THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[ekalski]

I am new to Objectivist Living. I was an Objectivist in the 1970's. I remember how exciting it was then and like so many others imagined a world where Objectivism would prevail. I later left the movement because I felt it was so judgemental that people wouldn't have a chance to learn what it was really like. I think Ayn Rand was the cause and the seed of that animosity toward certain people.

I read the topics above and thought to myself, my god, what has Objectivism become? I now understand why Objectivism didn't become what I thought it could. What a shame.

It seems strange to me that a philosophy of reason could be overwhelmed by emotion. Passion is important, no doubt about it, but look what it has turned many in the Objectivist movement into. When I read what some Objectivists advocate, I fine myself left with one question - Where is the reason?

It's like a paradox to me. A philosophy of reason becomes a movement by many adherents into something that could promote the killing of innocent humans. Yes, there is collateral damage in war, but when I look at the ideas from the other groups of Objectivists... Wow. They are blinded by their emotions and they don't know it.

The feeling I got from Objectivism in the 1970's was the love of life. That was at the base of the movement along with the concept of Individual Rights. Now... I can only shake my head in disbelief.

What happened to those wonderful ideas? Where did things go so wrong? What can be done to get back on course?

In a way, I feel that we need a George Bush for the movement. What? A George Bush? Yes, but only in regard to one part of what George Bush became after 9/11. He became a man who saw what needed to be done and has done it to a remarkable level. No, I don't like so many parts of his administration. In fact, there are only two courses of action I approve of. One is his fight in the war on terror and the other are the tax cuts he put in place.

When I say we need a George Bush for Objectivism, I am talking only about finding a leader who sees important issues with great clarity and takes decisive action like George Bush did in his fight against Islamic Facists. There has not been a successful attack on American soil since 9/11. After that attack, we all felt a successful attack would happen again, and happen in less than five years. In that regard, George Bush has been very successful.

It will be interesting to see if Objectivism finds those people who can lead the movement and teach others what Objectivism was meant to be, what I saw in the 1970's.

Ed Kalski

[sjw]

Good post Ed, though I'd say we need a Thomas Jefferson not a George Bush, and I wonder about the value of an organized Objectivist movement vs. a political movement based on rational individualism.

Shayne

[Barbara Branden]

Phil, you quoted me as saying: "Whether one is drunk -- or is speaking off-the cuff or in haste-- one doesn't say the opposite of what one believes."

You said you disagreed with this, as follows: "if someone says 'Emotionally, I would want to kill anyone wearing a Bin Laden t-shirt' and someone (not dishonestly, but sloppily or with poor memory) repeats it a week later simplifying it to ...or simply not having heard the beginning word of the sentence as 'I would kill /one might kill anyone wearing a Bin Laden t-shirt.'"

Phil, this doesn't appear to be a disagreement with me about being drunk or making off the cuff remarks. You're saying that Brook may have been misquoted. I would be more likely to take that possibility seriously if the statements he was reported to have made were inconsistent with his writing on war and civilian casualties. But they are perfectly consistent.

And, as Robert Campbell pointed out, he had the opportunity to deny making the statements my friend reported, and he refused to do so.

Ed, I sympathize with your disillusionment with elements of the Objectivist movement. I feel it, too, very deeply. And I know that the attitude of ARI is doing great damage to Objectivism in the public mind and in the minds of many people who might otherwise have embraced it -- particularly because ARI bills itself as the voice of Ayn Rand, when, in my mind, they are the (large) lunatic fringe of Objectivism. Nevertheless, please remember that what is appallig you is not the total of the movement; there are a great many Objectivists who strenuously object to the ARI position on this and on many other issues, The Atlas Society being among the strongest objectors.

Barbara

[Victor Pross]

Barbara,

It seems that Objectivism has its own Protestants to its Catholics—its own Liberals to its conservatives, if you know what I mean?

Victor

[sjw]

I wrote:

This is where they were right but also why they were so wrong: They properly argue that it is immoral to require of ourselves to take great risks of defeat and loss of our own lives in order to prevent innocent deaths on the other side, but also in effect argue that it is immoral to take even a minimal risk or cost in order to prevent loss of innocent life. Clearly they don't want innocents to die, but by their method of thinking (simplistic deduction from principles) they could not figure out a principled way out, so they in effect said: To hell with innocents.

I was thinking about writing something mostly complete, but it's just not interesting enough. Instead I'll give the highlights of what I think the right approach is. I am not going to cover the area of whether an attack of ours might be a rights violation or not. Clearly that's an issue: if we just drop bombs for the hell of it, then clearly we are violating rights and our government has no less obligation to not violate the rights of its citizens vs. those abroad. What I'm going to cover is the area where we might take extra risk and cost relative to the ARI approach of just nuking everyone if that's cheaper.

Our current military is quite different from what a rational individualism based one would be. ARIians like to use terms like "to sacrifice our soldiers" for such and such would be wrong. In a proper military, there would be no sacrifice. Soldiers would be soldiers as a profession. A professional window washer or crocodile hunter doesn't "sacrifice his life" for his profession. Neither does a soldier. He trades value for value. If he didn't like the risks or goals, he'd change careers, or ask for more money. The military should in some sense be viewed as a business, where all military risks are translated into costs. So this issue isn't *in principle* about some emotional "our poor soldiers lives". It's about money. (In current practice altruism is indeed a large factor of the military--but then ARI should argue against altruism in the military instead of assuming it and then making altruistic arguments about "sacrificing" our soldiers--the ARI irony of being oblivious to Objectivism strikes again).

