Matus1976

That's a rather deterministic interpretation is it not? You are essentially saying that since the government educated these people, than any decision they ever make later in life was directly and primarily influenced by that indoctrination, to, presumably, favor a pro-fascist position. I am a product of the public school system, yet despite that I am an advocate of civil liberties and free markets. So is that a product of my 'government indoctrination' ? If I owned Digg I too would have changed the algorithm to lower the popularity of Ron Paul articles if I felt their popularity was being artificially elevated or if, as is in my case, I simple think he's an idiot. Of course, since I went to public school, that must be because I was 'indoctrinated' by that school. If I went to private school, would that not also be a product of that indoctrination? The larger conceptual question you imply is to what extent are we responsible for our own choices. Your answer appears to be that our volitional choices are entirely dependant on our schooling, and not our family, upgringing out side of school, work, or choices we make. Interesting blind spot for an objectivist.

The distortions and misrepresentations coming from so-called "Objectivists" is farcical. I was disillusioned with those I regarded as fellow Objectivists before all of this, but when many Christians are more reality-oriented about Ron Paul than Objectivist *leadership* it becomes evident that the Objectivist movement is utterly intellectually bankrupt. This movement is not only dead, it's decayed into oblivion, the apparent remains aren't even the corpse, but the maggots that ate it. Shayne I think you have the movement which has become intellectually bankrupt confused, even so, it's not a movement with a cohesive political stance because it is implicitly individualistic and relates to those individuals values. What you perceive to be the most important issue is not necessarily what I perceive it to be. Two intelligent and rational individuals can both hold the same values and different opinions yet both be logical and consistent in their opinions. If they possess different information sets, they will be drawn to make different logical conclusions.

I missed this response previously, and came across it again. I understand your reaction more to my comments now Martin, I don't advocate and never will advocate using Nuclear weapons against the population of Iran, North Korea, or anywhere for that matter. I think their use was justified in WWII, but probably will never be again, not with the strategic and smart weapons we have now. I am absolutely disgusted by that 'Nuke em all' (as you say) 'arm chair objectivist warriors' I think such an attitude is absolute atrocious. During the initial phases of the latest installment of the Iraq war, after a few days of apprehension on the part of Iraqi people, the population started again taking part in it's daily activities because they knew as long as they didnt go in or next to a palace or a government building, there was very little chance of getting injured or killed because these smart weapons were so damn good. I see this as a more accurate representation of the kind of strategic response I advocate, absolutely not a nuclear one. Of course, once that major campaign was over the Iraqi people faced attacks from insurgents, domestically, and ones pouring in from Iran and Syria. Since we had this discussion, we had another related one which we agreed on some primary points, which I responded to here http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...=5126&st=80 (edit - that should go to post 87) In short, I advocated the formation of an alliance of liberal constitutional democracies and a '12 step' program to move these horrific shitty nations toward more representative governments with rule of law and market based systems. These nations are the freest, richest, and most militarily powerfully of the world, and none of this shitty despotic hell holes can stand a chance. I am not qualified to present this list of things to do in this '12 step' program yet, I am still studying the question, but such a thing could start with demanding that any international aide provided by controlled and distributed by the providers of the aide (this is almost never the case now), open access by international NGO's and monitoring groups, etc and ending with directed strategic attacks which specifically target the upper echelons of that government. After which a large international force would work immediately to provide rule of law, court systems, and initiate programs to transition governments. None of it would be easy or painless, but in the short term the world would reap immediate humanitarian benefits, and in the long term some of the most significant threats humanity will ever face will be reduced. Again, I am not qualified to say what steps would work best, but Freedomhouse recently published the results of a large empirical study "How Freedom is Won" (this is from R.J. Rummels Blog) Rummel continues: So, what can be said about democratization from this fascinating and landmark study (paraphrasing and quoting from this study): "The most effective agent for promoting change toward democracy is broad-based, nonviolent civic resistance -- which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes, and civil disobedience to delegitimize authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders" It's an interesting prospect, perhaps this would work better than many of the steps I suggest, but without Rule of Law and Free Speech, I have a hard time seeing 'civic protests' working in North Korea. Whatever works, my ultimate goal is to see the spread of liberal constitutional representation market democracies as quickly as is reasonably possible while being as painless as reasonably possible. I hardly think such a thing qualifies as 'thuggish' South Korea achieved this transition in about 30 years with no directed international help, let alone that of a coalition of liberal democracies. The vast majority of the deaths and violence (over 95%) in Iraq have comes at the hands of other terrorists targeting Iraqis, most of which have come from Iran and Syria. A larger force at the outset would have mitigated this, and so would a coalition of all free nations. Hiding our head in the sand and insisting that we do absolutely nothing until a battleship steams up the Hudson is completely ridiculous in an age of nuclear weapons, and a coming age of nanotechnology and bio terrorism. I'll comment to the rest later but I hope that clarifies my position more. None of this suggests we don't do everything we can to spread real freedom and liberty here and now in the US, and all the western nations, and I suggest the world, not just for humanitarian reasons (which objectivists would scoff at as altruistic) but because any assault on freedom and liberty to any person in the world is an assault on the very concept of both, and because in the long run our very survival is at stake.

