THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Come on. Don't tell me you are not going to let the Biddle apologists try to wiggle out of the obvious.

You are claiming that Biddle meant what he said. That's no fair...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

There are Objectivists who want four things:

--War--and to eat it too.

--Objectivism--and to eat it too.

They misunderstand or do not care to understand "Atlas Shrugged" and egoism. They think that at the end of the novel there wasn't anything left but Galt's Gulch.

John Galt did not activate "Project X." Ragnar did not attack universities. Dagny did not gun down college students. Francisco did not assassinate Catholic priests.

You cannot use Objectivism to justify genocide and sleep well at night. But you can fantasize about it, even though it's not Objectivism in the real world--yet. Maybe in 50 or a hundred years some idiot calling himself an "Objectivist" will actually do that. Today such advocates aren't idiots, with one or two or three public exceptions; they're just silly. How can you do anything other than trivialize your purported philosophy with such rationalistic constructs? How can you sell it?

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

“Whaaaat? You don’t wanna nuke em’ all? What are you, a pussy?” Ugh!

:hairy: <[my best SLOP caricature so far]

[Ellen Stuttle]

And while we are at it I think we might as well go ahead and get rid of all the commies, socialists, TAS members, Scientologists, and don't forget those pesky magazine salespeople who keep showing up at my front door.

And phone solicitors. By all means, don't forget the phone solicitors.

"We've got them on the list. They'll none of them be missed."

Ellen

PS: No, I'm not a Gilbert and Sullivan fan in general, but I do like

"The Mikado" and "Ruddigore."

___

[Victor Pross]

Michael J. Hurd of Capitalism Magazine [Aug 3, 2006] asks a relevant question, in view of the hysteria displayed by Biddle and his ilk, if current events in the Middle East represent World War III, and he concludes that this is a question that can only be applied in hindsight. He is doubtful that the current Lebanon crisis represents the official start of a world war.

It is particularly interesting to note that Mr. Hurd grants the fact that no terrorist allies, such as Iran, have nuclear weapons—and if they did, their target would most likely be against Israel. Given this, it’s very informative to contrast this to what Biddle advocates, keeping Hurd’s position in mind.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Dan Edge Quote:

"If it were possible for the military to devise a weapon that would

kill all the bad guys, leaving only the truly morally innocent,

then I say we use that weapon to the exclusion of all other

weapons. But this is a fantasy. In reality, the bad guys are

mixed in with the good, and the enemy government collects taxes

from *all* of them, which fuels their war machine. Further, a

government cannot exist for long without at least the tacit support

of its citizens. This makes them legitimate targets." :baby:

When Dan Edge studied Objectivism, he forget to read the parts that cover logic—the art of non-contradictory identification. Edge contradicts himself: he states in the first part that, yeah, sure, I would support some magical military devise that would kill only bad guys leaving the innocent alive...AND THEN he says: “Further, a government cannot exist for long without at least the tacit support of its citizens. This makes them legitimate targets” meaning that ALL people--good or bad--are as good as dead because they are all tax payers! That makes them LEGITIMATE TARGETS! Kill those taxpayers--good or bad!

Not a big point, but I found it so fantastically funny and had to share it. Whooo-eee—what a stellar intellect!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

You missed the next quote on that thread in the friendly neighborhood:

The draft is an initiation of force; strategically targetting schools full of [children, adults, whomever] is a form of self-defense.

This is what is being called Objectivism.

(That was not taken out of context, either, but to be clear, he was talking about schools full of "children, adults, whomever" in an enemy country. He really does mean kill all those evil children.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just in case anybody missed it, here are important instructions for Ramadan.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Dan,

If targeting civilians were the best way to end a war quickly and cheaply, and if doing so were the best way to preserve the long term freeom of our country’s citizens, then would you support it?

Yes, absolutely, although I would change your wording: “…if doing so were the best way to minimize the loss of further American lives.”