So--in principle, this is only about money. Victory will cost money, it just comes down to what method costs what amount and how much we can spend. ARI declares "do what's cheapest", even if that means killing millions of innocents relative to a method that might cost a little more.

So far, I've not solved the "pragmatic tradeoff", I've merely expressed it in terms of dollar figures. On the face of it we still have the issue: how much extra do we have to spend to protect the innocents? In a certain principled sense, I agree with ARI: zero. We have no inherent moral obligation to spend any more than what's necessary. Just as we have no inherent obligation to save a child who needs our help.

However, although I don't think philosophy can prescribe that we must save a child in need in all circumstances, I think there are many circumstances where not doing so would be immoral. Supposing we pass a child about to run out into a busy street, if it's not our child then we have no inherent obligation for his safety. On the other hand, it would take a deranged person to claim that he therefore will not spend the effort to pull the child back. Time is money, and his time isn't worth the effort. Would we call such a person moral? Of course not. On the other hand, perhaps saving the child would involve significant danger and risk. We would call the death of the child tragic, but wouldn't blame the person. So even though charity is a "peripheral issue", there can be contexts where charity is the only moral action. I wouldn't throw the guy who didn't pull the child back in jail, but I surely would shun him. His lack of charity is so extreme it makes him inhuman.

Likewise, going for the absolute cheapest military strategy while ignoring more expensive options that would save innocents precisely because they are more expensive is the same sort of immoral, inhuman calculation that we find repulsing about the ARI position. Surely at this point some ARIian would retort: "But you want government to decide for *me* how much charity to give to these people. That's not for the government to decide. They should just do their jobs and protect me."

Which brings me to my final point. In a rational society, charity would run amok. We would be so flowing over in resources that we would be happy to stop suffering where we could. We would hate the thought of killing innocent people and would donate. I would. I know you would. (I wonder about the ARIian). The only question is: how to translate our individual charity into a military strategy. Well it's not that hard. The military would simply make a few different bids, disclosing how much it would cost to work to what standard of protecting innocents. Charity would be collected voluntarily, and the military would implement the corresponding strategy.

Shayne

Edited October 29, 2006 by sjw

[Chris Grieb]

I just did a quick look at last page of Lepers of Objectivism. There is some very good stuff here. I like the idea of fighting bad ideas with good ideas. I think it is sad that a philosphy that is based on reason can't think of anything other then blasting people into the next world. The Islamic world needs reason but the whole world needs reason.

[ekalski]

Hi Shane,

I agree completely about Thomas Jefferson. I just have doubts that the average citizen in America would really know what Jefferson and his ilk were like, especially in regards to their ideas (other than the bare surface idea that they created the United States of America).

I remember reading Ayn Rand when she said that the most important point about the formation of America was our founding fathers put a limit, not on the citizens, but on government. Those few men were the first to ever place limits on government and not on the people. I went to a public school and had never heard the constitution described that way. It's there for everyone to see, but somehow I think most people miss that.

Today, we've strayed so far with such repidity from our founding fathers vision that it's... well scary. Objectivism could have made all the difference in the world. Now it's reached a point where you have fragments of movements fighting over, hell I don't really know what they're fighting over. They are so far apart on so many issues, it makes no sense. It's similar to what you say in your blog about liberals and conservatives.

Like I said before, where is reason at this point in time?

As far as an Objectivist movement versus a political movement based on rational individualism, I think we need more than politics. Think about where our culture is now. Think about what is portrayed in the movies and on television. So much junk. Politics alone won't cut it. Ayn Rand said something along the lines of politics is the outgrowth of philosophy.

Barbara, a question - It's been over 30 years since Objectivism as a movement began. How is it that better, more rational ideas have not gained a better foothold agains irrational ideas? I see some movement in positive directions, but in such small proportions. I can't seem to figure it out.

Ed

[sjw]

Ed,

As far as an Objectivist movement versus a political movement based on rational individualism, I think we need more than politics. Think about where our culture is now. Think about what is portrayed in the movies and on television. So much junk. Politics alone won't cut it. Ayn Rand said something along the lines of politics is the outgrowth of philosophy.

Of course we need philosophy and of course it is the fundamental. But not merely philosophy, and not in some sort of rigid ordering as in "first make everyone an Objectivist, then introduce individual rights into politics." The real truth is that by solving particular political problems using an individualist philosophy, we can thereby introduce rational individualism. Many people came to Objectivism via Rand's fiction, many came from technical philosophy, and if we had Objectivism permeating other fields (including politics), they'd come to it from those too. The idea that things should be taught in lock-step logical ordering is very naive, and actually, collectivist at its root. It presumes that in order to have a valid field of research, we need to first convince everyone that it's valid. But it works in reverse: first someone defines the field, and then people become convinced.

Shayne

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "In the ARI world, ideas have become impotent to change people, so those with the wrong ideas must be eradicated with bombs and bullets." And the irony is that they simultaneously preach that it is ideas that determine the nature of a culture.

