jordanz

One of favorite movies of all time. Great heroic and individualistic themes. I highly recommend it.

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.

My impression of Ahmadinejad:

I think he is a very very smart man. And he came off as a very sincere person. He was very rational, and spoke more rationally than Bush does on this subject.

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.

Should he have been allowed to speak?

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.

I hear Ahmadinjad said there are no homosexuals in Iran. If that is true I wish he would stop executing those they find.

Touche ;)

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

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

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

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.

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.

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.

"Well, even if it was "about oil" that's a very good reason. The economy of the world would be terribly harmed if oil became hard to get."

Well, how does this scenario sound:

Americans eat lots and lots of bananas. We love our bananas so much that we don't restrict ourselves to eating the bananas we grow in california, but import them. Colombia has the best bananas around, so we buy them. Columbia has a somewhat unstable government, so Chiquita pays 25 million in the last few years to the local columbian thugs for "protection money".... so we can eat our bananas.

What happens if the "legit" government in Columbia says, "We are very, very angry and you are poopyheads. No more bananas for you, Yank!"

Is it appropriate for the American military to invade columbia, kill civilians, hire the same thugs to which we payed protection money as 'war contractors', and take the bananas by force because we love our bananas?

Who owns those bananas? Which part of property rights did you fail to comprehend?

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.

Setting aside disagreements on the perception of motives, do you believe that sacrificing the lives of Americans for profit is morally proper? I can't possibly believe that you do.

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.

Sending American soldiers to war knowing some will get killed to get them. Sacrifice of American citizens for profit. That's my moral objection.

Michael

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

I am probably going to regret mentioning this, but there is a fact that needs to be examined. I just read an article by Lew Rockwell entitled "None Dare Call It Genocide." I do not like Rockwell's anti-American stance or his use of blanket words like "murder" for all deaths, but he presents some compelling figures regarding over a million conflict-related deaths of Iraqi citizens since 2003, with almost half dying from gunshot wounds.

This is a fact he claims that is ignored in the press, which focuses on car bombs and overhead bombardment. If this is true, then it should be in the news. There is no justification for that many deaths in an occupied country, anyway. Does anyone have any comments about Rockwell's sources? I didn't see a breakdown of "killed by Americans" and "killed by insurgents" or something like that.

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.

Does that include control of the oil fields by American companies? That is what is being promoted in broad daylight with The Oil Act. If not, is there a reason to ignore this fact?

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?

We are not taking over Iraq. Removing Saddam was clearly in our national interest and it was doable.

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.

Once again please explain how a primitive third world country who is not working with al-qeada is a threat to us.

I take them at their word.

Another reason is that Iraq was "doable".

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.

Saddam had no WMD's, no viable army and was not working with terrorist.

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.).

Just remember that the Fed is private, just highly regulated.

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. It has not been proven that they are trying to build weapons

2. Even if they did they have no way to deliver those weapons.

3. Israel would not let them do it.

4. Their leader is not as insane as Fox News makes him out to be

5. Where are they funding terrorism against the US? I think you a thinking about Saudi Arabia, our oil buddy.

6. When you say allies, you mean Israel. Israel can take care of itself.

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 only entity that can create new dollars is the US government.

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.