jriggenbach

With statements like this the term Gas Chamber Mentality seems to come to mind.

I understand your point of view just fine, Mike - with perhaps one big exception:

Some people associated with no State, but instead with an independent, international criminal organization, launch an attack on New York and Washington. They bring down a couple of huge buildings, and kill a few thousand people. The U.S. military then proceeds to bomb a bunch of people who had nothing whatever to do with these attacks.

Explain to me how this constitutes "self defense."

Hearing a coherent explanation of this point (though I doubt one is possible) might cause me to learn something I don't already know about your warped viewpoint.

JR

Really eloquent explanation, Mike. Now I understand - fully.

JR

Jeff, as I said a thirteen year old -- or a Rand fan of almost any age could figure out the value of those extras to fans.

(Especially when things like deleted scenes, photos, interviews with the stars are inexpensive and there is space on the disk.)

Yes, and all those 13-year-olds doubtless know with certainty (as you obviously do) that there are deleted scenes and interviews with the stars in existence that could be included. Which secondary source did you find that information in?

But all this is mere quibbling. What is unequivocally clear is that the people who put together these first DVD releases were all, to a man, incompetent amateurs. If only they had sought Phil's advice before proceeding! Or, better yet, given the project to Phil to take care of personally!

Is there anything in the world of Objectivism that wouldn't be better if Phil did it?

All of you lurking out there, reading these words: I ask you! Is it not patently obvious?

I rest my case.

JR

Subject: Jeff the Elitist

> the immense base of knowledge and understanding of the film industry that he drew on

Jeff, we've had this argument over and over in many fields. With your usual elitist "you gotta be an expert to open your mouth and offer an opinion" mistake, you simply don't seem to grasp that choosing attractive special features to add is a no-brainer.

Even a reasonably thirteen year old could get it. You don't have to have spent years in the film industry or in the academic study of it.

Just as you don't have to have spent decades studying literature or in film school to often tell a lemon from a peach.

There are areas where you -do- have to be an expert to know enough to pontificate or make a case. The problem is that the examples you use -- in a number of fields -- seldom are among those.

And they seldom make -you- unwilling to offer very strong opinions in those areas. Hmmmm, could that be because you are "the expert"....?

I am expert in a few fields, yes. I didn't come by my expertise by skimming secondary sources, however, so it pales in comparison to your own expertise, of course.

And yes, I had mercifully forgotten your doctrine that it is necessary to know what one is talking about on certain subjects (mostly the ones you personally know something about), but on other subjects (mostly the ones about which you don't even realize the extent of your own ignorance), no expertise is necessary (or even, probably, possible - after all, anybody's opinion is as good as anybody else's.)

JR

The point is not a difficult one: Lots of people buy a DVD of a film because of the extras.

To respond directly to GB, the extra doesn't have to be a "director's cut": It can be other items of the types listed. In fact, GB himself even listed one.

Doh!!!

I assumed both Jeff and Greybird were smart enough* to look through the laundry list and (i) realize that not every special feature fits every movie, (ii) figure out which of those long lists of items would have been intriguing to potential buyers and could easily have been done for the Atlas movie, (iii) grasp why talking heads of Oist Reason or libertarian think tankers or intellectuals are not immensely appealing to those outside the know.

*maybe I was mistaken, though

You were mistaken, though not about our intelligence, rather about the extent of our knowledge of why other people buy things. You see, we can't read minds, Steve and I, smart though we undeniably are, so we don't really know for sure why other people buy things (beyond the obvious stuff that you can learn from praxeology - but I needn't mention what you can learn from praxeology, you've read Human Action and Man, Economy, & State I'm sure, so you know all that). We simply lack your astonishing depth of knowledge of sales and marketing. Can you name some of the secondary sources you skimmed to attain it, so some of the rest of us can add to our learning?

Or was your method maybe a purely deductive one, like the praxeologists'? You know, something along these lines:

DVD "A" was purchased by many people

DVD "A" has certain kinds of special features on it.

Therefore the people who bought DVD "A" bought it for those special features.

JR

Dumps from the Internet Movie Database are no substitute for discussion. You haven't responded to a single one of my points.

This film is not an effects-driven (or CGI-towed) epic, and you're still suggesting it can be sold on the same basis.

I am really starting to see that posts here soon become, as far as the good any thinking through an issue can do, the archetypical casting of pearls before swine, as Riggenbach recently said to me.

I don't think you're giving Phil adequate credit here, Steve. He spent minutes skimming secondary sources to build up the immense base of knowledge and understanding of the film industry that he drew on for his comments.