[Barbara Branden]

Shayne, I think it very possible that Objectivism could have a political effect -- and in fact it did when Reagan was president -- but not through the formation of a new political party. It would be necessary to work through an existing party, probably the Republicans, but to do so would require that Objectivists recognize that politics is the art of the possible, and that refusing to participate in the process except in the making of "perfect" laws and "perfect" policies is the road to political futility.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Ed: "Barbara, a question - It's been over 30 years since Objectivism as a movement began. How is it that better, more rational ideas have not gained a better foothold agains irrational ideas? I see some movement in positive directions, but in such small proportions. I can't seem to figure it out."

Part of the answer, of course, as I'm sure you know, is the extent to which Objectivism challenges so many of the prevailing ideas of our culture. But there is another reason why we have not made more headway. Political activism was specifically discouraged by Rand, who believed and preached that we must first change the culture philosophically and that only then would political change be possible. I think that both philosophical and political change should be attempted together. There is enough of an implicit individualism in Americans -- which is why Reagan was so immensely popular, winning elections by landslides -- to make it likely that our political philosophy, if presented properly, would win significant numbers of adherents. It is that implicit individualism that needs to be appealed to, and our political suggestions need to be geared to it. So long as demands for atheism or what seems to people to be a concept of government perilously close to anarchism is what we preach politically, we have no chance of success. But to the extent that, instead, we pointed out the various ways in which the individual rights of Americans, the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution, the rights in the name of which the colonies rebelled against Britain, are being abridged by our present political leaders, that is the extent to which we could be heard and could make substantial inroads.

And unfortunately, if ARI wanted to disgrace Objectivism in the eyes of the public and to doom it as a political force -- or, for that matter, as a philosophical force -- it would continue to warn the country of the imminent danger of theocracy and to demand the pointless slaughter of innocent civilians. If that is Objectivism, who would want any part ot it? One of the things we need to do is to explain, loud and clear and and at every opportunity, that ARI is not the public voice of Objectivism, that it is a lunatic fringe of true believers, and that there is a vast and sane voice of Objectivism yet to be heard from.

Barbara

[Ciro]

I think objectivism seems to celebrate the nameless first person who discovered the fire but not those who developed extensions to and use of that insight.

A great deal of human ingenuity goes into those extensions, thus, ingenuity is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and most proponent of objectivism seem not interested in the every day relative equilibrium of everyday human progress but just to the touch of class by the single individual.

CD

[mweiss]

I have to say that I've been reading this thread off and on for the past week, and I find the position taken by the majority of the contributors here to be quite disturbing.

My understanding is that we are at war with an enemy who wants nothing but the total annihilation of all non-Islamic populations of the world. We are at war. The purpose of war is to kill the enemy.

The purpose of the American government is to protect US citizens from foreign attack.

We are not in the business of protecting "innocent" Iraqis. Certainly, it is regrettable if citizens who do not support their government's position are injured as collateral damage, but if they lack the moral courage to band together and overthrow their government, then they, through paying their taxes to that government, are supporters of that government, and thus, by that logic, become part of "the enemy".

I would be in favor of the best way to neutralize the enemy with the least amount of civilian casualties, however, from what I've seen so far, the failure to use more automated means of neutralizing the enemy has resulted in the senseless MURDERS of thousands of American troops. Troops who were wasted on a war that cannot be won by ground troops.

This is a war of ideals. Unfortunately, we cannot convert these people to our way of thinking without SACRIFICING a lot of American soldiers in the process. That even one soldier dies to save an Iraqi life instead of an American is altruistic; it is a sacrifice. Objectivists, if you really are such, you will remember what Ayn Rand stated about her definition of Altruism and sacrifice: it is the giving up of a value for a non-value. That is what we are doing all over Iraq.

The purpose of fighting a war is to WIN. But America is not fighting a war. It is committing national suicide, staging a mass sacrifice of soldier's lives in the name of appeasement of the enemy, while holding the enemy's civilians as a higher value than the American citizens who, every day, affirm their love of country through their service in the military as this nation's defenders.

To those who would suggest that there is any way to fight this war in a 'civil' manner, I submit respectfully that you do not understand the ideals of Islamic faith. The Koran is peppered with example after example of calls to "kill the infidels" and to spread Islam as the ONLY faith on earth. They won't stop until they've succeeded--or until we have annihilated them. And if we fail at that task, they will annihilate us.

These are radical fundamentalists who cannot be reasoned with. A being that cannot be reasoned with is existentially no different than a rabid animal. What's worse, is that these Islamics are rabid animals with bombs and guns and they have an agenda to kill all of us, if they can't sink our world to their level of depravity.

There is a difference between Hitler exterminating the Jews and America stamping out Islam. The Jews weren't going around with bombs strapped to their bodies and blowing up shopping malls. Hitler was paranoid and racist. His purpose was not defense of Germany, but the annihilation of a race that he believed were 'unpure". Contrast that with Islamic radicals: the Islamics are NOT harmless--they not only intend to kill us all, but they have accomplished far more along this agenda than any other radical group, and have full intentions of finishing off western civilization, either through conversion or annihilation. It is absurd to even compare the two situations!

The more I read this kind of appeasing words, the more I start to doubt whether the writers are really Objectivists at all, or whether they have understood Objectivist principles. I am rather disappointed in the Egalitarian stance taken by many on this thread.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

Proper identification of reality is the basis of Objectivism. If you don't identify reality properly, how on earth are you going to judge it?

