A couple reasons I couldn't vote for Rand Paul

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy - As for your delusional "self-made man" story (signing up for the military apparently makes you a modern-day Henry Ford), it's not relevant and we've already had our discussion of what it means to be a Randian producer, so I'll leave that alone for now.

Too much revisionist BS here to refute all in one post. I will simply point out the obvious: that your intellectualization of the "escapism" concept is just a cheap way of not having to admit that I was OBJECTIVELY CORRECT when I told you that you were drinking too much alcohol. The contrapositive is that you were OBJECTIVELY WRONG when you countered - in a consistently insulting and condescending manner - that it was normal and healthy recreation behavior.

The only explanation for your contradictions is cognitive dissonance. After all those years of insulting me, ridiculing me, and telling me I hadn't the slightest clue what I was talking about, you inexplicably concede the point I was arguing to you while continuing to assert that I was mistaken about the same point. All so that you don't have to admit I was *right* about something or apologize for your own rude and wrongheaded behavior. That in itself speaks more about your true nature than all your narrative posts about being a paragon of reason combined.

[Robert Baratheon]

Give me a true small government candidate. Don't try to force the false choice of "big government" liberal vs "small government" Republicans like Paul. I don't consider a drug warrior a "small-government" guy. And I reject the idea that the enemies of my enemies are my allies.

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

[KacyRay]

Kacy - As for your delusional "self-made man" story (signing up for the military apparently makes you a modern-day Henry Ford), it's not relevant and we've already had our discussion of what it means to be a Randian producer, so I'll leave that alone for now.

Too much revisionist BS here to refute all in one post. I will simply point out the obvious: that your intellectualization of the "escapism" concept is just a cheap way of not having to admit that I was OBJECTIVELY CORRECT when I told you that you were drinking too much alcohol. The contrapositive is that you were OBJECTIVELY WRONG when you countered - in a consistently insulting and condescending manner - that it was normal and healthy recreation behavior.

The only explanation for your contradictions is cognitive dissonance. After all those years of insulting me, ridiculing me, and telling me I hadn't the slightest clue what I was talking about, you inexplicably concede the point I was arguing to you while continuing to assert that I was mistaken about the same point. All so that you don't have to admit I was *right* about something or apologize for your own rude and wrongheaded behavior. That in itself speaks more about your true nature than all your narrative posts about being a paragon of reason combined.

I've never claimed to be a paragon of reason (despite what SB likes to pretend). I do claim to hold reason as a primary absolute, and the only conceptual basket in which I place almost all of my eggs.

Reason, like science, is only as good as the person exercising it. Being that we are all fallible and none of us are perfect in our execution, I recognize that I can make mistakes when attempting to apply reason. I'm also swayed by the same psychological forces that influence everyone else. These are variables in human ability, not in reason itself.

I'll tell you, if you can cite a post - here or anywhere - where I made any claim to being able to apply reason perfectly and correctly all the time (a 'paragon of reason'), you'll be doing yourself a great favor. Because as someone here already pointed out, of you're going to make bold assertions about how I view myself, you at least owe me a citation of where I've done so. Otherwise those types of comments are indistinguishable from troll behavior.

Was I drinking too much? Depends. Too much for what? Too much for my health? Nah, I'm fine. Too much for my social good? Nope. Too much for your liking? It appears so. But that was YOUR problem, not mine.

My problem was not that I was drinking too much alcohol. Had I stopped drinking when you offered that pearl of wisdom, I'd have replaced that escapist behavior with some other escapist behavior. I knew that alcohol wasn't my problem. I didn't know what my problem was, but I knew alcohol wasn't it.

Eventually I realized my problem was escapism. Yes, that was my own epiphany.

The only explanation for your contradictions is cognitive dissonance. After all those years of insulting me, ridiculing me, and telling me I hadn't the slightest clue what I was talking about, you inexplicably concede the point I was arguing to you while continuing to assert that I was mistaken about the same point.

Aww, what a victim. And I kept forcing you to come back for more and more, didn't I? Just like I chicken-winged you into registering a handle here at OL.

You and I had a lot of lively discussions about a lot of interesting things. It wasn't until you teamed up with SB and started riding the liberal boogeyman train that I got fed up with it. And when you started blaming me for my responses to your behavior, that's when I really started taking exception. At least I think that's how it happened... I'm half in the bag right now so i can't be absolutely sure.

[KacyRay]

Give me a true small government candidate. Don't try to force the false choice of "big government" liberal vs "small government" Republicans like Paul. I don't consider a drug warrior a "small-government" guy. And I reject the idea that the enemies of my enemies are my allies.

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

To vow to continue the drug war policy makes you a drug warrior.