JR

Now, now, Jeff. No need to get defensive. I would hope you and the others who reel against my essay can appreciate someone like myself having the integrity to raise questions that provoke controversy and new thought outside the libertarian/Objectivist monestary. Furthermore, the conclusions I have drawn with regards not only to terrorism but also operations like AWC are the result of lots of observation on my part having gone from antiwar to pro-self defense.

It is unfortunate that when one raises questions that such a response from people such as yourself would be grounded in a defensive posture rather than taking the time to ask why people like myself came to the conclusions I did and now take a different view.

Therein lies the problem in many libertarian circles I frequent(ed) and your response is an indication of this. They are so wrapped up in their own mantras they tend to refuse to consider if the conclusions they drew with regards to issues (like war and foreign policy) are wrong and instead of trying to understand the point of view of the dissenter they, instead, resort to ad-hominem attacks.

As to the points I raise in the essay is that the enemy within speaks through Antiwar.com and I divulged my reasons for why I came to my conclusions. But are Antiwar.com and other libertarian organizations receiving Stealth Jihad funding? That I am not sure.

What's it like living in your world, Mike? All those swarthy foreigners endlessly scheming to destroy Western Civilization - and for no reason at all, other than their savagery and their unreasoning hatred of the good for being the good! And you don't even see the comedy in this perspective on things. What a pity.

JR

I understand your point of view just fine, Mike - with perhaps one big exception:

Some people associated with no State, but instead with an independent, international criminal organization, launch an attack on New York and Washington. They bring down a couple of huge buildings, and kill a few thousand people. The U.S. military then proceeds to bomb a bunch of people who had nothing whatever to do with these attacks.

Explain to me how this constitutes "self defense."

Hearing a coherent explanation of this point (though I doubt one is possible) might cause me to learn something I don't already know about your warped viewpoint.

JR

In all of its years in operation, no people have ever been killed by antiwar.com.

About once every couple of years, I spend a morning and part of an afternoon with (**Full Disclosure**) my old friend Eric Garris at the offices of AntiWar.com in San Francisco. And I'm here to tell you that, every time, his hospitality almost kills me. It usually takes me a couple of years to recover and do it again.

Seriously, Martin. if you weren't here, I sometimes don't know what I would do. Thanks for being here.

JR

I happened upon a thread made by Antiwar.com staff member Angela Keaton on Facebook about how her group was the subject of an federal investigation as revealed by recently declassified F.B.I. documents. What is disgusting about the commentary written by Justin Raimondo Keaton linked to not only was it being used to raise money for the website but also attempted to make Antiwar.com out to be victims of a government conspiracy against them. Raimondo claims such actions on the part of federal agents are geared to silence dissent on the part of antiwar/peace groups and activists.

Then I got to thinking.

No you didn't. In evidence, I submit the rest of your post.

Last year some antiwar groups (so called) were the subject of a federal investigation in which one Minnesota activist named Mick Kelly had his house raided resulting from the F.B.I. having evidence that he was willing to help train members of Columbia's communist rebel group (FARC). It was also discovered by federal agents that Kelly had a relationship with Hatem Abudayyeh who also had his home raided the same time as Kelly's. Abudayyeh is the director of the Arab American Action Network is alleged to have ties to Islamist groups and is also under investigation for potentially laundering half a million dollars in government grants.

In the case of Antiwar.com, the group posted a publicly available terrorist watch list on their website and commentaries by Antiwar.com authors were passed out at anti war protests. This, in turn, prompted the F.B.I. to initiate an investigation to determine if the employees or owners of the website were spies or terrorist sympathizers. I think the fact that the F.B.I. has investigated Antiwar.com raises questions about the website itself.

With such words posted on Antiwar.com does Justin Raimondo really think his website's supporters are such simpletons that they do not think or know the implications of what an F.B.I. investigation really means? Despite what Angela Keaton, Justin Raimondo, and Eric Garris may tell you the investigation (if any) is not being done to silence dissidents on the war on terrorism.

Admittedly I do not have any evidence to prove it and can only hypothesize. But I would not be surprised if it is later revealed that websites such as Antiwar.com along with groups that further conspiracy theories about 9/11 are having or have had money funneled to them via direct or indirect means from political Islamists as part of an effort on their part to undermine U.S. military and clandestine efforts in the middle east to stop terrorism. This being done in order to disseminate false or misleading information hoping to create doubt in the public's minds about U.S. foreign policy in the court of public opinion.

If you think I am off my rocker . . .