Although I realize you are emphasizing a principle here-- that attacking non-combatants in war is not inherently immoral—I think it is important to clarify that Biddle specifically argued for targeting the Islamists, not civilians as such. (I believe Andre may have alluded to this in a prior post.)

You expressly refer to civilians, rather than innocent civilians. With regard to the truly innocent, I think that Brook and Epstein expressed the point most clearly in their article analyzing the evil of ‘Just War Theory”:

…If it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one’s rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent; it is good to have more rational, pro-America people in the world. Rational, selfish soldiers do not desire mindless destruction of anyone, let alone innocents; they are willing to kill only because they desire freedom and realize that it requires using force against those who initiate force. Insofar as the innocents cannot be isolated in the achievement of our military objectives, however, sparing their lives means sacrificing our own; and although the loss of their lives is unfortunate, we should kill them without hesitation.

Those who attack Biddle for deliberately targeting innocents use a bizarre form of argumentation. They condemn the bombing of mosques and massadrahs because we have no way of distinguishing the Islamists from the non-Islamists that may be occupying them. (They imply that that we should let the Islamists be free to plan their destruction of the free world because they cannot be isolated.) Then, in the next breath, they imply that Biddle is advocating the targeting of innocents. This strikes me as pure altruism masquerading as humanitarianism.

Sadly, I agree with you that “most Libertarians and most of the TOC crowd” seem to lack moral self-confidence in applying the principle of egoism to a nation at war. And I fully agree that “The ARI speakers are the only ones with the moral courage to take the proper stance on this issue.”

This thread has become a fascinating (and, frankly, somewhat discouraging) study in some key differences among Objectivists. It is amazing to see how many people seem eager to condemn me because I consistently defend egoism. (For the most part, they do so without directly referencing me, but the implications are clear.)

Perhaps this is one reason why Objectivism to this point has been a dismal failure as a philosophical movement: because so many of its alleged adherents are so eager to apologize for their own ideas. I realize that last statement—along with many of my prior arguments—may have distanced me from most OL members. If I am now to be shunned as evil and a leper, so be it. There is no value to be found in any friendship that requires that I live as a fraud.

Michael,

To my profound amazement, you argue against the following principle:

“A defending nation has the right to do anything and everything it must to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation….”

You say:

You leave out reason and values and you substitute one tribe for another. This is pure tribal thinking disguised as reason. Once people accept "do anything and everything" as a valid standard, all standards go out the window except for one: the good of the tribe.

You clearly do not realize it, but you are the one advocating tribalism and collectivism. The essence of tribalism is the principle that the individual's identity derives from membership in the group, that the tribe or collective has some mysterious value but the individual does not. Americans merely want to live in freedom. They are simply asking to be left alone—they want to be independent, i.e., moral and rational. The same cannot be said of the citizens of a predator state. They cannot claim equal moral status and continue to help sustain a statist entity which preys on others who ask for nothing but their freedom. Consequently, they look to their ethnic-racial or national or religious identity for their moral significance. Both Nazism and Islamism are obvious examples of this. In urging that we severely limit our efforts at self-defense, it is precisely the tribalists that you are defending.

Further, if the individuals of a free nation are not free to defend themselves in the most efficient way possible from foreign attack, they are being denied the moral right to act as ends in themselves, and have instead become the means to some “higher” end—that of sacrificing themselves to the needs of the group (in this case, their enemies). That is the essence of altruism-collectivism.

Dennis

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

You described my position very poorly and you are trying to force altruism into where it doesn't fit. I suggest a better reading of my posts.

I, least of all, am "urging that we severely limit our efforts at self-defense."

I could start saying that you are advocating that we turn into sadistic monsters with a moral sanction... Would that be accurate? Of course not. So why do that with my words?

Michael

Edit: Dennis. There is something in this whole formulation that bothers me, and I am still not satisfied with my last response to you. So let me be clear. The way the statement was phrased makes me really antsy, and that is when I start talking about tribal collectivism. Look at the phrase:

A defending nation has the right to do anything and everything it must to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation.