I understand your fear, and I am pretty disgusted with the way broadcast news (and now ARI) manipulates that fear, not just in you, but in the public at large.

There are facts to be looked at, not just "stamping out Islam" because some fundamentalist Muslims "cannot be reasoned with" and America committing "suicide."

Also, we are not at war. The USA recently waged two wars and won them hands down. You don't wage a physical war with guns and bombs against an ideology. You do it against people organized in a nation who are armed.

The USA is entangled in a mess with occupying the defeated nations. That is the fact that needs to be looked at and it is complicated.

It seems like all you have to do is say a soldier got killed, proclaim "altruism" to the four winds and turn your mind and eyes off and say "nuke 'em all." This is the package-deal poison that is being sold. A responsible person who values his own mind will do his own thinking, so he will at least examine critically any suggestion of using massive force before advocating it. War is very serious business.

If you are really interested in doing something positive against the radical Islamism, I would like to suggest getting further acquainted with what it is. Then maybe you can help do something about it (and I have one hell of a good plan in the works that will be unveiled before too long - and it would be a pleasure having you on board). There are some extremely good essays in the "Mideast" section in addition to my own essay "Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues."

One further point. Nobody on this thread that I read and participated in has ever advocated a "civil" way of fighting or appeasement of the enemy. That does not reflect reality in the slightest and the words are here on the thread for all to see. Claiming that is nothing more than fear-based hysteria. Here is the formula:

You fight force with force and ideas with ideas.

Do you have any objection to that formula?

I hold that fighting ideas with force is no better than the thugs.

We have better ideas. Let's use them.

Michael

[mweiss]

Michael,

It seems that you are throwing definitions from Objectivism in front of me, as if to validate the unrelated concept you are going to throw at me next, specifically, citing a principle of epistemology and then arguing a mishmash of enemy appeasement/respect thy enemy rhetoric. You even throw another assumption about my “fear” and the new media “manipulating” that fear, which is completely a fantasy within your mind. I have no fear of Islam or the situation going on in Iraq because these people are savages and should be dealt with in the same manner. The only fear I have is that our own government suffers from the same self-destructive thinking that you espouse in this thread.

We are war with a philosophical idealism. It is not a negotiable matter, as would be the case with a territorial dispute, or a resources dispute. It is a clash of cultures and ideas. Islam’s philosophical ideal is the annihilation of all non-Islamic culture. It is non-negotiable. The US’s ideal is freedom (well, historically, from it’s inception anyway). The US position is also non-negotiable. The two adversaries cannot negotiate, therefore one of them has to be eliminated. If we don’t eliminate Islam, they will eliminate us. The logical answer is very simple. Even my wife, a Catholic from the Philippines, recognizes this, as she has had first-hand experience with the terrorism in her country.

As for the discussion of human life, the lives of Iraqi civilians and the lives of American soldiers, there are several statements that need to be made:

First, defining terms. Ayn Rand’s definition of Human is, and I’ll paraphrase to the best of my geriatric recollection: A rational being, capable of using Reason and Logic to integrate information, received by his five senses, into new abstractions.

Now look at the Islamics: They follow faith and religion, or ‘faith and force’ as Ayn Rand would say it. Their minds are shut down by their refusal to think. Since thinking is a requesite characteristic of the human definition, these people are not human.

Therefore, taking that definition and applying it as a qualifier to the war, who are the humans there? Are we really weighing human lives against human lives? If the Iraqi suicide bombers are not humans, then they must be non-humans, or savages. In which case we are weighing the lives of human (for the most part) American soldiers against the lives of savages—more importantly—enemy savages, bent on the destruction of western civilization and ideals. The two cannot be compared, and the answer as to whose lives are worth more is self-evident.

Now that we have an understanding of the value of lives of the enemy vs. live of our soldiers, the answer to whether one US solder is worth 1,000 Iraqi civilians becomes easier to answer. It is self-evident.

We must also address whether those Iraqi civilians are truly innocent. If they do not leave their contry, or beg us to destroy their government’s evil regime, or do it themselves, then they must support it by default. In the rules of argument, silence is regarded as consent. Therefore, under those criteria, the Iraqi consenting to their form of government. They are not innocent bystanders in this war. In fact, many of them act in direct complicity to shelter, aid and finance the whole terrorist network. Far from innocent. Just because they don’t all have machine guns in their hands does not make them innocent. Their implicit support of their government is enough to demonstrate that they are no friend of the US.

There is nothing further to understand about Islamic religion than the most important matter of its directive to overtake the world and destroy western civilization. We do not owe any further credibility to a philosophical school of thought based on mysticm.

You deny with words that you are advocating appeasement of the enemy, but with the concepts you expound upon, you are demonstrating the contradiction of your own words, because the minute you place the value of an Iraqi citizen above the value of an American soldier, you have fallen into the same trap that Bush & Co. have fallen into—you are appeasing the enemy. The moment you choose NOT to bomb a mosque, or to not fire on the “human shields” that are surrounding a terrorist hideout, you are engaging in appeasement of the enemy.

I think the only person who has expressed a view that is even moderately close to that of Objectivism is Roger. The rest have assumed the same position that the religionists have—Altruism. Altruism on the battlefield is suicide.

