Johnny

In my opinion, the biggest mistake the founders made--by far--is to accept the ancient idea that a few men can get together, draw a map, and legitimately outline vast tracts of land they are going to assert their rules on, as if they owned the place. What an absurdly stupid statement. Were the founding father rulers and did they think they owned the place? They drew up lines to set up a Republic to establish a rule of law where individual wealth creation was respected, not an oligarchy of feudal lords. Individually they made claims to parcels of land and made productive use out of it where only nomads and hunter gatherers claimed it as their own before them. In fact it was the indigenous tribes of North America that made vast tracts of land as their own without any productive use of that land towards wealth creation. The vast majority of indigenous tribes simply sold the land to the Europeans for trinkets in exchange. What exactly is your definition of a productive use of land? Is using land by hunter/gatherer societies without any notion of individual rights to property a productive use of land? Give me a break! MSK are you really serious when you say he has Objectivism down cold? I seriously doubt that!

So Rich if you can help me understand your position, you're saying America had no moral basis for establishing a government with the respect for liberty, and that the indigenous tribes of America had an equal or higher moral claim to that land on the basis they too respected liberty?

It's a shame Wolf DeVoon blocked the viewing of my posts as I would like to address this notion we have no rational purpose of occupying foreign land. The nation of America was once "foreign land", but it was occupied by primitive peoples that did not have any formulated concept of freedom or individual rights. Having said that Wolf has not presented a logically consistent principle here, only that it's not right to occupy foreign land anytime after the Constitution was drafted, or for that matter the territories incorporated into America following the signing of the Constitution was still ok, because the Constitution after all allowed for that as well. This is a typical of many Libertarians (I don't know if Wolf proclaims to be one) that do not have a well thought out concept of the principles of freedom. The Constitution apparently, is the guiding post to when principles begin to apply, and for the expediency of the moment, the principle was apparently suspended or never existed until the document was drafted since the land America was founded on was occupied by other inhabitants. (Interestingly enough as a side note, the notion presented by George Washington of "no entangling alliances" apparently didn't apply also before the drafting of the constitution as America was all too happy to enter into an entangling alliance with France to gain independence from Great Britain.) If anything Wolf has a tribalistic notion of freedom, that it only applies to "Americans" living in "America", but not to anyone else. But let's look at these "foreign lands". Which lands do we typically discuss as being occupied by Western powers? They are generally lands that were operated by brutal oppressive governments that did not respect the sovereignty of their own citizens rights, including those of self-defense. Ron Paul and his idiotic supporters presume to think any nation, no matter how it treats its citizens, has a legitimate claim to sovereignty. But if a nation's government does not respect it's own citizens right to self defense, that government has no legitimate claim to sovereignty. While we have no moral obligation to occupy a foreign land once occupied by a totalitarian government, we can if it serves our own interest as a moral option if and when all the facts come in that lead us to believe it would be in our interests. But Ron Paul would love us to continue engaging in free trade with foreign nations, but should our trading partners be attacked, he says it's none of our business. Another words when our interests are threatened, his principle states we can not act to protect them. What kind of principle is that? Oh wait, it's not! He's not actually for protecting one's rational long-term interests. Bidinotto is right. Ron Paul is dangerous.

I'd like to point out I did not once use personal insults against Shayne yet rather than respond to my arguments, he retorts with childish name calling like "knucklehead", called me "stupid" and then wanted to know my age before addressing my arguments, stating he would offer different arguments based on such an irrelevancy as if to imply there are equally valid competing arguments as a rebuttal to mine, and has the audacity to label matus a relativist despite this obvious hypocrisy. It is rather disappointing to see in a pathetic attempt to save face, he now attempts to spin this as making himself look like a victim by labeling me a troll. Add that to the list of meaningless insults. Perhaps Shayne can act like a man and make a coherent argument but considering his penchant for schoolyard taunts I guess I'm asking for too much. I'm shocked he would be considered as a foremost expert on Objectivism but I would have to agree with you MSK his social skills are definitely lacking. This is no longer worth my time and as a self-respecting individual I see no reason to indulge in Shayne's potty mouth antics. Good day

