Robert Baratheon

Similar fears were expressed about the damaging potential of the printing press. 15th century abbot Johannes Trithemius argued in his work De laude scriptorum manualium (“In Praise of Scribes") that the printed word would empower the everyman beyond his capacity for responsible application. It would, the monk argued, become a grave threat to literate elite and strike at the very authority of the state over its people as the unwashed masses gained capacity for disseminating just any old information amongst themselves - without permission from their societal betters. By and large, he was correct about this. We know that literacy has been a key subjugation tool throughout the vast majority of human history in much the same way that firearms are now. We are all very fortunate, at this later stage in history, that his advice of banning the press wasn't adopted if it were even possible to do such a thing.

Sorry - busy 100-percenting Mega Man 2 on my NES with an economics podcast running.

PDS - You have the causation reversed. When I'm denied the substantive debate I crave, I get bored and go biting on ankles.

All I ask from people is that they approach discussion topics with good faith and a willingness to question their own assumptions. It doesn't matter to me what a person's position is as long as there isn't a pattern of intellectual stubbornness or dishonesty. I've been commenting on libertarian and conservative blogs for years and haven't had any issues so far. The only blog I ever had a problem on was a progressive blog that banned me when a new owner took over and accused me of "libeling" a local teacher's union that financially contributed to the blog. Several other commenters pointed out that nothing I said was even remotely libelous, but the blog owner really just wanted me gone for being a persistent critic (I had caught him misquoting people on more than one occasion - I'm a stickler for accurate representation of others). Really I just consider this mental recreation and enjoy being exposed to new ideas I otherwise would not have been aware of.

How can somebody post a picture like that and not provide any back story?!

I was somewhat surprised when the 3-D printed gun became such a national sensation. When I first heard about it, I didn't regard it as anything more than an interesting YouTube clip or passing technological curiosity. What it is the major concern here? We learned as recently as a couple of months ago in Boston that all it takes to kill or permanently injure scores of people are some common household items. It makes psychological sense, though. People want to feel like they can be protected, that weapons can be controlled. To admit that someone intent on killing them will find a way is a disconcerting thought to many.

William - I'm not a fan of the rampant and blatant misogyny in your post, and I'm not sure what exactly you think you've contributed here. Again, anyone is free to go to the beginning of this thread and plainly see that I responded to Kacy's post with substantive arguments. Kacy refused to have a real discussion on those terms - as he stated when I came to this blog that he would under no circumstances do - so the "poison" you see here is what is LEFT as a result of that decision. I'm fully willing to discuss the issues, and I have attempted to do so here. Kacy isn't. If you don't believe me, just ask him - he's said as much himself.

No, he can do as he pleases, and I don't fault anyone for responding to incentives. But he has repeatedly tried to browbeat me in our discussions by asserting his "elite" military status as a blanket defense or appeal from authority, and that type of behavior doesn't fly with me. What is the point of bringing up meeting the president or being "thanked" by John McCain? It isn't relevant to anything of substance.

I don't take any issue with national defense, or even with the concept of a standing army necessarily. But it's intellectually lazy to suggest, implicitly or otherwise, that the basic need for a military justifies any and all "defense" expenditures or any number of salaried military employees. Or that it negates the plain reality that the military is, and always has been for many, a de facto jobs/welfare program for people who otherwise would have been cyclically unemployed or suffering degrees of economic hardship. Now there are advantages and disadvantages to this functionality, and I have explicitly mentioned that here before, but it's downright OFFENSIVE when those "serving" like Kacy look down their noses at us lowly "civilians" or claim some sort of elite status just for signing up for what is essentially a WPA-style federal jobs program. I could just as easily "pull rank" on Kacy based on any number of educational or employment factors, but I don't engage in that kind of posturing because I find it repulsive. It is not true that "only" SB and I have identified Kacy's lack of intellectual curiosity or verbally reprimanded him here for engaging in partisan flame-war behavior. Numerous other commenters have noted Kacy's pattern of posting these vacuous topics solely to antagonize small-government advocates and start talking-point flame wars.

1. Kacy trolls libertarians/objectivists with anti-right-wing-pundit topics. We object to this trolling. 2. I have plainly tried to engage Kacy on substance. He has stated that he categorically will not participate BECAUSE of personal history. So what does that leave us with? 3. "Alex Jones sucks" is a substantive point? "Rand Paul is a big government drug warrior" is a substantive point? He's trolling you, nothing more. When I responded with substance in this thread, he refused to engage on a meaningful level. Again, what does that leave us with? 4. When somebody on government subsistence repeatedly asserts that they are an elite, risk-taking, self-made, productive individual in the context of a discussion of objectivist values, it becomes relevant to the discussion. 5. So ignore it and start your own topics. 6. Kacy has authored even lengthier personal comments about us, so apply your comments equally to him. 30 days is an eternity in blog time. I may or may not decide to stay for that period. Anyone with eyes can see I have participated in, and am continuing to participate in, topics where Kacy is neither a subject nor a participant.