(My emphasis.)

What rights are there in armed conflicts? There are no rights. There is only kill or be killed. Theoretically, individual rights exist, but armed conflict sort of makes hash out of that theory in practice.

I happen to agree with the position that the military goal is to attain victory with a minimum loss of American lives. I also applaud, as a secondary value, a commitment to minimum loss of life of unarmed innocent civilians. This is not a "right" nor is it "altruism." This is preserving a value. The whole tribal mentality comes in by trying to assign rights to situations where rights do not apply. Guess why? Guess who gets to define the "rights"? Guess who gets to define who can live and who dies?

Here is the statement in a form I completely agree with in terms of stating a condition:

A defending nation must do anything and everything it can to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation if it is to survive.

If you want to add morality to this, a "should," I would state it as follows:

A defending nation should do anything and everything as the need arises to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation.

Frankly, I would even like to include the word "reason" in there, but I will take it as stated. Now there is the thorny issue of who decides "when the need arises." For me, that is what we pay our Commander in Chief and his military staff to do.

Still, all this is too vague to be meaningful because the original statement was so vague. I am still not completely satisfied with this. I would like to analyze something more specific.

Do you have anything else I wrote where you can actually de facto pin altruism on me, where I preach that others are more important than the individual?

Michael

[CNA]

Dan,

I've found your post rather offensive. I'm appalled that you would have the audacity to come over here to OL and try to sell this: that is killing off thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people while lumping them all into a collective group because you perceive the group as a possible threat to American citizens rather than taking into account individuality. I'm sure that Ayn Rand did not advocate lumping hundreds of thousands of people into one huge collective group and then whacking them. You've already contradicted yourself in holding this view.

Ayn Rand was Russian. Would you perceive her as a threat to you if she were still alive and in Russia still if Russia's govt decided to wage war on the US? Your answer would be ‘yes’ and you would blow Ayn Rand's head off without hesitation. This is what you're advocating. How many other Ayn Rands are out there? How many other John Galts or Howard Roarks are out there? There are many. I personally know one of them very well. There are many more out there and I'm sure they are spread out all over the world. People that have come to the same convictions that Ayn Rand did without ever knowing who she was. The only difference is that Ayn Rand wrote about it extensively and put it out there for all to see.

It is not in the nature of man---nor of any living entity---to start out by giving up, by spitting in one's own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption whose rapidity differs from man to man. Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lost it.

Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality.

It does not matter that only a few in each generation will grasp and achieve the full reality of man's proper stature---and that the rest will betray it. It is those few that move the world and give life its meaning---and it is those few that I have always sought to address.

The rest are no concern of mine; it is not me they will betray: it is their own souls.

Ayn Rand

So many other Ayn Rands out there that have come to the same rational convictions she has on their own, some that are in foreign countries---Incredible men and women that are not to be lumped into one huge collective group and lead to the slaughter house. I'm sure Ayn Rand would be rolling in her grave at the very thought that someone calling themselves an Objectivist would try to pass this idea off in the name of her philosophy, in the name of Objectivism.

I have this visual in my head of you advocating this despicable act--that I'm sure Ayn Rand is even against ---where you’re walking down the street in a foreign country with a sawed off shotgun hidden behind your back, waiting for the next target to make itself known. You've already killed many. Remember, there are no rules, you can kill as many as you like and get away with it. You've been told it is okay by another and so you keep looking for your next target. But this time Ayn Rand walks by and gives you that wonderful bright smile of hers and says “hello.” But you are filled with hatred for anyone that lives in this foreign country because of your distorted perception of them as a collective group of zeros. Rather than taking into account individuality, you've succumbed to collectivism. You've lumped everyone into one huge group. You're paranoid as you now see every individual in this country as being out to get you. But then you see Ayn Rand's beautiful smile, bright intelligent eyes, and beautiful face looking at you---and then you raise the sawed off shotgun and, at point blank range, you pull the trigger and blow Ayn Rand's head off.