I'd make a different argument if you were 20 than if you were 40. Actually if you were 40 I wouldn't bother. Well first off you contradicted yourself, if I was 40 you would either make a different argument or none, you can't do both so obviously you are confused, so at least you can try to not contradict yourself, but secondly, you're saying your argument would be different depending upon my age. Which implies you are actually a relativist since you would offer two different arguments instead of one correct argument. And to go back to something you said earlier: Of course as I said before compulsory taxation is not just, but apparently you are not aware of this thing called an "automobile", perhaps you've heard of it? It uses this fuel called "gasoline" which is refined from something called "oil". I'm not aware of any American that doesn't use transportation, so the implication here this only serves the interests of businessmen is rather silly. But even more silly is the implication as long as there is a few souls left in a nation left untouched by the actions of a foreign tyrant while others are hurt, it is not just for a nation's military to be used to defend those individual's interests. By that same token why bother locking up criminals out of South Central Los Angeles if those criminals didn't steal or rob from someone living in Hollywood? The answer, it serves everyone's long term self-interest to enter into an alliance of defense with one another, especially with trading partners. There is a harmony of interests amongst men to enter into mutual trade agreements regarding defense. While a resident of Hollywood today may not suffer from the acts of a criminal out of South Central Los Angles in the immediate short-term future, not acting to put that criminal away threatens the long term safety of that Hollywood resident by both being subject to a possible future crime from South Central Los Angeles criminals and having trading partners being threatened that reside in South Central Los Angeles.

This is a non-sequiter. Compulsory taxes are used to lock up criminals in our own country too, but I don't see Ron Paul or yourself advocating we should let prisoners go free. While compulsory taxation is wrong, locking up criminals is not wrong. In order for you to be logically consistent, you should advocate the government not only stop any wars against foreign nations that threaten our interests, but also they stop locking up rapists as well. We unfortunately do not live in a Platonic ideal of a totally free society, since we don't, it's absurd to say we can't make any kind of value comparisons between different kinds of bad acts. While compulsory taxation is bad, using it to lock up criminals is not. We can walk and chew gum at the same time and advocate the military be used to defend our interests and advocate our government and military be funded through voluntary funding as well. There need not be any conflict between defense and voluntary taxation. So you're saying unless the United States establishes a three branched government in Iraq exactly like our own, the military toppling Saddam Hussein offered no justice to the Iraqis? Or are you saying because the military is directed by one branch of government, they can't possibly be used in the interests of the American people or the Iraqis? I'm sorry I would have to disagree. The military can offer justice to the Iraqis by removing a tyrant, and it is just for the government to use the military to defend our interests from threats abroad. Unless you think the military can never be used justly unless all three branches of government are directly controlling their actions? But the alternative here you suggest (oddly you seem to all of a sudden care about justice for Iraqis?) is to let the Iraqis continue living under Saddam Hussein, which offers no hope for justice for them at all. So how could you even care about justice for the Iraqis? You were content on letting them be subjected to Saddam Hussein's rape rooms and summary executions.

I'm just trying to understand your context. By asking an irrelevant question about my age? That makes no sense. You can either address my arguments and offer a rebuttal, or concede they are right. But meaningless questions into how old I am offers no value to this thread. So now context doesn't matter. Your individual posts are to be taken as a vacuum, without regard to anything you said before. I'm supposed to believe after already insulting me you now have this change of heart and ask an irrelevant question about my age as not meaning to be an insult? Are you serious? Perhaps if you first apologized for calling me a knucklehead and then went on to say you don't mean to insult me by asking me how old I am, then I might concede you are being sincere in saying you don't mean to insult me, but even then I wouldn't grant you that as the implication of that question is an insult to me. Since you made no effort to apologize, and the question of my age itself can only be construed to denigrate me rather than address my argument, and that you continue to insult me, I can only come to the conclusion you are a liar. Is this an argument? I can see matus' frustrations. Once you realize your arguments are untenable, you resort to childish insults and evasion. I'll give you one last chance to offer something of value, if you choose not to I see no point in entertaining your childish outbursts.

