georgedonnelly

This idea that RP is going to turn the tables and get the nomination is irrational and fairy-taleish. RP had his shot and frankly he blew it. We need RP in government. He has earned respect. But: - He's not going to be the Libertarian that wins the Presidency. - There's an even bigger job here of educating the public. - Capturing the presidency may help advance AR's political philosophy but it's not a silver bullet. There is an easy and wrong way, and there is a hard and right way. Shooting for the top as your first move and closing your mind to the facts of the situation is the easy and wrong way. Educating the public, building grassroots, winning congress and then going all out for the presidency is the hard and right way. It's time for RP-supporters to shift from easy-wrong to hard-right. And no you can not do both.

HR 1955 has been exaggerated. The bill just wants to study domestic terrorism. Sure, it has some menacing overtones and it may lead to something later on, but for now I would put it very low on the list of hazards. I like your posts though, fwiw, and think you should keep it up.

Straw polls are almost entirely meaningless. Sad but true.

I was reading this excellent article from the Guardian about Joseph Stiglitz' study of the costs of the Iraq War: The true cost of war Further into the article they talk about how the war has led to the economic downturn in the US and I run into this dissonant piece of junk reasoning: What?! A leading economist demonstrates that the war and all the nonsensical decisions of governments have led us to this problem but "unfettered markets" are to blame?! I thought this classical piece of bait-and-switch reasoning had finally been run out of town on a rail. I guess not. Anybody else find this weird? I was going to buy the book until I read that. Oh well.

[edit: need to rethink my reply]

... that force will not be initiated against me. Pretty simple.

Actually it has several. One of those is: a state of subjection like that of a slave (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery) And one of the definitions of slave is: One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slave) Persons legally working in the USA are in a state of servitude to the IRS. A significant portion of the value we produce is considered the property of the USA, against the wishes of many. Force is used to secure this property. If you think the words 'slave' or 'slavery' are too emotional, perhaps you would like 'serfdom' or 'servitude' better. 'Imprisonment' would also be nice since if you do not submit to their forced seizure of the fruits of your mind/labor, that is what they do to you.

You said: "It's [Objectivism] a religion. That's how she defined it ..." You said that Ayn Rand defined Objectivism as a religion. The meaning of the words you posted is unmistakable. A is A and no amount of spin will change it.

I don't really know where this is coming from, I find the use of 'sacrifice' odd and I'm not sure what she means by that. Her meaning is well-documented in Atlas Shrugged IIRC but may I point you to the Ayn Rand Lexicon: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html I would paste an excerpt but ARI claims a copyright and I don't want to get in trouble.

I said: "Our perception of reality has no effect on reality." If you bombard an object with X-rays, visible light or even bullets, you are changing reality, but it is _not_ your perception that is changing the reality. The act of perception has no effect. I may be better able to perceive the object now, but it is only because reality has been changed. I'm familiar with quantum physics and how scientists have witnessed their act of perceiving or measuring a very small object as causing a change in said object, but I don't think that phenomenon is completely understood yet, so i don't consider it entirely factual yet. Of course one might argue that by viewing something, you are casting a shadow over it as you interrupt the visible light. Or by hearing something, you interrupt the transmission of the sound waves. By touching something, you leave the oils of your skin. When you smell something, you are absorbing the molecules that carry that odor. And of course tasting has a similar effect as smelling. So I may be technically incorrect, but not precisely for the reasons you named.

"servant' is not much better than "slave". These emotional arguments don't lead anywhere. it is not an emotional argument. it is quite factual. The US government compels its citizens, including me, to file a report of income each year and pay taxes on that. The report must be signed which IMO comes close to a violation of the 5th Amendment. I am compelled to incriminate myself, essentially, since, should they decide to prosecute for fraud, they can use my own declaration against me in court. (Not that I am committing fraud but given the moving target that is the tax laws, they can always find something to charge you with.) Whatsmore, as a small business owner, I am compelled to pay ahead my taxes 4 times per year. This includes payroll taxes (social security, medicare, etc) plus estimated federal income taxes. If I don't comply with these quarterly tax filings and payments, they apply large penalties. I also have to snitch on my employees and be responsible for their taxes on income earned from my company. Eventually they would take all my assets if i failed to comply. This, I submit, is a modern form of slavery, where the citizen is subservient to the demands of its government. They don't have us picking cotton in chains, but they still think they own us and the fruits of our labor.