This is what you are advocating. This is what you are trying to sell. Even Ayn Rand states above that there are others out there that are like her and have "grasped and achieved the full reality of man's proper stature” and that the rest will betray it. It is those few that move the world and give life its meaning." Obviously you are NOT one of them. What if these other Ayn Rands out there are living in these foreign countries and so far are unable to escape but they're in hiding, hoping one day to get out. But their glorious life is cut short. Ayn Rands life would be cut short because you've already blown her head off. Ayn Rand was not an American. Ayn Rand was Russian who became an American. She was from a foreign country and a country that was steeped in communism.

There is no rule for how many of theirs we can kill for each one of ours they kill.

This sentence makes me want to hurl chunks, big time, and it makes my skin crawl. It's said with a hint of enthusiasm and almost has a sense of boasting to it. It seems as if you're boasting that you can kill many and get away with it because there are no rules. You've been told by whomever that it is okay to commit this kind of an act and you've adopted it. You now have a license to act on it. And on top of it, publicly endorse killing as many as you want. You can get away with it as there are no more rules. Incidentally, I've done much research into psychological profiling of criminals, in specific serial killers. This is a common trait of a serial killer.

A defending nation has the right to do anything and everything it must to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation.

This is the principle that my “trick” question brings to light. The question is only tricky to those who do not grasp the principle.

I will never come to accept this principle of yours that you've adopted. I do not advocate killing the Ayn Rands of the world, the John Galts, the Howard Roarks of the world as you have done so. These are the individuals that are of my ilk, even if they live in a foreign country. These individuals are not to be lumped into any collective group. These are individuals that stand alone, proud of what they are, proud of what they've become, proud of standing apart from the collective group. These are the men and women that are deserving of respect from all and should be commended and not slaughtered because of those who call themselves Objectivists have lumped them into a collective group, an amorphous mob where the sanctity of an individual life means nothing to you if it’s not American. Shame on you.

Edited October 7, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

I think that the differences—essentially speaking--between the two sides of this issue can be summed up as follows:

OL: It is recognized that we must defend ourselves successfully---with the least amount of innocent lives snuffed out.

SLOP: It is recognized that we must defend ourselves successfully---with the most amount of loss to any foreign lives we are in conflict with.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just set up a new forum in "Outer Limits" called Mideast. I was inspired to do so because I want to understand the Mideast from an Objectivist perspective and other perspectives so we can start to contribute something intellectually to the war on terrorism.

I found two marvelous articles on the Internet and I cannot recommend them highly enough. They are like a breath of fresh air on getting some factual perspective amid all the war cries and misinformation flying around.

Freedom and Justice in Islam by Bernard Lewis

A View From the Eye of the Storm by Haim Harari

This new forum should become a good source of sound information and ideas.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The only moral foundation for the calculus of war is this:

A defending nation has the right to do anything and everything it must to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation.

This is the principle that my “trick” question brings to light. The question is only tricky to those who do not grasp the principle.

--Dan Edge

Then when the US invaded Mexico before the Civil War the Mexican government had the "right" to drop nuclear bombs on the US if it had had any until the US would never again ever be a threat to the "long-term freedom" of the people of Mexico?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Angie,

You wrote to Dan Edge:

I've found your post rather offensive. I'm appalled that you would have the audacity to come over here to OL and try to sell this...

Dan was recently awarded a full scholarship to study at OAC (Objectivist Academic Center) of ARI.

Several of us are harshly criticizing Craig Biddle and other ARI intellectuals.

You draw your own conclusions.

(I am still waiting to see if his coaches will let him answer my questions...)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Angie,

You wrote to Dan Edge:

I've found your post rather offensive. I'm appalled that you would have the audacity to come over here to OL and try to sell this...

Dan was recently awarded a full scholarship to study at OAC (Objectivist Academic Center) of ARI.