Yes. The trust has gone from our society and more are now concerned with "getting theirs" from a zero-sum, ever-expanding spoils system than producing value. Have no compunction about "getting yours" from the kleptocracy we are faced with - it's play or be played - but don't make things worse than they already are and never start believing that you've actually "earned" your goodies or you become one of THEM.

I hate my government, but they did what all effective regimes do with dissenters: they bought me off.

Civil disobedience can be a useful tool, but it is only useful to the extent that others will sympathize with the civilly disobedient over the state. Most people can appreciate that little old ladies shouldn't be beaten and attacked with dogs for sitting in the front of a bus, but I don't think that most are capable of making the fine distinctions Kokesh is requiring them to make here. They'll just see a young man being unruly and harassing some police officers who "risk their lives for our freedoms" - or whatever - and they'll only become more sympathetic to state action in the future.

Back in college I played devil's advocate and asked the Objectivist Club why society shouldn't just kill disabled people who drain resources and can't work. They couldn't come up with anything resembling a coherent answer within the objectivist framework. Ayn Rand's dogmatic insistence that rational self interests always align is quite clearly not the case. I view the real value of objectivism as instilling an appreciation for individualism over the good of the collective.

Reasonable minds accept that, at some point in an individual's rise to celebrity, his or her writings morph into more of a "brand" where direct authorship is replaced with systematic endorsement. So ragging on Sarah Palin for not writing every one of her opinion pieces and newsletters is just belaboring the obvious and besides the point. Yes, these celebrity politicians are profiting from the work of others, but they become accountable for the works of others as well. If we're being honest, Obama's central duty is reading scripts that are prepared for him, i.e., he is a brand, complete with his own logo. Reasonable minds know and accept this. But, rightly so, we hold him accountable for the ideas that fly under his brand as if they are his own, and we should now approach Sarah Palin's brand in the same way.

What is this entire topic if not just a half-hearted trolling of the libertarians and objectivists who frequent this blog? MSK had Kacy pegged from his earlier entry in the topic series: MSK: "Is there a point to opening a whole thread just to bash Alex Jones? Are you trying to find someone to play "Alex Jones sucks," "No he doesn't," "Yes he does," "No he doesn't," and so on?" So now we have yet another topic where "Alex Jones" has been replaced with a mock-up "Rand Paul" for us to abuse at Kacy's direction. Next week it will be _______ (fill in the blank right-wing politician or pundit). It's a testament to the good-faith natural of this blog that the people here even attempt to intellectualize these vacuous threads based on 24-hour-news-channel talking points. What is painfully obvious - and a number here have noticed this, not just me and SB - is that Kacy isn't the least bit interested in examining the validity of ideas or questioning his own assumptions in these threads. The true goal is to paint a right-wing target for collective scorn - with Kacy sitting pretty as bullier-in-chief - and watch the other commenters dance to his show tune for a while like 1920's-era cabaret dancers. It would be a miracle if these posts turned into anything other than petty bickering in the end, given their dubious underpinnings, especially when substantive comments from me and others go completely unaddressed by the topic originator.

Ah, I see. So when I posted my own topic on moral foundations of economic behavior (http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13276#entry183524), it was all merely part of an elaborate plan to harass you. The ensuing conversation must have been just a pretext to ensnare your attention, right? Thanks for commenting on that topic by the way - oh wait, you couldn't be bothered (douche). I did, however leave multiple substantive comments, that were in no way "trolling," on your MSNBC-talking-head-esque RAND PAUL DRUG WARRIOR WHARRGHARBL. Here was your only remotely substantive response to my arguments in that topic: "I favor small government. If you don't like that fact that I use the term "Libertarian" as a shortcut to describe myself, either get over it or ignore it. Either way, too damn bad if you don't like it. And no, I won't support Rand Paul. Too damn bad." Magnificent fodder for discussion, Kacy! Have you ever considered that you might get out of things what you put into them? Similarly, when I responded to SB's topic on the IRS targeting conservative groups (http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13286#entry183758), and other topics posted by fellow members where you weren't a participant, I must have just been secretly praying that you would grace us with your presence there. This is what you actually think? Well that tells us more about you than it does about me by a long stretch. Notice how everything's always about YOU in your posts. Your topic is titled "A couple reasons *I* couldn't vote for Rand Paul." So it's really just a topic about YOU, as if people here give the slightest flip who you would vote for. And you have the gall to accuse me of being a narcissist? I can at least talk about things other than myself, when people manage to put the effort in. And SB and I are not the only commenters who have bemoaned your lack of intellectual curiosity here, in case you haven't been paying attention. The distinct impression most here seem to have of you is that you want to post a bunch of cheap Mother Jones-type talking points, have a good bash on religious conservativism, then rinse and repeat. Kudos to them for refusing to drag the blog down to that base level. I came here because SB invited me here. I told him I was looking for a new blog. He told me that he respected this blog and its moderator. I didn't mention you ONCE in that conversation, you may be surprised to know.

