jordanz

I think people should criticize TAS as they see fit to. It seems to me, though, that TAS becomes the container for all the hopes and dreams of disaffected Objectivists and seems to suffer more criticism than is justified.

IOS-TOC-TAS has been a disappointment to some because it isn't what they want it to be. Many people in the Oist community don't like ARI for various reasons. The only alternative is TAS. When TAS doesn't do a thing X that is the reason that person Y dislikes ARI, person Y is disappointed with TAS. To that I say, go start your own organization to do X. Of course, TAS has made many mistakes. But the mistakes pale in comparison to the slings and arrows it must defend against. A short list: * The constant dismissals and accusations of ARI affiliated Objectivists * Defections (for various reasons) from within the TAS community (Diana Hseh, Lindsay Perrigo, Bill Perry, et al) * The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics book (while an attack on the Brandens it was also an indirect attack on David Kelley) When I first got involved with IOS, it was decently funded and successful. After the DOT COM bust, they lost a lot of funding and have taken a long time recovering. The 50th Anniversary of Atlas was a great success as is TNI. With the Atlas Movie coming out, the prospects seem bright for TAS. I will continue to support them and I hope that they survive and flourish.

This article is a very ugly smear and has no merit that I can see. Is this an official Ron Paul website? The article is written by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. I knew Melinda about 20 years ago. She and I were both on the board of the San Fernando Valley chapter of the LP at the time. As an interesting aside, I saw her ex-husband, Craig Franklin at Cato last weekend during the Atlas Celebration.

In that case, you and I have nothing to discuss. As I stated in another thread, your perception of reality is radically different than mine.

In fact, he was invited to speak which is even worse. Inviting him to an intellectual encounter grants him the unearned sanction that he is an honest and reasonable person. He's clearly identified himself as being the opposite. Nothing that he says at Columbia can be trusted and, thus, it's fruitless for the organizers and attendees. The dark side is that Ahmadinjad will try to use the event to further his ends and this makes the invitation by Columbia immoral.

Touche ;)

Define dictator and define legitimate. This is getting tedious. William Thomas wrote a great article a while back: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showconte...ct=586&h=54

Just because a dictator has no moral authority, does not mean that we do to go in a country and confiscate their property. Especially in countries where we "prop up" the dictator. A dictator cannot own property. That's a contradiction.

Are you saying that it is ethical to invade a country and take its bananas if we dislike their government, but unethical if they are a democracy? Besides, the type of government has absolutely nothing to do with the question, "Who owns those bananas?" A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

I don't know too much about Columbia but their government is a democracy as far as I know. Therefore, it would not be moral to invade that country.

Didn't Ayn Rand call this measurement omission (as opposed to relative measurement)? i.e. to get the concept "red" you hold in common certain attributes/measurements and omit than non-applicable ones.

I'll be more basic than that - sacrificing any lives is immoral, whether for profit or otherwise. The claim that this is what's happening in Iraq is extraordinary and requires extraordinary proof.

You're making an equivocation that hasn't been proven (see the other thread).

Lew Rockwell is not someone I care to read. I will say, though, that these deaths can only be blamed on Saddam, Iran, et al.

Here is the text of the law, BTW: http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2...illaw021507.pdf My answer to this is: as opposed to whom? I have no problem with giving American Company's an interest in Iraqi oil. They've done most of the work. They'll do a lot better than the criminal who controlled them previously. What is your objection in moral terms?

By this standard, we are done. We should leave and see if the Iraqis will want The Oil Act without our presence. I don't think that follows from what I wrote. In any event, it wasn't what I meant. Removing Saddam has implications. Ensuring a stable, US friendly government in Iraq is also in our national interest.

I take them at their word.

So are supporting Imperialism? The idea that we should kick around who ever we want because we can. We are not taking over Iraq. Removing Saddam was clearly in our national interest and it was doable.

Firstly, we didn't know this until we invaded Iraq. I've seen some reporting that suggests that Saddam incorrectly thought he had WMDs (his generals were lying to him). In any event, he objectively had them in the recent past (Iran, the Kurds, etc.).

As private as the US Post Office, I guess ;)

FYI - I've moved the issues not related to Greenspan/money to a new topic: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...?showtopic=4587

Regarding Iran: 1. I have seen enough evidence to convince me that they are trying to build a nuclear bomb. My reading of the news suggests that most governments in the world believe this too. 2. I don't believe it will be a problem for them to get a delivery vehicle given enough time and money. 3. Thank Goodness for Israel 4. Ahmadinejad is insane in the same way that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al were insane. I've come to this conclusion by reading what he said, not from what any news source has said. 5. In Iraq. 6. I don't know that Israel can take care of itself. In any event, why should it have too?

The Federal Reserve (which is a private corporation owned by the banks depositing at the Fed, own the Reserve) creates credit. I view this is a semantic difference. The Fed, as I see it, is part of the government. Regardless, it appears that you and I agree on this one.

FYI - I saw Greenspan on CNBC last night being interviewed by Maria Bartiromo. He said that he was being misunderstood. His point was that Saddam had control of the Straits of Hermus. He said nothing about Dollars. I guess Saddam could've pulled a Doctor Evil and demanded some kind of ransom in exchange for not blocking oil out of the gulf.

Yes, but it only represents 2%-6% of the world GDP (depending on the price of oil). But what do they do with those dollars? They buy T-Bills or other goods/services denominated in dollars. But it only goes down for ~4% of the world economy. People buying oil in the US only have dollars so they have to convert those dollars to Euros. The people who buy those dollars will have to spend those dollars in the US (via T-Bills or goods/services) completing the circle. The net effect is zero. If the only thing ever traded was oil, I'd agree with you. The supply of dollars does not change by these kinds of transactions. The only entity that can create new dollars is the US government. The fact that their leaders are insane and are building nuclear weapons. They are supporting and fomenting terror directed at the US and its allies around the world. I think that that's one of the reasons. Another reason is that Iraq was "doable". Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-cons have spoken a great deal about this. This is false. Hyperbole doesn't help your argument. Wow - this is radically different from reality as I perceive it.