Several of us are harshly criticizing Craig Biddle and other ARI intellectuals.

You draw your own conclusions.

(I am still waiting to see if his coaches will let him answer my questions...)

Michael

What are they going to teach him?

--Brant

[Guest Damage Inc.]

I think that the differences—essentially speaking--between the two sides of this issue can be summed up as follows:

OL: It is recognized that we must defend ourselves successfully---with the least amount of innocent lives snuffed out.

SLOP: It is recognized that we must defend ourselves successfully---with the most amount of loss to any foreign lives we are in conflict with.

Where does a *hierarchy of values* fit in to your distorted analysis? And, what if - just what if - you can't defend yourself successfully with the least amount of innocent lives lost? Should we prolong the war and cause more innocents to die (a suggestion implied by some blood thirsty advocates on OL)?

Victor, I'm curious why you didn't question Yaron Brook when he was here in Toronto a few years ago? Or, have you just seen the light in regard to the errors of ARI?

Wayne Simmons

Edited October 7, 2006 by Damage Inc.

[Dennis Hardin]

Michael.

Your quote:

What rights are there in armed conflicts? There are no rights. There is only kill or be killed. Theoretically, individual rights exist, but armed conflict sort of makes hash out of that theory in practice.

I happen to agree with the position that the military goal is to attain victory with a minimum loss of American lives. I also applaud, as a secondary value, a commitment to minimum loss of life of unarmed innocent civilians. This is not a "right" nor is it "altruism." This is preserving a value. The whole tribal mentality comes in by trying to assign rights to situations where rights do not apply. Guess why? Guess who gets to define the "rights"? Guess who gets to define who can live and who dies?

This is an interesting argument for moral equivalence between the US and Iran. It implies that, once war begins, might makes right and it makes no moral difference who wins or loses, regardless of which nation was the aggressor. It’s like the school yard counselor who tells two boys caught fighting: “I don’t care who started it!” But that counselor is wrong, and so are you. In a prior post, I made the following statement, which is partially reminiscent of your comment:

Rights are moral principles that define and sanction a person’s freedom of action within a social context.. They derive from our nature as rational beings, and in that sense they are inalienable. However, the elimination of force from social relationships is a precondition of the respect for rights. That is the proper role of a government. Those who introduce force into the social equation have made respect for rights an impossibility.

However, I added the following at the end:

…The bank robber’s gun has effectively marginalized their rights until such time as he has been disarmed and the threat of force has been eliminated.

The police in that situation are using retaliatory force against the initiator, and they have every moral right to do so as made clear in the following quote from Ayn Rand:

“…All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of force a moral imperative.” (from “The Nature of Government”)

You have prohibited the US government from dropping bombs that would kill civilians. And advocated minimizing civilian deaths on both sides. (Of course, you have also said that it was okay to flatten Hiroshima, so forgive me if I get a little confused about which side I am arguing against at times.) You do not consider that a severe limitation? You have also endorsed the Just War principle of “proportionality,” which amounts to recasting the 'Sanction of the Victim' into a rule of war. How do you square that with your statement that

A defending nation should do anything and everything as the need arises to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation?

Putting the kind of shackles on the military that you have advocated (at least some of the time) will lead to the sacrifice of American lives. That’s altruism.

Here’s a little quote from Ayn Rand regarding Vietnam:

“…When a country is at war, it has to use all of its power to fight and win as fast as possible. It cannot fight and non-fight at the same time. It cannot send its soldiers to die as cannon fodder, forbidding them to win…(from “The Wreckage of the Consensus”)

What part of “all of its power” strikes anyone as ambiguous? Does that sound like someone who would be ashamed of the Objectivist viewpoints on war put forth by ARI? Here’s an additional thought about the expressed fears of risking the loss of a fledgling Ayn Rand due to the bombing of civilian centers during a war.