Relax. I don't think you're off your rocker, just a bit stupid. Stupid enough to believe that the FBI doesn't investigate anybody who isn't "guilty" of something. Stupid enough to believe that the U.S. government never tries to silence anybody. That kind of stupid.

. . . consider that dictatorships will send money or support like-minded groups or efforts that match the philosophy the people who make up such regimes subscribe to up to and including disseminating propaganda. The Soviet Union was notorious for funneling money to violent and non-violent communistic efforts. Similar activities go on today with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia sending generous amounts of money to groups that match their version of Islam. Saudi Arabia supports the Salafi/Wahhabi movement while Iran supports groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood yet in addition to their theological outlook contributing to the radicalization of Muslims their efforts also include disseminating misleading information geared to further their purposes. The Council on Foreign Relations has a comprehensive report up at their website on how terrorists and groups that support them use the internet as part of their efforts to disseminate misinformation in addition to coordinate activities involving violence too.

In many ways I am not surprised that Justin Raimondo and other Antiwar.com staff members would make themselves out to be victims of a conspiracy to silence them. However, if the example of antiwar group raids that occured last year are any indication, the F.B.I. will not subject people to scrutiny unless they had or have some concrete evidence to go on and their agents will investigate potential leads if it matches a particular case that was or is open under the organization's jurisdiction.

Because of the possibility that the F.B.I. has evidence that the group behind Antiwar.com might be the recipient of funds from sources with ties to terrorist organizations that's why they were (and possibly still are) under investigation. That's why the F.B.I. raided (so called) antiwar organization's headquarters last year since there was hard evidence of contact or potential ties with terrorists. If it is determined that Antiwar.com is receiving money from Islamist groups the group could end up in the same boat as the communist organizations and individuals who were the subject of F.B.I. raids in 2010.

To her credit and in fairness, after I raised this issue Angela Keaton stated my point(s) were baseless. But we have yet to hear from Justin Raimondo or Eric Garris if they also deny their operation could be supported by Islamists as part of a misinformation effort and if the group will now screen out who their contributors are and refuse donations from questionable sources. It would be interesting to see if Garris, Raimondo and other antiwar libertarians are open evidence that contradict their conclusion that U.S. foreign policy was the reason for terrorism in the U.S. and abroad and (if proven wrong) they are willing to change their minds.

Time will tell if Antiwar.com and other like-minded individuals such as Alex Jones, and groups like Iraq Vets Against the War as well as even candidates who have run and are running for office are supported by Islamist money or not.

Regardless if Antiwar.com is the direct or indirect recipient of funds from groups with ties to terrorists, in the end, all they should be remembered for is how they were one of many means to the end of Political Islamist's efforts to undermine (if not outright destroy) Western Civilization. If the United States collapses from within as a result of the Stealth Jihad on the part of Islamist groups the people to thank for helping to make it a reality it will be the result of groups, like Antiwar.com, that helped make it happen.

What's it like living in your world, Mike? All those swarthy foreigners endlessly scheming to destroy Western Civilization - and for no reason at all, other than their savagery and their unreasoning hatred of the good for being the good! And you don't even see the comedy in this perspective on things. What a pity.

JR

Taylor Schilling seems to be doing quite well. She will star in The Lucky One with Zac Efron, about a Marine searching for the unknown woman he believes was his good luck charm during the Iraq war. And Ben Affleck has just added her to the cast of Argo, based on a true story about a CIA team that attempted to extract diplomats from Tehran in 1979 by posing as a film crew.

Both movies are scheduled for release in 2012. Does anyone know if she has committed to Atlas Shrugged Part Two?

She damn well better be, she was excellent.

OMG. We agree about something. How unsettling.

She was the primary reason I kept going back to see Part One over and over (and over). And she will be the reason I buy the DVD.

We agree on quite a lot of "things," except for the ones that you are wrong about of course.

If you remember, we were both salivating over her clearly visible "acting skills" when we first saw her pictures, err I mean her clear endowments, err I mean her acting performance in the videos is what I mean...right?

If you remember, Dennis spent most of his time when the trailer and the first scenes came out, not salivating over anything, but strutting around comically in his trademark high moral dudgeon mouthing inanities I'm sure he half-understood about what he regarded as the unconscionably inept computer animation in the train scenes.

JR

To continue, rather than spike, this discussion on this level--not the point of Phil's thread--we all go read Paul Johnson as Phil has already done.

Happy reading.

It would also be helpful if you could get Phil to acknowledge that his stated source, Paul Johnson, is notoriously pro-Christian throughout his writing.