well, that's your take on it. I find nothing wrong with getting out of Iraq. We had no reason to be there, and libertarians should never be pro-war. (pro-defense is something else, and invading Iraq was never pro-defence). Yes I am aware that is my take on it. I find everything wrong with pulling out of Iraq, this is not the 1700's, we don't need an Iraqi Battleship steaming up the Hudson to act in self defense. In an age of nuclear terrorism, bio terrorism, and rapid technological growth, it perpetually takes fewer and fewer resources to kill more and more people. It is in the long term rational best interest of the US to promulgate the spread of constitutional market based democracies, allowing murderous despotism to become entrenched will always come back to bite you in the end and to a much worse degree than if you had acted earler. The greatest enemy we face right now is not just Al Qaeda but murderous fundamentalist Islam in general, where Al Qaeda is only one face of hundreds. This murderous fundamentalist is fed and promulgated by the plethora of murderous dictatorships which dominate the middle east, of the 22 nations of the middle east 20 were totalitarian hell holes. You must always deal the best blow you can against the worst enemy possible, creating a more progressive market based democracy in the middle east is the best long term thing we can do right now. Consider that in South Korea, a nation went from not even having a word for personal individual freedom, to being one of the wealthiest, freest, and most progressive democracies on the planet in about 30 years with NO directed international support in that direction. While I don't agree with him, I don't find his stance on Roe vs Wade as 'dispicable'. Its clear where he's coming from on RvW. It's not clear, it's foolish and relates to his pro south lincoln evil stance, he is part of the libertarian contigent which elevates states rights over individual rights. If it is up to the states to decide if abortion is murder, why don't we let individual states decide if slavery is just as well? Why not let individual states setup their own gulags and criminal justice systems, ignoring our constitution? His stance on RvW is either a pathetic cop out or a disgusting mis-prioritization of valus. It is never right for part of a nation to withdraw and form an even more oppresive nation. Well... that's your take on it.

As a former libertarian I am thouroughly enthused to see so many signs for Ron Paul for his domestic libertarian support and it's good to see a legitimate 'third' option (even though he is officially republican) getting so much attention. However, as that same 'former' libertarian, I despise Ron Paul's foriegn policy ides, and to me this trumps all his domestic libertarian stances. Also, his popularity is not coming from his libertarian stance, it's coming from his abandon iraq now stance, he is the only major truly anti-war candidate, so again my enthusiasm for Ron Paul signs is significantly reduced. They all like him for the wrong reasons. His stance on Roe V Wade, stem cell research, and affiliation with the pro-south evil lincoln libertarian contigent is rather dispicable as well. Ultimately I feel very much like Kat, equally dissapointed with everyone.

Jordan asked And Barbara asked I agree with Jordan here, my personal feelings on this have evolved toward being annoyed at people who I feel compelled to lie to, and generally to begin to remove these people from my life. If I have a friend who wants to hang out, and I don't want to, the fact that I would feel inclined AT ALL to LIE to them, means they do not fundamentally respect me as a individual sentient being with my own wants, desires, preferences, and instead just a audience for them. I should be able to say I am just not in the mood. It's my life, as a friend, they ought to respect that, as I would for them. Now I only have one friend that I ever feel inclined to say "I am busy" or "I am not feeling well" or something to that effect, because he is insulted or hurt often, and we (me and my other friends) are always very annoyed that he is so childish and immature about this, so I just hang out with him very rarely now. With every one of my other friends we have a perfectly agreeable relationship and routinely say to each other that we just don't feel like hanging out, something that comes from a fundamental respect of that person. Because this attitude of feeling obliged to hang out with someone is so prevalent, I always try to phrase my invites to other people with 'easy outs' so they won't be put in the difficult position of having to make up an excuse. I certainly don't want someone hanging out with me who doesnt actually want to. Usually I would say "If you don't all ready have plans we are thinking of doing this" where most often people say "what are you doing Friday" putting the person on the spot, lie to make up plans, or say he has none then feel obliged to hang out or have to come up with an excuse. The easy out is better all around. The only problem area I have had integrating this is with my parents.