Ayn Rand considered We, The Living to be a kind of philosophical autobiography. Kira Argounova—with whom she explicitly identified in terms of essential values and convictions--refused to conform to the Soviet system, and eventually died trying to escape to freedom across the border in the snow.

Writing in The Objectivist in January, 1969, Ayn Rand wrote that, despite her awareness of the futility of political protests in Russia, she would “probably have been one of those protestors in the street” if she had not been lucky enough to flee the country when she did. I think it is reasonable to presume that she would have joined an underground resistance movement at some point in the hopes of eventually taking down the Soviet regime.

It is a well-known fact that, in Nazi Germany, the resistance movement welcomed the Allied bombing of German cities and the disruption it caused. They hoped to use the breakdown of law and order to their advantage and mobilize the resistance forces to take control of German cities. There is little doubt that Ayn—like Kira--would have been more than willing to risk her life for a chance to live in freedom.

Dennis

[L W HALL]

There is little doubt that Ayn—like Kira--would have been more than willing to risk her life for a chance to live in freedom.

Is there any evidence that Rand participated in protests of an overt nature or was actively aligned with a resistance movement between the years 1917 and 1925?

L W

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Our main problem of disagreement (and I happen to agree with Barbara that this is more on the surface than in terms of essentials) is illustrated in your following statement:

This is an interesting argument for moral equivalence between the US and Iran.

Once again, this is trying to fit in something where it does not fit. There is no moral equivalence fallacy between an innocent person in the US and an innocent person in Iran. Both are innocent people in moral terms. That goes for the guilty of moral transgressions also. (Human morality is not restricted to the United States, nor is reason.)

The whole problem arises when we move morality to the level of nations. I am arguing against the moral equivalence between individual rights and military conditions in war. This is what ARI preaches. That is some real righteous moral equivalence and it leads to collectivism.

You also make some amazing statements.

You have prohibited the US government from dropping bombs that would kill civilians.

Where? Even you mentioned that I supported Hiroshima. Once again, I suggest a closer reading of my posts. I am sorry if I cannot be the enemy proclaiming the views you want me to proclaim, but my positions are clear. I don't see how misrepresenting them is going to do any good in discussion.

You also call doing things as the need arises as determined by our Commander in Chief and his military staff "shackles" and "altruism." I find that very curious. Would you have the military run without orders? It is either that or you left out my qualification on purpose to mischaracterize my position, in which case I don't why.

But to be absolutely clear, I am vehemently against ARI running the USA military. The idea of them doing that gives me the willies. I am perfectly happy with the structure as it exists.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Victor, you wrote: "a kind of McCarthy like hysteria." You need to do some reading of works by non-leftists about the McCarthy era.

Barbara

[Victor Pross]

Barbara,

Thank you, I am open to suggestions. What would you recommend?

Still, I must tell you, from whatever perspective, left or right, did not McCarthy enforce censorship and violate civil liberties in the effort to fight "evil ideas"? Are these not historical facts?

For the record, the “House of Un-American activities” never sat well with me.

Victor

Edited October 7, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

I understand fully the ramifications of war and to defend ourselves as my happiness and freedom are number one priority. But I will not accept the idea of lumping an entire nation into a collective sum and my paranoia that they are all out to get me. It's absurd and unrealistic and not grounded in reality to believe a 2 month old child has the ability to raise a gun and point it at my head and pull the trigger. I still get the visual in my head of Ayn Rand and Dan Edge blowing her head off. I also get the visual in my head of seeing an innocent 2 month old child laying in the street or on the sidewalk crying and Dan or any others that accepts this ridiculous idea and approaching the child, raising their sawed off shot gun and pulling the trigger. This act is grotesque, psychologically abnormal, and is evil. What happened to individuality here? Where did it go? There is no individuality.