I suspected that this was the case, but was curious to see in what direction the discussion would progress.

I originally wanted to reply to Phil: "I recommend Karl Deschner's "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums" ('Criminal History of Christiniaty'), but then decided against it because I don't want to enter here on this thread into a polemic bac-and-forth about the 'virtues and vices' of Christianity, during which the original question would get lost: "Why is Objectivism Not Spreading".

So why is Objectivism not spreading? I'm very interested in your assessment on that, JR.

No philosophical system "spreads." No philosophical system has ever "spread" or ever will. People are not philosophical. Reading and thinking about philosophy are activities engaged in by a vanishingly small segment of the population. This has always been true. I believe it always will be. Phil compares the spread of Objectivism to the spread of Christianity, but on one very important level, there is no comparison between them. The intellectual content of Christianity is minuscule; any dolt can comprehend it after ten minutes of exposure to it. Understanding Objectivism even as well as I do (and there are others who understand it far better than I) is a project that would take an intelligent person at least a few years. Most people would never be able to summon the interest even to attempt something like that. And a very large percentage of them, if they did try, would discover they were in over their heads: they simply lack the capacity to undertake such work.

That's the reality of the situation. The idea that Objectivism (or even the comparatively much simpler libertarianism) will sweep the culture is a pipe dream. It'll never happen in our lifetimes. It'll probably never happen at all. If you're involved in this stuff, make sure it's because being involved in it is an end in itself for you - because you can't imagine not being involved, knowing what you know. If you're in it to change the world, you're heading for disillusion and despair.

JR

[to Dennis Hardin] I am beginning to believe you have a reading disability.

You're onto something here, Michael - something fundamental. Actually, it's much more than merely a reading problem, but the fact that you've noticed this shows that you've taken a big step toward understanding the whole truth.

Cryptically (and nihilistically, of course)

JR

But without the final prohibition of these cults (including the Christian variants mentioned above) via 'imperatorial power', Christianity would never establised itself as the powerful religion it became.

Gibbon estimated that 1/20th of the population of the Roman Empire was Christian by the time of Constantine's conversion. This implies an outstanding rate of growth before it had the opportunity to resort to force. However one could argue, and I would agree, that to get to the next level force was needed. The alternative religions had to be suppressed, this because Christianity has no inherently better claim to truth. So, I'm on Xray's side here, but to answer Phil would require getting him to spell out how a factor is judged "basically responsible" for the rise of a religion.

Yes, there are periods when Christianity benefited from being 'enforced' by fire and the sword, but that has not been basically responsible for its 2000 years of expansion and success.

It would also be helpful if you could get Phil to acknowledge that his stated source, Paul Johnson, is notoriously pro-Christian throughout his writing. His History of the American People, for example, tries to show that American individualism and American inclinations toward free markets are all owed to its puritan heritage. He consistently and even, at times, ludicrously overestimates the importance of Christianity in whatever aspect of history he is writing about. I recall having a conversation with Phil years ago, at a time when he was reading (and seemed much enamored of) Vernon Louis Parrington's The Colonial Mind. I warned Phil that Parrington had been criticized for not taking the role of Christianity in the American colonies seriously enough and suggested that he might consider reading Johnson's book as a sort of corrective, since Johnson goes too far in the opposite direction. As I recall, Phil didn't seem to think back then that the prejudices and predispositions of historians made any difference. But it's quite obvious to me that if force played any important role in the early spread of Christianity (or its later spread, for that matter), Johnson could be relied upon to play that fact down and struggle to find other ways to account for the relevant historical events.

JR

Phil-like sniffing and preening about the silly word taboos first introduced into our language by William the Conqueror is tiresome enough!

I thought he spoke French, and that we mainly have him to thank for the linguistic distinction between animal names and the names of the food that comes from them. Example: swine vs. pork, or cow vs. beef. Unlike in, say, German where they say schweine for a pig on a farm, and schweinefleisch for pig meat on your plate in a restaurant.

So, now which word taboos were introduced into English by William the Conqueror? Inquiring minds want to know.

I want to know!

When William took over the royal court in England, French became the language of the court, and, by extension, of the upper classes, the "refined," educated classes, of England. From that point forward, ordinary Anglo-Saxon words (words of German rather than French origin), including words for biological functions which had never been thought objectionable before in England, were considered "vulgar" and "lower class." It was in this period that "fuck" and "shit" became "obscenities" while the Latin-derived words for exactly the same things - "copulate," for example, and "excrement" - were still entirely acceptable in "polite" society. This crude linguistic nationalism is the origin of what ignoramuses of today (for example, Dennis Hardin) think of as "dirty words" or "bad language."

