Dan Haggerty

"Concretize"? Isn't that what happened to Jimmy Hoffa?

--Brant

I believe that was what led to the “Stolen Corpse” theory. Or maybe it was the "Frozen Looter” principle?

It has been an admittedly long time since I read The Romantic Manifesto (mid 90's, I was still driving which compounds the issue) but I seem to recall walking away from that book with the idea the Objectivist Aesthetics was still in its development. The book really covered writing, did some dancing on painting and maybe sculpture (?), barely touched on music and even that didn’t quite connect all the dots, and that was it.

In fact I seem to recall that both aesthetics and epistemology were underdeveloped. Didn’t Rand admit to the fact more work needed to be done in those areas? Or am I way off base here?

You are under a misconception about how OL works.

FWIW, Darrell has been on ObjectivismOnline for a little while. Right around the election he posted a birther story from 2008 with the dates removed: the Supreme Court is to intervene next Monday to prevent the imposter’s inauguration, yada yada yada, all you had to do was google a phrase or two from it to find it’s long debunked bunk. I replied in one of my more sarcastic tones, maybe you’ve noticed that birtherism is one of those things I have zero respect for. Of course I gave a link to snopes or wherever else you could find the original. Very soon the thread was deleted, within hours. Whether this was at his request I don’t know for sure, though I certainly assume so.

No respect for birthers? Really?

You sent the schoolmarm into thin-skinned hysterics when you posted the tin foil hat in his post on the subject.

That was hilarious by the way.

Here's the petition to deport everyone who signed a petition to secede from the Union.

https://petitions.wh...merica/dmQl1bXL

Why deport these people?

Ba'al Chatzaf

The irony is, they are already trying to deport themselves, so the petition actually means nothing outside they want to grant their wish but not let them keep their homes when they go.

So we have reached the point people are trolling a Gvoernment website to do what amounts to snarky comments in the comment section? Brother, you asked for it!

I wonder how you voted on the bridge referendum, which I was pleased to see. The owner of the Windsor-Bridge-is-falling-down spent about $40 million to try and keep his monopoly on the crossborder traffic, but Michign voters in the words of one, "failed to be bought". Well done sirs and mesdames.

That would be Proposal 6. That silly one issue one project drama started several years ago and they likely spent more money on that then any group did on any of the other the six proposals we had in Michigan. Sadly the opposition commercials were equally silly and one was even sophomoric but in the end we voted it down. In fact we voted all 6 proposals down which was a good thing.

How can someone who has obviously spent time with the subject be so clueless on something like this?

She comes across as either clueless or dishonest.

I'm divided. In one sense, I'm enormously disappointed Romney lost. In another, I'm encouraged.

It is OK to be both disappointed and hopeful. We should be disappointed that Obama won. He has no right to be elected in a rational world. The disappointment is an emotion that is screaming at us what values we have that are experiencing the pain side of the pleasure/pain reaction. Experience the pain and acknowledge it for what it is, the values at stake, then build.

We should be mad. Why should the mooks who Occupy Random Locations™ get to be the people who are mad? To paraphrase Ragnar, let them discover the consequences of when the mindless mad meets the man with the mind who is mad.

@ Jonathan:

I agree that Ryan was a solid choice and realistically he was likely the best we could have got for VP, but like you said Team Romney blew so many chances to stand on principle it is not funny. The jellyfish is an awesome example. In fact, you could say that, to paraphrase Peikoff, the choice next time we could have a choice between non-man versus anti-man.

My big fear is that the take away for the Republicans is that Romney was to moderate and while they will get the need to stand on conviction they’ll screw the pooch instead and nominate a fundamentalist like Bachman or Perry.

That was a great pep talk Coach.

Peter

Thank you.

Now get back in game, grab the ball, and don’t stop until you see the end zone and cheerleaders!

What?! A thread about the good of the election! Am I crazy?

No.

Well, let me say this, the election was not good and I am also disappointed... Very disappointed.

I voted for Romney but my primary course was always the desire to fire Obama. He was not fired. And isn’t it a kick in the teeth to know just how bad Obama is, and see America elect him anyway? It’s like America just told us “Tough – We want collectivism”.