I understand that there are times we need to go to war. I also understand WWII and we're not being invaded and that circumstance where our long term freedom is seriously threatened and the need arises to take more drastic measures in order to preserve it. But as I have already posted here in this thread my thoughts of when I could understand and even support attacking the entire nation. Strategic at first. But if that fails, then I could see it being justified in attacking the entire nation in order to preserve our freedom. But I do not agree that we should start bombing the hell out of nurseries, kindergartens, daycare centers, any residences at night or other innocent civilian establishments when they are most likely to be occupied RIGHT OUT OF THE STARTING GATE. Yes, strategic bombing at first, military establishments, terrorist camps, and so on. If this does not work, as I have posted the scenario previously, then I can see and understand other areas of controversy being bombed. The whole objective of war is to complete the objective with the fewest of casualties. There are other ways of deflecting and preventing a war and ending it quickly. You can easily strategically bomb very heavily and attack all at once from the air and wipe out quite a bit, millitary establishments, camps, and so on and bring a nation to its knees. I also understand context and the nation we may be at war against needs to be taken into consideration. But strategic at first. If this does not work, then more drastic measures needs to be taken into consideration.

Also since anything and everything goes and can kill as many as he wants during war because there are no rules at all in war, I'm sure massive amounts of war crimes will also be committed; such as, torture, disfigurement, mutilation, anything that will inflict the most amount of pain but being short of death. So fucking gag to that one :sick:

Angie

[CNA]

Also, I fully understand the situations where kids could be sent into war as what happpened in Vietman and that awareness needs to be at its highest. But I still get the visuals in my head of other Ayn Rands, other John Galts, other Howard Roarks, or small kids running for their dear life and their being shot in the back because anything and everything goes as there are no more rules. Obviously these are individual people that do not have the intentions of being the aggressor. Or I can even see their searching houses and finding these innocent kids, other Ayn Rands, other John Galts, other Howard Roarks hiding in a cellar or basement or closet, obviously not the aggressors and unarmed, and their intentionally seeking them out and slaughtering them. They've been percieved as enemies because of their belief in collectivism although it is obvious they are NOT. Reality is screaming in their faces that they are NOT the aggressors. Their perceptions are telling them that they are NOT the aggressors. Reason is telling them that they are NOT the aggressors. But they're evading what their perceptions are telling them, evading reason, evading what reality is telling them but they make the decision to commit the act anyway.

There is so much blood shed already with war. In this case as what some now believe in, the blood shed would be horrendous. It would be the ultimate blood bath.

Edited October 7, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

Damage,

There is no nice way to put this so I’m just going to come out and say it. You have insinuated in private email that I am, in effect, the personal hand-puppet of MSK who is feeding his ideas into me, and that I have fallen under the spell of a beautiful woman for whom I have tempered my views. You moan the loose of a friend, the “old Victor” that you had formally known to be a more in-your-face fighting Objectivist. I’ll state it for the record, here and now, none of this is true. I am under the spell of a beautiful woman, and but not in the manner you have suggested, which is just more groundless conjecturing shoot-from-the hip and spout from the ass bullshit.

You’ll discover that I still “go for the jugular” in intellectual combat as I am about to do now.

If my views on war [or any other subject] have altered or “softened” as you see them to have, much to your perplexity, it’s because I’m actually engaged in the moral activity of thinking. My views may change as my knowledge grows. Whereas you, on the other hand, have decided to learn by memorized route, where the ideas picked up are like frozen popsicles, stuck in your mind for all time to be repeated over-and-over whenever some institution pulls the string on your back, providing the right stimulus is given. You recite catechisms like a school boy reads his lines from the school play. Memorization is one thing, and it is relatively easy--hard thinking on complex problems is bloody hard work.