JR

. . . spewing putrefaction all over the inside of the church.

Sounds just like Dennis, doesn't it? He was probably just saying what he thought. And this was the first occasion on which Dennis had visited a church? He must have been morally outraged. You know how he gets.

JR

I do think that moral judgment is a big deal, but my approach is simply to say what I think and move on.

What a relief! Egad! Imagine how unspeakably tedious it would be if he said what he thought and then stuck around! I mean, the constant, Phil-like sniffing and preening about the silly word taboos first introduced into our language by William the Conqueror is tiresome enough! That we should have to endure more? Perish the thought!

JR

You have argued that torture when used against proper targets is a good thing--

Regarding your statement that "so far at least, the government has managed to prevent a recurrence of 9/11--

My mistake. I meant the Eighth Amendment--

Politically correct? I had no idea that the founders--

John Yoo, along with the rest of the pack of Bush appointed lackeys, are a bunch of fucking liars--

You would use this as an example of the effective use of torture--

In your moral calculus, bombing, invading, and occupying countries in non-defensive wars--

Martin

Your entire response consists of (a) unsubstantiated charges against the U.S. government, which, even if true (and I sincerely doubt they are true) are entirely irrelevant to the moral case for torture; ( b ) Blind, self-righteous ignorance of the number of potential terrorist attacks that have been thwarted by governmental anti-terrorist efforts; ( c ) a sly attempt to corrupt a Constitutional Amendment by expanding it to apply to foreign enemies and prisoners of war; (d) the insane charge that torture is only motivated by sadism (please seek counseling); (e) the nonsensical suggestion that anyone would propose torturing innocent people for any purpose; (f) irrelevant comments about France and Algeria; (g) a totally absurd distortion of my views on what constitutes moral military intervention and (h) a smearing of Objectivism.

I'm not about to waste my time answering such unadulterated bullshit, other than to point out that your post consists of unadulterated bullshit.

Yeah, Martin, great post. When you leave Dennis spluttering like this, you know you've cut through to the heart of the matter. It is rather comical, though, isn't it, when his puffed up moral outrage gets in the way of his ability to formulate his uninformed "thoughts"? It's rather like watching a man trip over his own feet and plunge headfirst into a manhole - you know, the kind of thing you might see in an old Laurel and Hardy movie.

Best,

JR

btw - Are you, Jeff, familiar first-hand with Beck's stuff? Inquiring minds and all.

There's clearly no need for me to answer your question, Michael. You already know the answer. Obviously, I've never even laid eyes on Glenn Beck, much less any of his TV shows; nor have I ever heard his voice or read a word he's written. I'm a "Beck Hater," am I not? Isn't that prima facie evidence of my complete ignorance of his glorious work? If I had ever actually exposed myself to any of that work, I would have been swept away by the greatness and the profundity of it all and would be running up and down the road attending his rallies whenever I wasn't glued to my TV set basking in the wonder of his intellect and his commitment to individual liberty.

QED

JR

ty selene and brant-but seriously I didnt read enough of the post to get the gist of it.

that is why the apology and it was necessary

I doubt I will start posting again-I don't want to read all the clever ways people can call me stupid.

For the record, Pippi, I don't consider you stupid - though maybe a bit hasty. (Think of the ents in the LOTR.)

You're forgiven. Stick around. Even though I'm one of the libertarian "nihilists" Dennis warns newcomers against, I assure you, my bark is worse than my bite.

Best,

JR

I'm not sure if you were endorsing Brant's obvious contempt for my views on torture. That seems to be the implication.

Dennis,

Sorry for the implication. That was not my intention. I just picked up on the critical thinking thing and ran with it.

As for the torture thing, I have mentioned many times that there are cases where morality goes right out the window. In those instances, the person choosing between awful and rotten has to make the call the best he can. That goes for torture.

I can't think of a single moral justification for torture, so I hold it should never be a formal policy. But I can't think of any reason to morally condemn a person who tortures a bad guy to save his loved ones when the bad guy has put his loved ones in mortal danger. He just does what he thinks will preserve his values at the time.

When morality goes out the window like that, I never see a one-size-fits-all answer. I've said that often and I haven't changed.

btw - NB had an interesting article somewhere recently where he discussed the difference between a goal and a standard. I believe that kind of thinking is applicable here. You should never make a principle your goal. A principle is a standard you use to measure your actions and goals. Your goals are projections (abstractions) of potential concretes, not abstractions of abstractions.