You are correct that this is not a war. We have forgotten how to fight a war. This is a travesty, a pathetic “show” for the public, to make them feel good that the government is “doing something” about the terrorists. It is as much a failure as that other atrocity, the Viet Nam War.

We are fighting ideas with force because these particular ideas are the root of force and in this case, the ideas are the call to use force against us. The ideas we are fighting are tantamount to the embodiment of force, and if ever there was a better example of ideas equaling force, this is certainly it. This is not an intellectual battle. It is very real, and the terrorists have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing, until they destroy western civilization.

If you made this argument to Ayn Rand that you made to me here, she would have most likely become very angry and told you that you have not understood Objectivist ethics and that your argument was full of floating abstractions and inuendo.

I think you have spent too much time in Brazil, getting in touch with your Altruistic side. You have revealed many mixed premises in regard to this issue.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Mark Weiss

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

To start with, I do not espouse self-destructive thinking. I promote constructive thinking. My website is proof.

About Brazil, I did not spend time there learning altruism, but I did spend time there living among Muslims and among other people who practice other ideologies. I have first-hand knowledge (with years of experience) of some Muslims. Do you?

I can assure you that what you (and ARI) claim has nothing to do with what I have lived. No amount of hysterical ARI propaganda on earth is going to convince me of the truth of what I have seen with my own two eyes. I lived among human beings, not "savages." I put your classification of the people in Iraq as "savages" into the same bucket as racism. It is a vile manner of thinking. I have no doubt you don't know any people from over there, otherwise you would see your error.

You set up a completely false alternative and claimed: "The two adversaries cannot negotiate, therefore one of them has to be eliminated."

Bullshit.

I hold that you cannot negotiate. ARI cannot negotiate. I know many people who can negotiate successfully and do so. I asked you if you are interested in helping to spread ideas--specifically spread ideas of freedom, individual rights, separation of church and state, etc., among Muslims. I have looked into this and there are many more organizations out there that do this than even I thought and they are growing. (Not thanks to ARI, that's for sure.)

You mentioned your wife is from the Philippines. They have a stubborn problem over there with Moro Islamist fanatics and intellectual work needs to be done. Let the military do its job. The intellectuals have a job to do, too, and they are not doing it. Objectivist intellectuals need to stop being cowards and pushing their job off on the military (not all, but far, far too many are doing this).

Here is some information on the Philippines if you are interested. It is not everything, but it looks like a pretty good start on becoming informed. It is an interesting analysis of the Philippines Moro Islamist problem found on the website of the Foreign Military Studies Office, Joint Reserve Intelligence Center. It is called Bearers of the Sword Radical Islam, Philippines Insurgency, and Regional Stability by Dr. Graham H. Turbiville, Jr.

Do you not believe in the force of your ideas? I do in mine--and I have no doubt that my intellectual efforts will end up aiding in pulling the teeth out of the the violent form of jihad. Are you so afraid you would convince men of peace with guns and bombs like any two-bit thug--or like the fanatical jihadists?

Fanatics cannot negotiate. Islamist fanatics cannot and Objectivist fanatics cannot. Fanaticism is the enemy, anti-reason is the enemy, not a specific religion.

Once again, I ask you: do you have any problem with the following rational formula?

Fight force with force, and fight ideas with ideas.

It's a simple enough question.

Now here comes the zinger. If you agree with this, do you have the courage to fight?

I do.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Mark, I think you have not read the posts on this thread carefully. No one here is recommending that we protect Iraqi or other civilian lives at the cost of American lives. Speaking for myself, my position is that we do not kill civilians when there is no military necessity to do so -- that we do not do what Craig Biddle suggested, that is, bomb Iranian mosques and schools during the day when they are fully occupied so that we may slaughter as many civilian men, women, and children as possible. And on another thread, about the Palestinians use of human shields, I said that if those willing shields are protecting military targets, the Israelis should ignore their presence and should bomb the targets it needs to bomb. Israel should refuse to grant the sanction of the victim.

You wrote: "Certainly, it is regrettable if citizens who do not support their government's position are injured as collateral damage, but if they lack the moral courage to band together and overthrow their government, then they, through paying their taxes to that government, are supporters of that government, and thus, by that logic, become part of 'the enemy.'" This is a very naive view of tyranny. "To band together and overthrow the government" is often impossible under a dictatorship, where neighbors, even one's own children, cannot be trusted not to inform. and where weapons are unobtainable. Tell me, do you think Ayn Rand was lacking in moral courage and that she became part of the enemy because she did not join the underground when she lived in Soviet Russia? If we had gone to war with Russia, should we have sought out the school she attended and bombed it?

You wrote: "Now look at the Islamics: They follow faith and religion, or ‘faith and force’ as Ayn Rand would say it. Their minds are shut down by their refusal to think. Since thinking is a requesite characteristic of the human definition, these people are not human." I must tell you that I think this is a preposterous statement. Are you really suggesting that the billions of Muslims throughout the world do not think? If so, I wonder how they cross the street without being run down, or how they are able even to read their holy books. No one except the severely brain-damaged literally "does not think" -- and you damage your own thinking by such a concept. Do you really believe it's reasonable to kill billions of people because a number of them are determined to destroy us? This, I suggest, is at best rank collectivism;at worst, it is savagery.