But let’s be honest here. We already know America has accepted too much of the collectivist principles. Mysticism and collectivism are well entrenched no matter how we cast the dice, and while Obama is not qualified to run a lemonade stand let alone be the leader of a *free* country, there is no reason to think Romney would have been the cure to the poison.

Romney would have done a better job but that is when compared to Obama, which lets face it this is a pretty easy curve to beat. The issue is we would still be sliding down the path to central planning despite who won today.

So the good news?

Well, we won’t have a business man taking the blame and getting the free market painted as the bad guy so easily when the next recession hits. Let’s remember, Bush talked up the free market but gave us more Government than Clinton did, and yet Bush is blamed for “deregulation failures” on the economy when we know the Bush years added something like 18,000 new bureaucrats. So under Bush businesses were blamed and the free market was accused of failing when a first year economy grad should be able to tell you that we don’t have a free economy and that the failures are easily traceably to Government interference.

Note I said should. And that is the point. The free market gets painted as the bad guy when it’s government interference and with Obama such nonsense will reign hollow when Romney could have been easily painted with “market failures” and “pro-business” to an economically illiterate country.

The battle is still one of ideas, after all. The re-selection of Obama is just proof of that.

But there is still to be optimistic:

• Here is Michigan Proposal 2, which would have allowed Unions to challenge any law that restricted their contracts or right to collectivist barnstorming, and apply it retroactively, was shot down. This was the Union’s attempt to float a legal balloon to see if they can stop what happened in Wisconsin here in Michigan, and a lot of State’s have been watching to see if they could get away with this monstrosity. We shot it down in a pro-Union state which means it will be harder to bring to a local gang near you. I’m proud we voted it down and it is a good sign for attitudes.
  
• Two States legalized Marijuana? This could not have happened 20 years ago.
  
• Two States legalized gay marriage? Again, this is a sign of a good trend.
  
• As a long term trend, let’s remember that in the last twenty years we as a Country have enforced gun rights and except for one State (Illinois is, not surprisingly, the exception) all States have increased an owners rights to carry and conceal.
  
• These are examples. We should start a thread with more!
  

OK, these are examples of silver linings on a stormy day. Grasping a few straws? Maybe. But honestly there are signs of life in a sea of swill and the principle is people do want to be free and there is hope, real hope, if only we can get people to ply it consistently to their lives and principles. Jonathan could give us a lecture on this being an example of the sublime.

This election sucked, not because Obama won, but because we got a bucket of cold water reminding us that the Obamas of the world can and will be elected and the task to change it is greater than we want to admit. Obama just ripped the band-aid off and has reminded us of the problem for what it is. Whether Obama won or not, the ideas that make his Presidency possible still would exist and we have to see them for what they are. Romney would have been another band-aid to a wound that is festering and losing blood.

Well, enough with band-aids. Time to wake up and smell the napalm in the morning and get to work - We didn’t loose an election, but won the recognition that in the war of freedom it really is all or nothing when it comes to certain core principles. I say it is time that we each find a way to take advantage of this wake up call and do something about it. We’re upset because we are right and yet we are losing.

But that is the point. WE ARE RIGHT. Time to start acting like we are right and take the fight to the collectivists. We can beat these idiots by definition, since if they were competent they wouldn’t need the Government to be the man they are to lazy to be.

Thank you Obama for winning and showing me what needs to be done. Thank for giving me this bloody nose and I’m a big enough man to admit that I likely needed it.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, you just lit a fire under my ass that you will not be able to put out.

I'll go for the long shot - Obama wins 300 in the EC but looses the popular vote ala Bush/Igor in 2000.

I read Peikoff's thing and I don't find myself agreeing with the notion that Romney will lead the USA to a dictatorship.

I do agree that he leans in the pragmatic direction, but there are a few presumptions--not just Peikoff's--I am looking at that I don't agree with:

1. Romney is driven solely by political expediency.

I hear people say this and insinuate it all the time, especially when they talk about his flip-flops. But as I become more familiar with Romney, I am beginning to discern a man of strong principles. I may not agree with all his principles, but that is different than saying he has none other than getting political advantage.

From what I have seen so far, he basically operates on a strategic level where he does not compromise his principles, and a tactical level where he is far more flexible. Long term and short term. In other words, he will take a short-term gain rather than hold out for the whole hog, but that will not make him change the direction of his future efforts. That direction is guided by his strategy and principles. I see him open to negotiation on tactics, but not on strategy.