Thanks for the tip. That's a shame, Shayne, you agreed strongly with me on the Issue of Innate Talent, even where you and I were among the overwhelming minority of voices. And for that matter, Johnny agreed with us as well. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=16218 http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=12019

I could of course retort by saying "You're not a good philosopher either" but you still wouldnt get it. Hey, FRONT PAGE NEWS, Shayne think's I'm not a good philosopher!!! Wow!!! Stop the presses! Do you think I actually care whether you think I'm a good philosopher? Seriously?? You must have an over inflated sense of self worth to think some stranger on a forum values your assessment of him so much as to make such a statement worthy of making. I don't, yet you continue to make absurd comments like this, the only reason for doing so then is to make yourself feel better. Hows that's working out for you?

More chest pounding and indignance. How about we just get back to questions? By what standard are you measuring "freedom"? Where do you rank the US? Tell me in what way Ron Paul will act to promulgate the freedom of other people in the world? What nation is the best friend of freedom in the world? What is the "most free" or "least oppressive" nation? Do we trade with brutally oppressive shit holes or do we not? How do we keep offensive western culture which incites murderous terrorism out of the hands of these brutal regimes? What is your definition of freedom? How do I 'force' someone to be free? What nation do you live in now? Would you move to North Korea? What nation is doing the most toward promulgating the growth of individual freedom in the long term? How about identifying different kinds of freedoms, then rating them in importance, which is most important? Is being taxed on income the same thing as being indefinately imprisoned until being tortured to death? Have you started a business in the US? WHEN did I say I want to force people to be free? Can you rank countries by their freedoms yet not be a relativist? If we did box up our judges and courts and send them over to Iraq, we would be helping them defend freedom? But not the material requirements to act in the physical world to defend their rights? Could we defend individual rights at home WITHOUT the armed forces, or police? What would this government do in your idea of a free nation? How old are you?

Here you go presuming what I think again. That is the only logical possiblity. Any personal insults or vague accusations were direct copies of your insults / accusations. What is left to be my 'stupid remarks' but my opinions and statements. In which case, 'stupid remarks' are just things you disagree with. But feel free to quote a 'stupid remark' of mine that is not a statement of my opinion or a copy/paste of your 'stupid remarks' And again with the presumption. You're on a roll. You've been on a roll all week. I think that is all you know how to <snip> bla bla bla you talk alot without saying much, let's try to up that signal to noise ratio, how about, 2 meaningful posts for every 10 posts of huffing and hawing? Duh which is why I ask lots of questions, often the same question over and over and over again, and you rail on and on, like you are here again, about everything but answering questions. About your feelings, you opinions on public schooling, your attitudes on relating arguments to age, on and on. What is your definition of freedom? where is your logical proof that i was advocating 'forcing' freedom on others do you have any established post where you define freedom?

Really, because you have done exactly this to me, and admitted it. So if I did it, then that makes it OK for you to do it? Because I'd say that my shame doesn't make yours less. Unless you're Christian. No, the point of this was that you are doing exactly what you hate it when other people do that to you. Have I *actually* done that to you? I dont think so, because I asked you a dozen times now what you mean by 'freedom', and you never answered. Have you actually done that to me? I think so, because I've told you a dozen times exactly what I meant by freedom and how it was not possible to force that on someone, yet you still persisted in saying I adovcated 'forcing' freedom on others. Perhaps we can clearify this with more ease, can you point to an early post in any other thread in any forum in which you identified your definition for freedom? If you have a previously established definition of freedom on the web which you have stated and a reasonable time authentication to it which is not compatable with the idea of 'forcing freedom' on others, we'll have a better idea of where the mistake in communication occured.

I call myself a rational individualist, and I mean that as a concept not as the name of a concrete group. Ok, I would call myself that as well. But what are the practical manifestations of your conceptual identification here? I understand from your discussion on what makes a nation free, that the government should not be involved in business at all, and should not be involved in regulating voluntary interaction between consenting individuals? Should there be a government at all? What would this government do in your idea of a free nation? (for instance, I would answer that as being the final arbiter in matters of dispute, of holding a monopoly over time delayed retaliatory use of force, and responsible for self defense)