**

Having said all of this, let’s turn to your objections and to the question of where I stand on the subject of war. I will take the issue point by point:

It has been repeated again and again, like a memorized recipe from a child’s Easy-bake that, morally, the U.S. government must destroy our aggressors by whatever means are necessary and minimize U.S. casualties in the process. In principle, I don’t disagree with this. But it is not for me--a civilian non-expert--to suggest or to enact the policies of what would be “necessary” to win or prevent a world war. You see, it’s the ‘what is really necessary” aspect of the equation that concerns me here, not the principle of defense. However, some people, such as Biddle, have jumped in fervently to offer his personal play-by-play game plan, providing the “whatever” of those means, with lip-smacking glee. What exactly are his credentials other than a lust for revenge or because the other children wouldn’t let him play cowboy? What is his recommendation? Again, let’s take a gander:

“Obliterate, from high altitude and long distance, all known Iranian military assets, all Iranian government buildings, all Iranian mosques and madrassahs, and the residences of all Iranian leaders, imams, clerics, and government officials. Hit these targets when they are most likely to be occupied (e.g., mosques during the day and residences at night).”

And:… “Airdrop leaflets across the Middle East explaining: "From now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to her citizens or allies. We look forward to the time when you decide to civilize yourselves…”

Hmm. Will screaming children scarred unmercifully and piles of million of corpses be sufficient to consider a victory in this war? Or perhaps dropping another H-bomb tens times more devastating than the one employed in WWII be sufficient--may be “necessary'? Who is to say but generals and military experts? Even here, US citizens may properly object to what ever policy is being put forth, much less a zealot civilian. Do you wish to step up to plate to decide what measures, and to what degree, we are to enforce a game plan? Or does Biddle’s action plan fit you well?

My objection to Biddle is his overwrought fanaticism. I am unable to distinguish his barbaric rhetoric from that of a drunken red-neck caricature spouting off his “ideas” at the local Tavern in Hicksville USA of what ought to be done, which usually just amount to the simplistic “nuke em’ all" bromide. Why don’t we turn to Biddle to see if he chooses the latter? Perhaps he may well drop the suggestion that we drop leaflets as he may figure nobody will be left to read them. Or would that be acting “immoral”? That is, would it be a failure to employ “whatever” means it takes to defend ourselves if we didn’t drop the leaflets?

Damage, would you—personally--like to be left in charge to decide over the issue of life and death, to put forth a detailed military course of action? If so, you may have a few questions to ask yourself: what course of actions—and to what degree—should I employ? Will it be sufficient so as not to loose the war but to spare as many American lives as possible? Should I employ an all out assault sparing no life—civilians, men, women and children, innocent or not—just to make sure? Or I am I punishing and wiping out the entire class room just to make sure I punish the one child who stole the apple from my desk? Maybe it’s better to drop any strategy and simply kill wholesale--just as a good measure. Can I live with myself if I miss a few dozens mosques?

You can see I’m talking from my ass here, because I am not a military expert and I shrink from the role of having to decide the fate of millions of people—be they Americans or human beings from other countries. And yet, we have Biddle, Mr. glazed eye power luster, lapping up the role to fulfill a personal blood lust. Would you be able to sleep at night later knowing that the military plan you had enforced where proven to be excessive and that winning war would have taken only a quarter of what you enforced? Or perhaps you would twist your mind into pretzels of rationalizations concluding that nobody in those countries is ‘innocent’ after all. So fuck em'!

Damage, let’s rap this up: I am still the same old homeless renegade Objectivist, but I am simply trying to rise above my memorized lesson as issued by organizations. I am actually employing the principles of the philosophy and looking at reality first-hand and coming to my conclusions—right or wrong, they are MY conclusions. I am an individualist, and I have both eyes on reality—not one eye on reality and the other on an institution or “crib notes” of memorized slogans. Personally, I love Ayn Rand, but I love the truth more.

**

[EDIT] George H. Smith: "The last thing any Objectivist should do is glorify war, or treat it as some kind of noble endeavor when the killing of innocents is the topic of discussion. War, however necessary it may be at times, is a dirty, nasty business; and there is neither glory nor nobility in killing innocent people whose only "crime" is the misfortune of having been enslaved by a dictatorship."

Amen.

--

Edited October 7, 2006 by Victor Pross