Brant - It's only a faux intellectual dance to the extent that Kacy is unwilling to take it to a deeper level. The "Howard Roark" narrative of Kacy's government subsistence is only one example of his stubborn mental complacency. So returning to the original thread topic, Kacy loudly asserts that Rand Paul is a BIG GOVERNMENT DRUG WARRIOR and wants us to, I don't know, respond to that or something. We can plainly see that he's not interested in examining whether it is actually true or not or whether he is helping his own cause by engaging in this behavior. This complacency mindset has to be broken down through hard attrition, and before that happens there is no point in even attempting a bona fide discussion on the merits.

The passage above is indicative of a deep philosophical divide between Kacy and SB and I. Kacy sees only his personal truth (the narrative which is in every respect most flattering to himself) - that he is a hard worker, takes pride in his job, is respected by others, and so on. He holds this out to the world as The Objective Reality, where no other insights (truths) can coexist with, compete with, or complement the narrative. It is the Bible of his personal religion in which he plays the messianic role. SB and I don't share this purist framework. SB, from his own perspective, sees another truth, which is that Kacy's status as a military lifer is in many ways incompatible with being a risk-taker, a producer, and a self-made individual - other qualities Kacy claims to value. I - and I suspect SB - see both perspectives as containing some elements of truth. They are different, inherently limited views of a greater whole. When we add them together, we get a wider, deeper overall picture. The picture becomes even richer when we then self-examine, askijng WHY Kacy's narrative is so different from our own. But Kacy never gets to that point in analysis. Instead he merely contents himself with maintaining his self-indulgent narrative, fat and happy like my namesake, as absolute ruler of his emotional realm. This is what is so frustrating to us. We're on a never-ending journey and Kacy has already reached his destination (at the bottom of the mountain).

Kacy, I'm typing on a phone, so I'll be brief. Call yourself whatever you want for your own intellectual or emotional convenience, but know that your BEHAVIOR of targeting essentially libertarian politicians while leaving unabashedly big-government politicians to their wicked designs is destructive to the cause you claim to care about. Your example of objectivist purism is ironic because that is precisely what you are guilty of by excoriating candidates like Rand Paul for being "Drug Warriors." In contrast, SB and I are telling you not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and to embrace a more sensible big tent philosophy to push back against the true ideological opposition. I never claimed to have developed a full psychological profile for you, and I never attempted to explain why you were drinking too much. I simply identified the behavior itself as destructive, which you flatly denied at the time, asserting that it was totally normal and healthy and wasn't holding you back. Simply because you may have had underlying issues doesn't change that I was objectively correct about the resultant behavior and how it was a real impediment to your social and physical fitness. In other words, if you had thought about what I was saying instead of telling me I was naive, you could have had your "epiphany" years earlier.

Kacy, when you make statements like calling Rand Paul a "drug warrior," despite the fact that he has stated numerous times that he wants drug laws relaxed and favors treatment over incarceration, it is nearly impossible for us to believe you are engaging in good-faith debate. Your purist absolutism and nearly exclusive nitpicking of libertarian conservative candidates is the greatest gift the true opponents of liberty (progressives) could ask for.

Kacy, do you believe President Obama writes his own speeches?

Kacy - As for your delusional "self-made man" story (signing up for the military apparently makes you a modern-day Henry Ford), it's not relevant and we've already had our discussion of what it means to be a Randian producer, so I'll leave that alone for now. Too much revisionist BS here to refute all in one post. I will simply point out the obvious: that your intellectualization of the "escapism" concept is just a cheap way of not having to admit that I was OBJECTIVELY CORRECT when I told you that you were drinking too much alcohol. The contrapositive is that you were OBJECTIVELY WRONG when you countered - in a consistently insulting and condescending manner - that it was normal and healthy recreation behavior. The only explanation for your contradictions is cognitive dissonance. After all those years of insulting me, ridiculing me, and telling me I hadn't the slightest clue what I was talking about, you inexplicably concede the point I was arguing to you while continuing to assert that I was mistaken about the same point. All so that you don't have to admit I was *right* about something or apologize for your own rude and wrongheaded behavior. That in itself speaks more about your true nature than all your narrative posts about being a paragon of reason combined.

MSK - We can forgive you for not being famliar with the "process." Kacy can ultimately be saved from himself and has been in the past. It just takes *years* of wearing down his mental defenses through attrition. He has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a conclusion, but ultimately, like a stubborn mule, he will come. We had countless arguments in which Kacy railed against Dale Carnegie's methods of conflict resolution - now he accepts them. He relentlessly ridiculed SB and me for our study of seduction literature and social dynamics - now he concedes it has a place. I endured a decade of verbal abuse for suggesting he cut back on his alcohol consumption. A few years ago, a revelatory post appeared on his Facebook page about how he had come to precisely that conclusion, lamenting all the wasted time, money, and social opportunities. I never got any credit, of course - or an apology for that matter - but simply being vindicated was its own reward in the end. A year from now - or maybe the year after that - he will cease his war against libertarian conservatives and recognize progressivism as the true defining political threat of our time.

A neat summary on the state of affairs and why Kacy's all-out war against conservativism is so patently and dangerously misguided. I consider libertarians and conservatives to be children of a common mother; no need to start a brother's war between us while progressivism is on the march. The olive branch extended by the article is a breath of fresh air in a frequently contentious environment. I enjoyed the read, thank you for sharing.