I think blind contextless adherence to any principle (i.e., treating it as a goal instead of a measure) negates the use of a person's own eyes and brain in carrying out the business of survival.

Anyone who suggests that Beck does not bring a strong appreciation of history to his views is pathetically ignorant. And foolishly exposing himself as someone with "predigested rigid prejudices."

Amen to that (by which I understand to mean as "pathetically ignorant of Beck's work").

Beck also does something I find really rare in almost every public political discussion area I have read or viewed. He corrects himself--and publicly says so--when he learns he was wrong. And he does this without it affecting his self-confidence or keenness in trying to correctly understand what's happening. Someone should make a video of the times he has done this. It would be an eye-opener to a lot of people.

Also, I can't think of one Beck critic who has his track record in correctly predicting large scale social events, both good and bad. And being blasted for it--with the folks who blasted the hardest later touting themselves as experts on the result they didn't believe in before. Beck has been doing that ever since the Bush years--not to mention his more recent exposés of ACORN, Van Jones, George Soros, the Arab Spring, etc.

It goes like this:

1. Beck says something is coming for such and such reasons. Granted, that something is usually bad.
2. People say he's crazy, conspiracy kook, danger to society, promoter of violence and hatred, etc. etc. etc.
3. The bad thing actually happens as he said.
4. But Beck's own events are always peaceful--never a single arrest or anything like that.
5. The former critics start talking about the bad thing as if Beck had never mentioned it, but they shut up about him for a bit.
6. After a small amount of time, they slowly start back blasting him and the people who say they like him (usually calling them ignorant yahoos, just as crazy as Beck, etc.).

Then Beck says something else bad is coming.

And off it goes all over again--just like clockwork.

How many times does this have to happen before these knuckleheads start seeing a pattern? I mean, after the first dozen or so times, you would have thought the knuckleheads would see how ridiculous they make themselves in the minds of people who do see the pattern.

It's almost a comedy routine to watch these days. And as predictable as Pavlov's dogs salivating with the bell.

Michael

Isn't it interesting that all the "arguments" against the saintly Glenn Beck that Michael repeatedly cites as clueless and uninformed are never offered by any of the Beck critics (excuse me, I mean "Beck haters") around here? Perhaps the people who offer these "arguments" do actually exist, but God (I mean Galt) knows where. (Maybe if you spend all your time paying attention to rightwing media, because you think, for some mysterious reason, that the right wing is on the side of the free market and small government, you would have encountered such people - but I haven't.

Perplexedly,

JR

I followed up on Mark's links, and, on the strength of them, I find ARI Watch bitchy and trivial.

I agree completely. It's mostly a lot of quasi-pacifist claptrap. Spinning Ayn Rand's words to make her viewpoint fit theirs.

I suspect Ayn Rand would have been a huge fan of Jack Bauer.

Absolutely! Rand was a huge fan of torture. That's why the leading hero of Atlas Shrugged was Dr. Floyd Ferris and his brilliant invention, the Ferris Persuader. John Galt and his band of terrorists were attempting to destroy the society around them and, especially, the U.S. government. Ferris swept in there just like a Jack Bauer hero to stop this nefarious plot and protect society against the evil Galt inspired terrorists. Unfortunately, Rand had a malevolent sense of life, so the evil terrorists won in the end.

Martin

Rand was a huge fan of strong fictional characters who demonstrated moral courage in the defense of innocent victims and in the pursuit of justice for thugs. My guess is that she felt torture was a necessary evil in certain situations where no other option was available. But using torture when absolutely necessary to protect innocent life does require a certain level of courage that most people do not have.

Bauer did have it. That is why she would have admired Jack Bauer.

Shudder.

--Brant

never saw an episode, nor did she

You have to sit back and admire the critical thinking that goes into a comment like that.

I think I saw a part of one episode in which he kills somebody at the end, someone who is all tied up. It might have been another show all together, another show I haven't been watching too. I heard snippets about torture in Vietnam from the intelligence non-commissioned officers, usually as practiced by the South Vietnamese. It was rather mild stuff compared to things I've read. There was a famous case in 1969 in which the bird colonel commander of the Fifth SF Group in Vietnam lied to General Abrams about a certain case that resulted in a Vietnamese double agent either being rolled out of a helicopter into Nha Trang Bay or taken out in a boat and dumped. Abrams wanted a murder trial, but the CIA refused to cooperate and the Nixon White House shut the whole thing down. Up to that time SF in Vietnam had two masters, regular military as represented by Abrams and the CIA. After that, the CIA seems to have faded its involvement with SF. Anyway, I'd guess I know a lot more about this subject than you [Dennis Hardin] do.