When she defined man as a rational animal, Rand explained her meaning: that he is the animal whose means of survival is his mind. According to this definition, the worst of the Muslim fanatics is human, despite his depravity. To save ourselves, we must destroy such fanatics. But should we now kill, for instance, Muhammed Ali, and bomb American mosques and American Muslim schools, telling ourselves it is not human beings we are killing?

If this is what you maintain, you have no right to call it Objectivism.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

The Nazis in the 1930s dehumanized the Jews, which made it easier to murder them. This is what Mark is doing with Muslims.

Most of the violence in Iraq is one group trying to beat down another group of Muslims. This is localized terrorism. The bigger problem for the West is centered in Iran, not Iraq. An even bigger problem is the de facto demographic assault on Europe and the financing of Muslim extremism and terrorism by oil monies, especially from Saudi Arabia.

If we be like Nazis we be not like Objectivists.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

An even bigger problem is the de facto demographic assault on Europe and the financing of Muslim extremism and terrorism by oil monies, especially from Saudi Arabia.

Brant,

Amen.

Objectivists need to learn a little more about Wahhabism, the strain of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. In a nutshell, Wahhab was a religious leader in the 1700's who saw Islam degenerating into polytheism. In a quest to preach for one God, he established a fundamentalist view of Islam. He converted many Beduins (desert tribe people), who were a rough people and far from intellectual, thus more easily converted to dogma. He was quite a seeker of political power and managed to marry his daughter off to Mahommed ibn Sa'ud, a desert monarch, in addition to converting him. Thus there are descendants of Wahhab in the House of Saud, which conquered Mecca and Medina (the holiest cities in Islam) in the 1920's.

Then came the oil money.

Here is an article, Wahhabi, on GlobalSecurity.org, and here is the Wikipedia article, Wahhabism. A quote from the this last:

In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of US dollars to create religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.

The bad news is that the Salafis (which is what the Wahhabists call themselves) are well-funded and active on the educational front. The good news is that embarrassment and resentment about the repressive excesses have established a wedge in Salafi Muslim thinking so that they do not nominally identify their school with their founder, thus there is an opening for introducing new ideas.

Salafis are Islamic intellectuals with massive funds (from the oil we buy) spreading their brand of the "good news" throughout the world. This is one of the groups that needs to be seriously challenged by our own intellectuals.

Michael

[mweiss]

Barbara,

The issue that I think is most important here is avoiding the needless waste of American lives in an unwinnable war. All of the other definitions and discussion were my supporting arguments for why we must fight to win, and that means to fight ruthlessly, without being hampered by futile efforts to protect mosques and so-called “innocent” civilians.

Ayn Rand was certainly not lacking in moral courage—she chose the only correct alternative—she left Russia. That is what anyone who uses Reason as his guide would be doing in Iran/Iraq. The fact that Islamics all over the world were silent after 9/11 is testimony to the fact that they were not outraged by the acts of terrorism. Many of these Islamics were not in a position where voicing an opinion would get them executed. Some of them were right here in America. And their silence was deafening.

About being human, in contrast with radical Islam, once the mind is under the influence of religion, its thinkig processes have shut down in favor of the automatic response to progammed dogma of their religion. They do not question the Mullahs. They dare not question “Allah”. They don’t question because they are so brainwashed that they have lost any ability to think, if it was ever taught to them at all. Thinking is a skill. It does not come naturally. It has to be taught. Conceptuatl thought is the defining difference between humans and animals. To say that a primative tribe that practices the sacrifice at the stake of one of their own are humans is to confuse anthropology with philosophy. Members of the Homo Sapian species do not automatically gain membership in the class of consciousness called Human. It is a process that one achieves through hard work. Very few people do much in the way of integration, unless they are scientists, or problem-solvers. The rest of us are on autopilot. We get up, we eat breakfast, shower and drive to work every day. These actions do not involve the integration of ideas. They involve memorized action/reaction processes. Even a monkey can be trained to drive a car. That doesn’t make the monkey human.

We are tasked with the challenge of facing a choice: to become bogged-down and ineffective as we try to protect certain portions of our enemy’s population, thus requiring a protracted invasion, great loss of American life and astounding cost to the American people in monetary terms, or a decisive victory through the use of tactical nuclear and conventional bombs to paralyze the enemy so completely that they will realize that they are up against “a power even greater than Allah”. Principles are timeless. That principle worked with Japan in 1945. It can work with Iran in 2006. And it can be done without sacrificing American lives. It is not genicide. It is self-defense, and America is justified in such an action.

It irritates me to a level that words cannot describe, to see how much Altruism has hampered this nation, turning it into a bunch of apologists for defending itself. This “political correctness” of focusing media attention on Abu Graebe and other irrelevant incidents (not that they were justified—but these prisoners should have been converted to atomic ash by now) depletes our energy and dilutes our efforts to rid the world of this dangerous group of people that cannot be reasoned with.

You suggest that there are Muslims like Muhammed Ali, who are peaceful. Show me a peaceful Muslim and I’ll show you a person who does not truly follow his faith. The Koran is very specific and direct about converting all the non-believers to Islam, and killing the ones who won’t convert. All Muslims are charged with this “responsibility”. It’s just that Muslims in other countries have not embraced that religious ideal. They are Muslim in name, but not in faith.