This means that something exists which is independent of humans which I agree with, however, the moment we perceive it, it is no longer independent of us. Furthermore, our feelings, whims, hopes or fears can affect the way we perceive reality and if we are not careful they can predominate one's outlook. I perceive a mountain range that is visible from my window. That I perceived it does not change anything about it. If I dislike it, it does not cease to exist. If I hope for a bigger or smaller mountain, it does not correspondingly change in size. If I am afraid it will fall over and crush me, its structural stability neither increases or decreases. If any change occurs, it occurs in me, and not in the mountain, unless or until i walk to the mountain and start digging into it with my pickaxe. Our perception of reality has no effect on reality.

a point of clarification BB: The only thing I am "at someone's throat" about is sjw claiming that AR said Objectivism was a religion. Later he claimed she just implied it. And he refuses to document his claim. I don't take well to people who are fast and loose with the truth. BB: "Yes, but which pholosophy is it? Your statement is of no assistance in determining whether one is or is not an Objectivist." Unfortunately it seems we have multiple threads of discussion going on in this forum thread. sjw says Objectivism is a religion. I simplied replied that it was a philosophy, and most definitely NOT a religion. At no time was I attempting to assist in determining whether one is or is not an Objectivist. I chose not to get involved with UncleJim's points because, while I understand what he was saying, I found it too amorphous to comment on intelligently. I hope this clears that up for you BB. [edit: fix typo]

Yet this statement by AR that O-ism is a "religion" does not _exist_. And there's the rub. O-ism is a philosophy, regardless of what you or I say about it. Until or unless someone makes any further substantive addition to the conversation I will refrain from adding further to this thread.

So I should replace the religion of Objectivism with the religion of Shayne? I should take your word for everything, even the most outrageous of pronunciations. You are self-contradictory. Ayn Rand never declared that Objectivism was a religion. Give me a break.

(1) Asking for substantiation of an absurd statement may be absurd as well, but for the maker of the absurd statement to claim it to be absurd is redundantly and self-defeatingly so. Congratulations, you have successfully encircled yourself in absurdity. (2) I do not require your help, sir. What help you require I will refrain from commenting on out of good taste. (3) If you feel insulted then you most certainly deserved whatever insult you perceived. (4) You would do well to either document your claim or retract it. [edit: fix typo]

Document it or it didn't happen and you're just making stuff up. I'm beginning to think you are just a troll.

Wolf, I really enjoy your writing. Thank you very much for sharing it.

What I am saying is that a clearly defined philosophy such as objectivism requires a certain amount of "us-them" thinking in order for it remain meaningful; in order for it to keep it's integrity. We say "I am, therefore I'll think." (AR), they say "I think, therefore I am." (EK). There is no way to reconcile these two statements. They conflict. Therefore, to put it crudely, there is "us" and there is "them" and never the twain shall meet. I know very little about the objectivist schisms and am not attempting to comment on them. I'm not equivocating and my arguments are not circular. Your choice of words borders on insulting and may be detrimental to a free exchange of ideas. I plan to make this my last post on this thread.

You are projecting something onto what I said. I never implied it and because of that I have no need to deny the nonexistent implication that you projected. I thought I was clear but I'll restate. Mike 11 said "The us-them puritanical thinking is largely built in [ to Objectivism]". I said that without some amount of drawing lines delineating what is consistent with the philosophy and what is not, the philosophy becomes meaningless.

If I need an authority to do that for me then the philosophy isn't a coherent body of knowledge in the first place. So you're making a circular argument. I don't remember saying "an authority" was needed.

What you are saying means that individualism by nature is always going to be overrun by collectivism. Since the moral is the practical, you're clearly wrong. You need to check your premises. I think that is an exaggeration of what he is saying. I think the failure of objectivism to congeal as a movement may have something to do with these phenomena: - AR's most popular work, Atlas Shrugged, is very open to wrong interpretations of what her philosophy is. While it caught the attention of a lot of good people for all the right reasons it also was used by small-minded people to jump to all the wrong conclusions. - The world is still very much in the collectivist grip, even in the caplistic-ish nations. Many hold self-sacrifice as their fundamental ideal, refuse to accept the concept of personal responsibility and demand social safety nets from their governments. That is a huge barrier. - AR said she didn't want a movement IIRC (?). It seemed like she worked against any kind of movement or organization. She badmouthed the Libertarians, a lesser evil. In fact I think she said people shouldn't even vote, or maybe that was Peikoff. In any case, Objectivism seems to be about teaching, learning, writing and speaking; and not about organizing or working for change, if you listen to Ayn Rand.

Of course not. However, there is need to identify which views are consistent with the philosophy and which are antithetical to it.

To some extent this is required for any body of ideas to be coherent. A philosophy becomes meaningless if there's isn't something outside of it to bound what it is from what it is not. Objectivism says the individual is inviolate. If someone says, well, that's nice, but we need mandatory income taxes and we need some regulation and abortion has to be illegal, then they are plainly occupying an incorrect philosophical position with respect to Objectivism. How can an Objectivist have any other reaction but to repudiate such a person as an Objectivist? In other words, if such a person claims to be an Objectivist, it is a falsehood and must be identified as such. Less significant differences of opinion or interpretation might not warrant such a reaction. I like the idea of building a big tent around the solid tenets of Objectivism. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of all the schisms. From what I have read they seem like molehills made into mountains. But at some level this so-called "us-them" thinking is an absolute requirement of any serious philosophy and I wouldn't have Objectivism without it. That's not to say that we can't dialog with others who aren't Objectivists. So I don't see how what you call the 'us-them' thinking in her written works of philosophy is necessarily a problem. Maybe you can elaborate? Edit: Thanks Wolf.

What can be changed? A lot. We must make plans, imagine, brainstorm and work hard and smart to make our ideals, the best in us, become 'what is'.