2. Romney is a typical pragmatic politician and no different than the rest.

I think he is quite different than the typical crony-capitalist mentality we see all around us, which is what a typical American pragmatic politician is. I'm not saying he will not reward his friends, but I don't think crony-capitalism is his spiritual/political motor. I see him more as a solution-provider. He analyzes a situation, finds the problems, draws up a plan, then executes it, but keeps flexible enough to make sure his intended outcome gets done.

I am also encouraged by the fact that he is surrounding himself with some very good people. As for those of a neocon bent, I believe Romney's religion will be a good brake on their warmongering intentions. I might be wrong, but this is my opinion from what I have observed so far.

3. There is no difference between Romney and Obama.

I'm not even going to comment on this one. Let's just say I strongly disagree. Anything I say will not persuade someone who believes that, and for the rest, there is no real need to comment. This is Expert in the Unsubtle level stuff.

4. The government will grow under Romney and the invitation of Paul Ryan was a fluke or whimsy or pandering to the Tea Party.

I think under a different social and cultural situation, Romney would be ideologically led in a different direction, but right now, the Tea Party is making a huge wave and Paul Ryan is right in the middle of that. I don't think that Romney invited him based on political pragmatism, but instead, on actually agreeing with some of the fundamental ideas (like small government) and looking to the future based on them.

I believe Romney is just like any human being and is open to good ideas when they are presented in a form he can understand--meaning a form that does not violate his core values. I do not agree with the notion that he is a Mormon robot or political pragmatist who is incapable of independent thought and/or growth as a human being.

In short, I don't believe Romney will be an ideal President according to Objectivist, libertarian, or even Tea Party values, but I do expect to see the government shrink under his administration. I expect to see balanced budgets and the government paying down the debt. I expect to see the economy take off. And I also expect to see Tea Party growth in intellectual influence and political activity while he is in office.

If there is any crisis, I expect to see him rise to the occasion with moral strength, frame things in good and evil terms, and act with considered wisdom--or at least what he sincerely believes to be wise and not just expedient. His notion of good and evil might be different than mine when put into practice, only time will tell, but I believe it is a hell of a lot closer than Obama's.

Given that alternative, Romney good enough for me at this point in time.

Call it a tactical position, not a strategic one.

Michael

I hope you are right and that I'm just suffering from cynicism thanks to the State of things. I'd be delighted to be called out for it two years from now if things are going well in a Romney Presidency.

David Kelley may not have mentioned Mitt Romney by name on account of his organization's tax-exempt status.

There's an interview with Gary Johnson on the TAS site, so that might have something to do with it. This is consistent with my view, which is vote Romney if you're living in a battleground state, otherwise vote Johnson.

Living in Michigan I usually find myself in the position of voting for the LP candidate since the Dems have a lock. This year it is looking close (based on some polls) so I'll be voting for Romney.

They are advocating Romney.

http://www.peikoff.com/election/

That is Leonard Peikoff's advice on voting, and never before has it been more needed.

Outside of Peikoff tossing around the term Nihilist to easily, I actually find myself agreeing with him on this.

I have very fond memories of Snidely Whiplash.

I don't know if they are moral feelings, but they sure feel like it.

Michael

I love Snidley Whiplash!

He's so purely over the top and bad for the...

Who am I kidding, it’s the mustache.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!!!

No Mr. Bond… I expect you to die!

Folks:

I watched an excellent set of shows on CSPAN from Hillsdale College about WW II. The instructor was excellent and his contention, which was well supported, was that the critical factor that won WW II was that the US established a brilliant resupply chain system that effectively delivered an overwhelming amount of material to the troops.

From ammunition, gasoline, food, medical supplies and toothpaste the supply chain overwhelmed the enemy whose supply chain was worn down by daylight bombing. It is interesting that the Panzers literally ran out of petrol and became stationary targets.

In fact, the only factor that stopped Patton was the "decision" to restrict his fuel.

Adam

Logistics was not only key but resulted in all kinds of drama despite its huge success. The issue was that planned “Breakthrough of Normandy” turned into the “Breakout of Normandy” and resulted in the front line moving faster than the supply could keep up. It’s amazing to think how well they did with changes occurring daily.