This is a war of ideals, with both sides holding non-negotiable positions. There can be no reaching of compromise, no peace, until one side is reduced to ineffectiveness. Since these people are not willing to consider Reason, they are committed to their faith and will remain a threat to all freedom-loving, Reason respecting individuals. When someone that cannot be reasoned with is threatening to murder you and all your family, there is only one rational response: you must kill that person. These radicals are no different than rabid animals, in this regard, and we deal with animals in the only rational way. We don’t try to rehabilitate them. We put them to death.

The mistake that the US has made here is to assume that the Muslims can be reasoned with. But they are finding that their efforts at selectively fighting this war against terrorists will come with a heavy price in human life and will not yield the result wanted. You cannot educate fanatics. It is not a racial issue. It is an issue of minds that have been indoctrinated at an early age, with an idealism that cannot be undone. Unless we have a magic “brain broadcast” ray we can aim at them to reprogram all of their minds simultaneously by magic, we will not achieve re-education of these people in any reasonable amount of time and at any reasonable cost to the US. The American people are being forced to bear an unbearable burden and pay a terrible price, just so that we can unsuccessfully demonstrate to the world that we are able to be civil while fighting a war. And we have failed terribly, given the world opinion of the USA now.

So in conclusion, appeasement of the enemy and the attempt to save the enemy’s civilian population and re-educate them is an exercise in futility. Worse, we are paying for this foolishness with American lives and eventually the taxpayers will be footing the bill for the entire mess. It is a grave mistake.

Rand correctly saw that when need (or victimhood), replaces ability as the highest of societal values ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"), it creates a society in which the needs of some place a moral claim on the lives of others. It is this moral claim in a twisted sort of way, that you advocate when you state that we should not kill civilians in this particular war—that is is better to sacrifice more of our soldiers so that we don’t have to use some sort of mass weapon on the enemy, risking destroying them all. This whole philosophical position sounds suspiciously like what Ayn Rand referred to as “The Sanction of the Victim”. That is why I categorically disagree with your position and Micheal’s on this issue.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to not answer the simple question I asked. You are entitled to misunderstand human nature on the massive scale you are presently doing, even as it borders on bigotry.

I do wish you would not misrepresent my position so grossly, nor Barbara's position.

Attributing statements to me and her that we did not write (or condone, for that matter) is wrong--factually wrong and morally wrong.

You don't need to resort to that.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Mark, your remarks are irrational, virtually incoherent, ignorant and are based on misunderstood philosophy and not on any expertise about what is going on in the real world. And Barbara explicitly denied that civilians are not to be killed in war.

--Brant

Edited November 28, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[mweiss]

Mark,

You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to not answer the simple question I asked. You are entitled to misunderstand human nature on the massive scale you are presently doing, even as it borders on bigotry.

I do wish you would not misrepresent my position so grossly, nor Barbara's position.

Attributing statements to me and her that we did not write (or condone, for that matter) is wrong--factually wrong and morally wrong.

You don't need to resort to that.

Michael

Michael,

My responses here are addressing the concepts that you and Barbara are espousing. It is clear to me that by indirectly accusing me of not properly identifying reality, and falling victim to fear manipulation, that I have set up a false alternative by citing that the existence of two diametrical opposites (the thinking and the non-thinking) will result in one prevailing, and finally, that your living among Muslims, if by implied meaning, makes you sagelike in their religion.

You have yet to make an argument that is philosophically sound, based on valid epistomology. Instead, you insist that we can somehow educate Muslims to give up their religion of death and cause them to come over to our side of thinking. You evade the fact that Muslims follow their Koran and in that document are 18 separate and distinct commandments to kill the non-believers.

I too, have spent time among the Moro Liberation Front in Mindanao, Philippines from Jan-May 2000. But that doesn’t make me an expert on their understanding of religion.

For your edification and enlightenment, I shall recite, chapter and verse, some of the passages from the Koran, which incite to violence, the Muslim beleivers:

Quran-8:39, And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere (in this earth of Allah).

Quran-9:29, Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Quran-3:85, "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)."

Quran-9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. [Allah's hatred to those who are reluctant to join Islamic jihad]

Quran-9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

Quran-8:65: "O Apostle! Rouse the believers to fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred; if a 100, they will vanquish a 1,000 of the unbelievers.."

Quran-8:66:"-.if there are a 100 of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish 200, and if a 1,000 , they will vanquish 2,000 (two thousands) with the leave of Allah-" [This fabulous verse was written in the diary of Muhammad Ata the leader of 9/11 terrorists].

Quran-4:78: "Where ye are, death will find you, even if ye are in Towers, built up strong and tall" (Perhaps Twin towers was meant here?)

Quran-2:193, And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression

Quran-2:216, Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you

Quran-5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

Quran-4:89- "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades (change to other religions), seize them and kill them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-" (Punishment for the apostates).

Quran-9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.

Quran-9:28, O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. (This verse is a glaring example how much hatreds Islam possess against non-Muslims).

Quran-8:67-"It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until He thoroughly subdued the land-." (Allah insisting Prophet to kill all the prisoners, and should not keep any surrendered prisoners alive)

Quran-8:17-It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God's-.." (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah)

Quran: 9:23: "O ye who believe! Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong". [Quran is asking Muslims even to go against their own father and brothers in respect of religious faith]

Quran: 3:28: "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah"

Quran: 5:45: We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear. Tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." (Does this verse sound humane?)