Actually it's interesting what *you* reveal here, because you're doing exactly what I just accused you of. What I was thinking is that he'd be one step better for leaving because refraining from making stupid remarks would make him one step better than someone who spews them out every 5 minutes. That's what I was thinking. But look what you presumed about what I thought. That I "revealed" something to you that I meant to keep hidden. How wrong you were. That kind of mistake on your part would shake an honest man to the core, he'd revisit why he thinks the way he does and be more careful in the future. But not you. That's a real black mark on your soul, you should at least try to wash it off. Shayne Well, thats your interpretation, I'd ask what others thought of this and my comments in post 145 if there are any third parties left reading this. My 'stupid remarks' are positions and arguments you disagree with. Your 'stupid remarks' are insults and vague accusations. Perhaps if you just refrained from these in the first place, this thread would have gone alot better. You have in fact revealed that you intentionally hurl insults to try to dissuade conversation from progressing. I have revealed, what? that despite this I stick around in order to try to understand your position? and THAT is a 'black mark on my soul' whew. I think the simpler explanation is that your insults and accustations are just completely irrelevant to me, and that you think anyone who disagrees with your is merely 'stupid'

Really, because you have done exactly this to me, and admitted it. You told me that I think X (I want to force others to be free) when I know I think Y (you can't force the absence of force) Was this a miscommunication? I came right out and said over and over and over again that not only do I not advocate 'forcing' people to be free, but that this is, in fact, not logically possible. So does this mean you lack respect for yourself now? And here is yet another post where you are acting all indignent and insulted. Lets try to get back on target, what about your assertion that I am forcing others to value what I value, and then your immediate rephrasely of that to 'forcing others to be free' Please explain how you think both of those yet assert the latter was not based on your understanding of freedom, even while the former is a completely logical statement. You have continued to avoid this question over and over again. Why not just explain yourself? That would clear alot of confusion up. **Sigh**, quoting Shayne again, In my view Shayne is the sort of person which is a product of our public schools. In a better world, the pathology that could make someone feel certain while they utter a stream of assertions that bear no relation to reality would be detected and corrected before the child turned 16. Unfortunately this pathology is precisely what the public schools encourage, with their "everyone's opinion matters" and "self-esteem" propaganda.

Neither. And I'm not a Libertarian. Well that is some progress, thanks for answering a simple question. As a Ron Paul supporter, it seemed reasonable to think you were a Libertarian. If not, what are you (if you can sum it up in a statement)? I agree with Ron Paul on almost everything, but absolutely not on foreign policy.

Johnny and Matus is one in the same guy, isn't he? Dragonfly is really just SJW's alter ego right? MSK, a cursory review of this thread would reveal who has resorted, over and over again, to childish insults. Anytime my posts contain those, they are literal copies and paste's of exactly what SJW has said to me (in emphasis of the ridiculous waste of time such comments are) As I said previously for every 1 post SJW actually makes and argument or defines something, there are 10 of his full of evasions, name calling, grammatical nitpicking, etc. This thread would be a much more pleasent read if he simply answered questions and didnt pepetually resort to ad hominems.

Why don't you just make your arguments and stop asking question after question to determine how you'll formulate those arguments. For every post with an argument, you average 10 with obfuscations, vague insults, and red herrings. Perhaps, Shayne you're just plain stupid, since you are always assuming a stupid things about what I meant. If you want to walk away now, saying nothing else I'd compliment you for being one step better than Matus. Of course, that's not really a compliment. Interesting what you reveal here. Why would staying around and putting up with you be something worthy of compliment? Is that, perhaps, because you intentionally throw around things you KNOW are childish insults and vague evasions? What's that make you, for staying around and yapping? I'm trying to whiddle through all this nonsesical crap you spew (which you have essentially admitted to now) just so I can have a clearer understanding of the twisted conception of freedom which people like you hold. Your vague irrelevant insults and obfuscations and evasions are just noise, I don't base my sense of self esteem on what you think of me, so really the only reason you would resort to such immature tactics is because you base part of your self esteem on hurling insults. How old did you say you were?

Shayne, I think the notion of "our own interests" as it exists in your head is dangerous and confused. See my post 87 to Martin about our long term rational self interests. You assessment of our "own interests" lacks the prefix "long term" and "rational" It's a strange state, not knowing whether you understand. "Maybe I understand. I'm not sure." Huh? Much like you and the concept of 'freedom' So, if we ship over all three branches of government, and the military to enforce and defend rights, then we would be helping individuals protect their freedoms? Hmm, well, we do kind of need our three branches of government here in this country, perhaps, I don't know, we HELP OTHER NATIONS, setup a similiar system? Or at least a system which progresses in THAT DIRECTION? Hmm, gee, that sounds kind of familiar, didn't we do that somewhere? Aren't we trying to do that somewhere now? Flip your question around, could we defend individual rights at home WITHOUT the armed forces, or police? The executive, judicial, and legislative branches are useless without the tangible ability to act in the real world to defend freedoms and justice. This pretty clearly demonstrates why that establishing rule of law and defense of basic civil liberties, like a right to life, is the first and most important thing to do.