Patton, of whom I am a huge fan, writes in his memoirs how they cut his fuel supplies which frustrated him to no end. It literally chained him down at times, but on a level it is understandable why Eisenhower wanted to keep the Front lateral since it protected the supply lines. It was a war of attrition as much as anything at that point. As an example, Patton writes on how he changed his tactics once he saw the German’s were using horses to pull artillery – They ran out of fuel and he used that insight to gain traction.

Fun story: Bradley found out his fuel depot was robbed and discovered that the culprits were two of Patton’s men that seemingly went into business for themselves to get fuel for their company. Bradley took it straight to Patton who promised to reprimand the men involved. When Bradley check HQ later he found out Patton had them promoted. He was naturally incensed over it.

Everything man needs to survive is finite. It is the fact resources, goods, and capital is finite that drives economics since man has to produce his survival, or as in modern macroeconomic speak: “Fill his want and needs”. It is likely that early man had to be very competitive to get his limited food, water, or shelter before another did. Today it doesn’t necessitate the need for competitiveness daily in terms of life or death, the benefit of living in a civilized world long removed from the days of savages, but the general principle remains the same. People compete for limited jobs or businesses compete for limited customers, as an example. This doesn’t even begin to cover the scale or diversity people can compete, everything from friendly sporting events (Go Tigers!) to a serious life changing competition (a Presidential Election).

And this is not a bad thing, even today. If the story of economics is how goods and services flow through an economy, and assuming you do want the maximum goods and services going to the maximum people, then it is competition that allows this happen. Only the best produce the most for the least price people are willing to accept. Without competition people would settle for whoever produced something without consideration for quality or cost, resulting not in a modern economy but a stagnant fog likely reminiscent of a reverse engineered Iron Curtain country circa the 70’s.

But the principle is the same no matter the subject or depth of the reason. We compete because realty gives us limited resources and from there the process writes itself, from survival to man’s need of accomplishment as a source of pride, both life giving in their own ways.

Ah! But who pulled the trigger?

Vince Foster.

It took them 30 years to catch up with him however.

I think I understand. When I was around 20 I found myself starting over and rebuilding my world view from the ground up, with my past filled mile posts in need of review. Good luck and you’ll find plenty of food for thought here and good people to bounce ideas off.

Welcome to OL.

It had style, I'll give him that. A little etiquette* and he could go far.

Only he can now decide if he will reside in Arbitrary Siberia^TM.

* Common sense.

I remember my first drink. Good times.

Dan, you're claim that a novel recreates the abstract sense of heroism and triumph is leaving out all of the literal recreations. Of course an emotional effect is the purpose of art, but the debate is whether that emotional effect is achieved by "selectively recreating reality".

Ah, no, I was not trying to say that at all. A novel tells a story and provides the concretes by the author up front - Values, principles, all the way to characters, conflict, resolution, and etc. all in a drive to ultimately invoke an emotional reaction in the reader. Let me rephrase my original post:

Novel = provides specific concretes to invoke emotions in the user

Music = Invokes emotions in user then lets the user fill in their own concretes

Oh yeah, that was Rand's argument as well... but again, you could make the same argument for abstract visual art... The shape invokes emotions in the viewer connected to memories of concretes...

Interesting. I read the Romantic Manifesto but it was some time mid-90’s, I must have picked it up then from there – I honestly remember being a bit disappointed. Looks like I’m going to have to re-read it again at some point just to familiarize myself with the material.

Probably not a bad idea anyway so I can be informed the next time Jonathan takes someone over on OO to task.

I have no comment on abstract art since I'm honestly not that familiar with it, although I do have several strong "pet-peeves" personally. I can certainly see your point however.

Dan, you're claim that a novel recreates the abstract sense of heroism and triumph is leaving out all of the literal recreations. Of course an emotional effect is the purpose of art, but the debate is whether that emotional effect is achieved by "selectively recreating reality".

Ah, no, I was not trying to say that at all. A novel tells a story and provides the concretes by the author up front - Values, principles, all the way to characters, conflict, resolution, and etc. all in a drive to ultimately invoke an emotional reaction in the reader. Let me rephrase my original post:

Novel = provides specific concretes to invoke emotions in the user

Music = Invokes emotions in user then lets the user fill in their own concretes