Well that is really an incredible statement. I doubt even Matus agrees. Why do you disagree? You can certainly make a meaningless statement you desire something illogical, but it doesn't make it a valid statement, but rather a string of words without any cohesive meaning. It may be grammatically correct, as in it follows the correct structure of a sentence, but it has no meaning. So it's not a desire, but a meaningless statement. You can desire food, you can desire freedom, but you can't desire something illogical. I'm surprised you find that incredible? I thought MSK said you were an expert on Objectivism? I don't mean this as insulting, but how old are you? Shayne What difference does that make? And now you don't mean to be insulting but a few posts prior you call me a knucklehead? Now you're an outright liar.

Why did you draw that implication? What did matus say to make you think that he was implying a contradiction? The context of the conversation. He said "I extend that courtesy" in answer to me saying our government (and remember that the nature of government is its use of force to accomplish ends) should not be inserting itself in the middle of foreign affairs. I see. Even if foreign affairs can lead to the destruction of our own interests? What kind of principle does that predicate from? So you're saying even if foreign nations taking actions that lead to the destruction of our own rational long term self-interests, we would be wrong to oppose them because it means one is forcing freedom upon others? Huh? I'm not sure I understand the comment we send guns and tanks and not our judicial system? I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of that, but putting that aside for now, for one Saddam Hussein's actions were against the interests of the American people, so I disagree with your premise he made no actions against us or our interests, thus we would be justified to use our resources against a long term threat to our own interests. Using American resources to combat foreign threats to our interests are in service to our values, not a violation of them. You may disagree Saddam Hussein was taking actions against our interests, but that doesn't mean you are correct in thinking that.

Well that is really an incredible statement. I doubt even Matus agrees. Why do you disagree? You can certainly make a meaningless statement you desire something illogical, but it doesn't make it a valid statement, but rather a string of words without any cohesive meaning. It may be grammatically correct, as in it follows the correct structure of a sentence, but it has no meaning. So it's not a desire, but a meaningless statement. You can desire food, you can desire freedom, but you can't desire something illogical. I'm surprised you find that incredible? I thought MSK said you were an expert on Objectivism?

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? What question? The implicit question in "I don't understand why you think people can't want things that make no sense. Maybe you could try to explain this, and do a better and more concise job that Matus has done so far." I explained in post 113. But I'll reiterate. You can't desire something that violates the law of non-contradictory identity. Thus it is not a desire, but an incoherent, meaningless statement.

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? What question?

No, that he wants something that makes no sense was my point. I don't understand why you think people can't want things that make no sense. Because it is impossible to make any concretizations of a contradictory desire. You can't possibly want to do something that is illogical. You can't want to for example sacrifice your own happiness because it makes you happier. Within the desire itself is a self-refuting statement that makes it incoherent. One can say this but they can't actually mean it as it is an invalid statement. You accuse matus of wanting to force freedom upon others, you didn't say that's what he said, you merely make the accusation that's what he wanted. You shift the accusation from "that's what matus wants" to "that's what matus said". Those are different accusations. And the latter accusation is simply untrue, he never said or implied it.

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?

He certainly hasn't demonstrated that in this thread. Attributing contradictory statements to someone who never made them. post 42 - ""I extend that courtesy" is a euphemism for forcing others to value what you value" Post 49 - "Since you evidently believe in forcing people to be free " post 67 - "Since you're the one who proposes to force people to be free I don't know why you are asking me." None of these statements make sense. He must first demonstrate how matus wants to force others to be free. Matus has never said this nor advocated it, nor could he advocate it even if he wanted to. The onus is on him to demonstrate this is even a logical statement to attribute it as a desire that matus possesses. Matus has stated he wants to force people who try to stop others from being free to stop oppressing them. This cannot in anyway be construed to mean he wants to force other people to value what he values, but rather he wants to force them to comply with his logical extension of his values, to respect freedom. He wants to kill or eliminate the people who oppose his values, namely those who oppose the value of freedom. By stopping tyrants like Saddam Hussein, is one forcing freedom upon others, something that is impossible, or are they helping others achieve freedom, namely freedom from a tyrant's brutal oppression over them? When matus and I assume even the supposed expert of Objectivism Shayne advocates that a criminal be locked up behind bars for robbing an innocent man, is matus and Shayne forcing freedom upon the victim? Does that make sense?