Ahaha! Finally! Some of those great and powerfull arguments you've been alluding too. Well, an attempt at one anyway. Actually, what you said was and that is what I responded to with You do realize these things are permanently recorded here, don't you? So no, you werent talking about the government inserting itself into foriegn affairs, you were making the bold proclaimation that every single lover of freedom should whole heartedly support Ron Paul. Of course, by your definition of freedom, which could be 'forced' on people, that's possibly true, but you've yet to share your definition. But I doubt lovers of freedom living in Burma, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanastan, Vietnam, North Korea, China, Laos, etc, really would wholeheartedly support Ron Pauls official "sucks to be you" position regarding them. As, so if we did box up our judges and courts and send them over to Iraq, we would be helping them defend freedom? But not the material requirements to act in the physical world to defend their rights? Um humm, that makes sense. I'll be sure to have a judge and a copy of the constitution with me next time I am mugged, that'll stop em! You NEED FORCE to UPHOLD individual rights. For the record, are you an Anarcist Libertarian or a Minarchist? This is a confused question. I of course don't have a problem with holding a tyrant accountable for his actions against the American people--assuming those Americans are within our borders. I have a problem with using American lives/money to *pretend* to defend the world. Again, we send guns and tanks, not our judicial system. So, if we sent our judicial system, you WOULD be OK with it?

Well that is really an incredible statement. I doubt even Matus agrees. I think that statement would have been better said with "not logically possible" instead of "illogical" which is perhaps what Johnny meant?

Why did you draw that implication? What did matus say to make you think that he was implying a contradiction? Is holding a criminal or a tyrant accountable for his actions wanting to force freedom on people? Why did you ignore my questions to you? You have ignored almost every question I've asked you, primarily What is your definition of freedom? But also, lets throw some questions you've asked right back at you. Have you ever started a business? Have you ever tried to do anything of significance? How old are you? Also, I am still waiting for that logical proof that I want to 'force others to be free'

This is the only alternative you can come up with for what has happened so far? That I don't understand Objectivism/freedom? Truly and honestly? You are certain of this? Now's not the time for hyperbole, answer carefully and precisely: Are you certain that my understanding of Objectivism/freedom/individual rights is as weak/wrong-headed as you have been claiming? No, I told you over and over again what I think happened, originally you had a loosely defined idea of freedom, by which it made logical sense for you to accuse me of 'forcing' that kind of freedom on someone, which to you meant the same thing as "forcing others to value what I value" (you said this explicitly) as the discussion progressed you realized your definition was not thought out clearly and that indeed it is not logically possible to force freedom on someone, then you tried to evade the fact that you never had a decent definition in the first place by just trying to accuse me of trying to do something not logically possible, yet you've never shown how my idea of freedom is even remotely compatable with 'forcing' it on someone, and from the very first responses by me I clearly defined freedom, and asked over and over again for you to.

No, to be precise, you said I wanted to 'force other people to value what I value' and THEN rephrased that to say I wanted to 'force other people to be free', THEN you later tried to claim that indeed it doesnt make sense (only after I harrassed you about the definition of freedom) to force other people to be free, and you were just saying I wanted to do something not logically possible. But 'forcing others to value what I value' IS logically possible, and so it's simplified reprhasing you offered in the next post was also of the logically possible variety (which had to have been based on your twisted definition of freedom, which you still havent offered)

Are you going to stop being presumptuous and stop rambling on, or are you going to answer my questions exactly as I put them to you? Because at this point I am not interested in any sort of exchange except you answering my questions. Or you if want to post your ramblings in a separate post that I can ignore, that is fine too. But in your replies to me, I just want your answers. Those are my terms, take them or leave them. Whoa! after ONE whole post I [FINALLY] Responded!! I have asked you to define freedom probably over a dozen times, to show your logical argument behind claiming I want to 'force others to be free' I had to ask 3 or 4 times for you to acknowledge that the US is one of the freest nations on the planet, and asked you many other times whether you preferred north korea or the US, etc. Oh but I skip one question and I'm skewered! yeah right. Your 'terms' whatever, I'll answer any question you want as long as you answer mine, but you can go ahead and go first, since I'm such a gentleman.

Apparently. Then he accidentally turned too many pages and skipped over every meaningful discussion of freedom in Objectivist literature.