Of course you do, Brant. (On the other hand, how could you know less?)

JR

where is all the critical thinking...

Brant,

I believe it is actually growing because of the Internet and electronic communications.

But you won't find it among people who look at facts only through the framework of their predigested rigid prejudices.

(For prejudice, think of the distortion mirrors in a funny-house. People see reflections of real stuff, i.e., facts. But those reflections are warped.)

The good news is that there is room for everyone on the web--including those who prefer critical thinking for real. And I believe this number is growing.

Michael

Yes, Brant, you won't find it among people who look at facts only through the framework of their predigested rigid prejudices. You'll find it, if you find it at all, among people who look at facts only through the framework of Michael's predigested rigid prejudices. You know - like the one in which everyone either loves Glenn Beck passionately or hates him virulently? So that anyone who, for example, questions whether Beck really knows as much as he thinks he does, anyone who suspects that, ten years from now, you'll be able to mention his name in public and people will say, "Glenn who?" - anyone who is, shall we say, less than starry-eyed about the redoubtable Glenn - is a "Beck hater."

Helpfully,

JR

I followed up on Mark's links, and, on the strength of them, I find ARI Watch bitchy and trivial.

I agree completely. It's mostly a lot of quasi-pacifist claptrap. Spinning Ayn Rand's words to make her viewpoint fit theirs.

I suspect Ayn Rand would have been a huge fan of Jack Bauer.

Absolutely! Rand was a huge fan of torture. That's why the leading hero of Atlas Shrugged was Dr. Floyd Ferris and his brilliant invention, the Ferris Persuader. John Galt and his band of terrorists were attempting to destroy the society around them and, especially, the U.S. government. Ferris swept in there just like a Jack Bauer hero to stop this nefarious plot and protect society against the evil Galt inspired terrorists. Unfortunately, Rand had a malevolent sense of life, so the evil terrorists won in the end.

Martin

Rand was a huge fan of strong fictional characters who demonstrated moral courage in the defense of innocent victims and in the pursuit of justice for thugs. My guess is that she felt torture was a necessary evil in certain situations where no other option was available. But using torture when absolutely necessary to protect innocent life does require a certain level of courage that most people do not have.

Bauer did have it. That is why she would have admired Jack Bauer.

And, or course, governments can certainly be trusted to decide when torture is necessary to protect innocent life, just as they can be trusted to do all of the other wonderful things that they do to us every day. Governments would never abuse this power. They would never torture innocent prisoners under the mistaken impression that they had valuable information, or just for the sheer fun of it. Governments would never abuse this hideous power, because they are so honorable. Only the highest calibre of human being would ever apply for the job of government interrogator, never some sadistic bastard who got his jollies doing this kind of work. All of the prisoners tortured at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Bagram, as well as all of the black op sites where prisoners were renditioned to be tortured, were obviously guilty, because otherwise, why would the government have tortured them? Governments never make these kinds of mistakes. This country's founders, who got the fourth amendment to the constitution passed, were just a bunch of pussies. Right?

Actually, Martin, it's a bit more nuanced than that. You see, most governments cannot be trusted to make these decisions, but our government can. Our government has never done anything wrong in its entire history, except, perhaps, by easily understandable and forgivable error. And any wrong it may have done was done only by Democratic administrations, never Republican administrations. As for the Founders, they did make a few trivial errors, but those were corrected by Judge Naragansett in Galt's Gulch.

By the way, it has long been known that torture does not even achieve its alleged benefits.

Again, a small correction, Martin, if I may be allowed one. You see, this has "long been known" only by people who Hate America and Blame America First. Dennis, who gets his information about this issue from a defunct Fox TV series, knows better.

Helpfully,

JR

I hold Penn Jillette in utter contempt for his despicable treatment of Nathaniel Branden. In my opinion he represents the essence of nihilism:

You inadvertently left out a word in your second sentence above, Dennis. The word "uninformed" needs to be inserted between the words "my" and "opinion."

Helpfully,

JR

P.S. Your firm adherence to the word taboos pioneered by William the Conqueror is cute, however.

Posting Instructions - New Topic and replying

1. Click either New Topic or Add Reply button on available in upper right side or at the bottom of a post
2. Fill in topic title and a short description
3. Type your post in large text box area. Highlight over text and click formatting buttons to create bold, italic, etc.
4. Clicking emoticons will insert smilies into your post
5. To link to a website, type normal text, click the globe with chain (link icon) and fill in the full url in the pop-up box
6. Click Preview Post button proofread before sending by clicking Post Topic button.

