seen at Hamas rallies in the Gaza Strip. In Gaza I have read of accounts where participants at Hamas rallies (including children) swear oaths to sacrifice their lives in order to kill their enemies. I would assume this includes committing acts of terrorism. If you have an enemy (such as Hamas) that has openly declared they will committ acts of aggression and praise suicide bombers and terrorist groups, then in my mind all bets are off.

All-in-all I liked this. One minor flaw but I won't point it out since to do so might open a can of worms. BTW, has anyone from The Atlas Society made an effort to contact John McCaskey or even Robert Tracinski? If so, what has their response been? If not, I would do so ASAP and ask them to join our side of the movement. Heck, I would be more than happy to do the work myself.

Yes. I apologize I got the names mixed up. I posted this is mainly due to Donway's explanation of a foreign policy of self interest which is explained later in his essay. He critiques and addresses the concerns about TNI's article about Ron Paul and statements by other libertarians while outlining (what I think) is a very good manner in which the U.S. can conduct itself. It does discuss the debate in the libertarian movement over foreign policy but also outlines what I think is a very good explanation of what foreign policy should be all about which is also grounded in reality. Mike, You linked to an article called "The War Over Libertarian Foreign Policy" by Roger Donway. Michael

If anyone (civilian or U.S. servicemember) dies in wars like Afghanistan as a result of soldier or drone attacks that is the fault of the regime the U.S. toppled. In this case the responsibility for civilian deaths is the Taliban and not U.S. forces. Your concern for civilians (while understandable) ignores the wider context of the threat not only to U.S. forces but to the rest of the Afghan population which is the Taliban. If U.S. forces were not hindered by having so many rules placed on them on when to engage in combat or investigate and take out threats, the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have come about. Placing rules of engagement on U.S. forces clearly benefits the enemy they are there to fight. In terms of the rules you speak of under market anarchism the biggest flaw in this is that under such a system if someone damages another party and do not have any insurance coverage they very likely would be out of luck in collecting any kind of compensation. If one disagrees with your arbtration company's findings against someone or don't want to participate in your litigation regarding the damage they did to you good luck on getting them to comply. Market anarchism and/or anarchocaptialism is also based on intrincisism (i.e. valuing consistency for the sake of being consistent), really results in a denial of justice and is not compatible with individual rights.

I am sure he has a good head I was responding to the cruxt of his argument by pointing out not only the flaws in his philosophy while trying to keep it short. I could write a long, detailed rebuttal but wasn't in the mood. However, he can't really expect people not to respond with scorched earth rhetoric when they spew piss and vinegar about something they probably don't understand or comprehend. ;-) Mike, I mean no disrespect to Jackie when I say this. But sometimes it is helpful to look at who you are talking to before taking out the scorched earth rhetoric. The dude's young. Full of piss and vinegar. And he has a really good head. In my book, that's something to be celebrated. I believe he will grow and get wiser with serious objective challenge and a wider range of conceptual referents (as all young folks do). I know one thing, Wholesale condemnation of someone you don't know is not serious challenge--and it is not very endearing, so don't expect him to invite you over to hang out. Michael

Gentlemen I will respond to this essay in more detail at a future time. Despite the fact that I disagree with the premise, I do understand where Michael is coming from. I would refer you all to William Thomas's excellent tract on foreign policy (link below). The U.S.'s foreign policy of installing or supporting regimes friendly to it was not and is not being done in the name of world domination or empire and will have to be used to stem the tide of Islamism like what was used to prevent the spread of communism. Hopefully Thomas's column will explain why or give some insights many of you may not have considered. http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/war-over-libertarian-foreign-policy

I think this post shows the moral bankruptcy of anarchocapitalists and (so-called) left-libertarians. What the author is regurgitating is nothing more than Kantian skepticism which is mainly what AnCap is based on and is the belief that no one can know anything about anything. Governments exist to protect individual rights not only with courts to resolve disputes and police to keep the peace but also provide a military to protect said countries from foreign invasion and attack. In an anarcho-capitalist world there is nothing to stop a Communist collective or thief from being able to attack a capitalist society nor steal one's ideas in order to personally profit from their theft since in ancap theft would not be against the law.

Okay I think I better understand your point. My point wasn't necessarily Spencerian but rather drawing from the logic of Sam Harris in what he said in his book The End of Faith about the religious moderation being a myth as well as his, rightly, laying blame on religion's violent nature being the reason for religious violence. In this case on the part of Muslims. I was aware of the alliance between Nazis and some Muslims during WWII as having recently learned about the Grand Mufti of Palestine paying visits to Hitler and leaders of Nazi Germany. I was not aware of how deep the influences of Nazi culture have been in some aspects of Islam or Muslim countries. I did not know about the CIA recruiting ex-Islamic Nazis from Vichy to help stop the spread of communism. That is surprising and it was a serious foreign policy mistake. However, in terms of your quote regarding how Islamists use the Quran to help inspire or recruit Muslims to jihad are you saying that (on the whole) Muslims are helpless and unable to prevent others from manipulating them? My question is not meant to be facetious but I am trying to understand the full context of your point. That makes certain Muslims "more prone to violence." Not some book by itself that has existed for centuries. Michael