47:4- "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives": thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens."

9:123: "Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you."

2:191- "Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out."

8:12- Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." [Allah is really most merciful]

Quran: 9:111, Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran.

In addition, a strong support and explanation to the verse: 9:111 was given by Merciful Allah by the following:

Quran-4:74- Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory (i.e. killed or be killed) - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).

Quran-4:95- Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons (sacrifice both life and wealth) than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.

Quran-3:169-: Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; (Here Allah is saying that those jihadi who dies [commit suicide] is not dead but he will be living with Allah).

The main themes of Quranic or scriptural instruction are: pursuance by advice, then by intimidation/coercion, then by force (killing, fighting, maiming etc), and in return plenty of heavenly reward from Allah. We can find hundreds of cruel hateful and utterly inhuman verses throughout the Quran. The above Quranic scriptures incited early Muslim Jihadis of 7th century period to kill thousands of non-Muslims and other infidels.

You say we should fight ideas with ideas and force with force. But in the case of Islam, the very ideas are the genesis of force. They are non-negotiable. Those people are corrupted beyond repair. They are poisioned. Like those afflicted with a deadly plague, where the sick are quaranteened from the world, and the bodies burned in pits to prevent further spread of disease, these radical Islamicists are a clear and present danger to western civilization. You erroneously accuse me of racism, but what you are blinded by is the sanction of the victim—your belief that there is good in evil and that the USA owes them the benefit of this doubt. That is what you seem to be saying in principle.

I am attributing your implied meanings and that is what I’m responding to.

It appears that, based on your writings thus far, you would rule out the use of aerial bombing or tactical nuclear weapons to win this war and bring an end to Islamic terrorism. You would cite the reason being that the “innocent” civilians have a right to live. By denying the US the right to use the most efficient means of defending itself, such that it must use a secondary and much ineffective method involving occupation and troop casualties, you are, indirectly, advocating the sanction of the victim here.

We are both entitled to our opinions, but I am seriously doubting whether yours is consistent with Objectivism. I guess I made a false assumption, being that you named your forum in the namesake of Objectivism. But what I’ve encountered here are neo-Objectivists and pseudo-Objectivists.

It appears that many here are not fully integrated with respect to their understanding of Objectivism. They hold a few key points, but don’t realize that if you grasp some of it, then, because it is a highly-integrated philosophy, you should be able to grasp all of the points covered within Objectivism. There is a peculiar “part-way” adoption of Rand’s ideas, but only selectively and when it suits you here.

You have not convinced me that your argument against a swift and thorough elmination of the whole of terrorist nations does not come from Altruistic beliefs. One would have to suspect that there are shades of mysticism underlying your thinking, that would allow you to reach such a conclusion.

Nothing I can say would convince you of the properness of a nuclear retaliatory strike against all terrorist nations, particularly, Iran. I can only state my views, for the record. Let the future be my judge.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Mark Weiss

[mweiss]

Mark, your remarks are irrational, virtually incoherent, ignorant and are based on misunderstood philosophy and not on any expertise about what is going on in the real world. And Barbara explicitly denied that civilians are not to be killed in war.

--Brant

Brant,

Your remarks are amusingly juvenile. So much so, that I refuse to grant you a response to this rubbish.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

If you had been paying a little more attention and done some of the reading that was linked, you would have found the verses you cited already referenced in a post by me over a month ago in discussing the problems, and referenced by violence advocated. All this is part of studying the problem. In truth, there are more than the 18 you cited.

I find the accusatory and hostile form of arguing tedious. It goes nowhere. It is obvious you are convinced of what you think and so am I. But you are hellbent on arguing against things in your mind, not against what I actually write (or Barbara for that matter). Here is an example of how you are misusing your own reason and misrepresenting what I write.

I wrote: "I have first-hand knowledge (with years of experience) of some Muslims." Notice the word "some." This delimiter was to indicate that I do not know all there is to know about Muslims, and have limited experience. (Which is why I am studying further.) This was in direct response to your charge that "they" as a collective are irredeemably corrupted in their thinking and are not human beings. The individuals I knew were human and not corrupted at all, except on issues that did not affect their lives in major ways.

Here is how you attributed this to me: "... your living among Muslims, if by implied meaning, makes you sagelike in their religion."

I submit that this is either sloppy thinking or completely dishonest. For the moment, I prefer to believe it is sloppy.

Your posts are full of this type of thing. I see no point in debating this level of misunderstanding point by point, so I simply will not address them. When someone does not want to understand correctly what is stated, no amount of reasoning will make him understand. You end up committing what you accuse Muslims of doing.

About the issue of who understands Objectivism or not, who integrates it or not, yada yada yada, I will not get involved in that old debate on a personal level. What you do is your own business. I personally understand and integrate Objectivism pretty damn well. Most all of the OL regulars do, too, even and especially the ones who disagree with many points. Not one of us need anyone's sanction, much less yours. And we thoroughly know the ARI party-line you promote and find it wanting. That's my final word on that. If you find that offensive, I can't help you.

Any more empty accusations or hostility against OL members will be deleted. You have had your say on this and I have better things to do than bicker.

We disagree, so let's just leave it at that.

Michael