Note: It is a best practice to highlight the entire textbox and clicking control-C to copy text before sending, just in case your internet connection is interrupted during transmission. Saving your own posts into text files is also a good idea.

Articles are moderated so they do not go up immediately.

Posting in the Articles forum

All new articles submitted to the Articles forum are now going through a screening process. We are doing this for three reasons:

1. Sometimes items are submitted that really belong in another forum.

2. As OL grows, we found we needed to have a place to present more polished work.

3. The articles in the Articles forum appear on the new front page.

There are no restrictions on anything else other than our posting guidelines. You can make posts to article threads in the Articles forum (and everywhere elsewhere), and open new threads everywhere but the Articles forum.

Michael

----------------------------------------

IPB's More Detailed Explanation on how to post on the forum

There are three different posting screens available. The new topic button, visible in forums and in topics allows you to add a new topic to that particular forum. The new poll button (if the admin has enabled it) will also be viewable in topics and forums allowing you to create a new poll in the forum. When viewing a topic, there will be an add reply button, allowing you to add a new reply onto that particular topic.

Posting new topics and replying

When making a post, you will most likely have the option to use IBF code when posting. This will allow you to add various types of formatting to your messages. For more information on this, click the 'BB Code Help' link under the emoticon box to launch the help window.

On the left of the text entry box, there is the clickable emoticons box - you can click on these to add them to the content of your message (these are sometimes known as 'smilies').

There are three options available when making a post or a reply. 'Enable emoticons?' if this is unchecked, then any text that would normally be converted into an emoticon will not be. 'Enable signature?' allows you to choose whether or not you would like your signature to appear on that individual post. 'Enable email notification of replies?' ticking this box will mean that you will receive e-mail updates to the topic, see the 'Email Notification of new messages' help topic for more information on this.

You also have the option to choose a post icon for the topic/post when creating one. This icon will appear next to the topic name on the topic listing in that forum, or will appear next to the date/time of the message if making a reply to a topic.

If the admin has enabled it, you will also see a file attachments option, this will allow you to attach a file to be uploaded when making a post. Click the browse button to select a file from your computer to be uploaded. If you upload an image file, it may be shown in the content of the post, all other file types will be linked to.

Poll Options

If you have chosen to post a new poll, there will be an extra two option boxes at the top of the help screen. The first input box will allow you to enter the question that you are asking in the poll. The text field underneath is where you will input the choices for the poll. Simply enter a different option on each line. The maximum number of choices is set by the board admin, and this figure is displayed on the left.

Quoting Posts

Displayed below each post in a topic, there is a 'Quote' button. Pressing this button will allow you to reply to a topic, and have the text from a particular reply quoted in your own reply. When you choose to do this, an extra text field will appear below the main text input box to allow you to edit the content of the post being quoted. We recommend that you keep only the part of the quote that is relevant to your response. If the quote does not appear in a quotation box, check to be sure that are properly used.

[quote] quote tags [/quote]

Editing Posts

Above any posts that you have made, you may see an 'Edit' button. Pressing this will allow you to edit the post that you had previously made.

When editing you may see an option to 'Add the 'Edit by' line in this post?'. If you tick this then it will show up in the posts that it has been edited and the time at which it was edited. If this option does not appear, then the edit by line will always be added to the post.

If you are unable to see the edit button displayed on each post that you have made, then the administrator may have prevented you from editing posts, or the time limit for editing may have expired.

Fast Reply

Where it has been enabled, there will be a fast reply button on each topic. Clicking this will open up a posting box on the topic view screen, cutting down on the time required to load the main posting screen. Click the fast reply button to expand the reply box and type the post inside of there. Although the fast reply box is not expanded by default, you can choose the option to have it expanded by default, from the board settings section of your control panel. Pressing the 'More Options' button will take you to the normal posting screen.

But . . . isn't it clear that Phil's way is better?

JR

The clearest evidence of libertarianism’s nihilist wing would be Walter Block’s Defending the Undefendable, in which he praises pimps, prostitutes, drug dealers, blackmailers, libelors, corrupt cops, et. al., as heroes.

But IS that really nihilism? Doesn't the philosophical position of nihilism mean that NOTHING is considered as of value to the nihilist?

One gets the impression that you erroneously label as 'nihilist' those choices that go against yours (and most people's) code of ethics.

My compliments, Xray. I know I don't offer them to you very often. But when you're right, you're right.

JR