Look, just write me off as a progressive, please.

You know, there are countless folks over at OO who really wish that guys like David Kelley (and the people on the forum) would stop calling themselves objectivists. They believe that people like Kelley and Branden (and the folks on this board) who embrace objectivist principles while refusing to swallow the ideology whole are the greatest gift that enemies of objectivism could ever ask for. They will engage self-described socialists while attempting to write Branden out of their own history.

But do they hound the people I've named? Do they come here and troll and make demands on what we call ourselves? Do they constantly insist that we stop? Do they come here and demand that this forum change its name from "Objectivist Living" to "Libertarian Hedonistic Anarchist Living"?

No. They don't. Which makes them substantially less aggravating than the two of you.

I favor small government. If you don't like that fact that I use the term "Libertarian" as a shortcut to describe myself, either get over it or ignore it. Either way, too damn bad if you don't like it.

And no, I won't support Rand Paul. Too damn bad.

[Brant Gaede]

Give me a true small government candidate. Don't try to force the false choice of "big government" liberal vs "small government" Republicans like Paul. I don't consider a drug warrior a "small-government" guy. And I reject the idea that the enemies of my enemies are my allies.

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

Are you saying Kacy doesn't go along to get along?

It appears Rand Paul will be elected President in 2016 and, no, I won't be supporting him. It will be a disaster. However, it will be a disaster whoever is elected, just a disaster of somewhat different color. Primarily, there is not going to be enough money to support the Federal edifice except by more and more money printing that continues to suck up private capital destroying the middle class. It's bread and circuses. It destroyed Rome. It destroyed France. It destroyed Great Britain and it will destroy the United States. But life will go on, overall for the better. The population of this country is less than 5% of the population of the planet. Few and fewer Americans are left that morally deserve what they have compared to any other population group. No Great Depression flushing out will be permitted thanks to workman's compensation and food stamps and disability just to list the easy and economically inconsequential stuff compared to massive graft on all levels and Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security. Medicare alone is unsustainable. Add on Obamacare and everything will blow up and sooner rather than later.

Ant real hope for an American future qua America as it once was lies only in people who take extremist, principled stands on important issues. If you don't stand for the principle in a situation you either stand for nothing or you stand on mush. No one will repair to your banner.

--Brant

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy, I'm typing on a phone, so I'll be brief. Call yourself whatever you want for your own intellectual or emotional convenience, but know that your BEHAVIOR of targeting essentially libertarian politicians while leaving unabashedly big-government politicians to their wicked designs is destructive to the cause you claim to care about. Your example of objectivist purism is ironic because that is precisely what you are guilty of by excoriating candidates like Rand Paul for being "Drug Warriors." In contrast, SB and I are telling you not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and to embrace a more sensible big tent philosophy to push back against the true ideological opposition.

I never claimed to have developed a full psychological profile for you, and I never attempted to explain why you were drinking too much. I simply identified the behavior itself as destructive, which you flatly denied at the time, asserting that it was totally normal and healthy and wasn't holding you back. Simply because you may have had underlying issues doesn't change that I was objectively correct about the resultant behavior and how it was a real impediment to your social and physical fitness. In other words, if you had thought about what I was saying instead of telling me I was naive, you could have had your "epiphany" years earlier.

[Serapis Bey]

You know, there are countless folks over at OO who really wish that guys like David Kelley (and the people on the forum) would stop calling themselves objectivists. They believe that people like Kelley and Branden (and the folks on this board) who embrace objectivist principles while refusing to swallow the ideology whole are the greatest gift that enemies of objectivism could ever ask for. They will engage self-described socialists while attempting to write Branden out of their own history.

Interestingly enough, this schism in Objectivism (over the purity/outreach debate) is of a piece with your own disdain for folks like Rand Paul and others for not being Perfect.

You and the Orthodox O's are simply different stripes of the same beach ball.

EDIT: I'll also note that you didn't draw any conclusions about this strategically signficant issue, choosing instead to focus on:

But do they hound the people I've named? Do they come here and troll and make demands on what we call ourselves? Do they constantly insist that we stop? Do they come here and demand that this forum change its name from "Objectivist Living" to "Libertarian Hedonistic Anarchist Living"?

No. They don't. Which makes them substantially less aggravating than the two of you.

In other words, you are less concerned with the philosophical issue RB and I are discussing than in focusing on how the Orthodox O's are not being Big Meanies about it.

SB

somebody call the whaaaaaambulance!

[Brant Gaede]

In other words, you are less concerned with the philosophical issue RB and I are discussing than in focusing on how the Orthodox O's are not being Big Meanies.

SB

somebody call the whaaaaaambulance!

Funny as hell.

--Brant

when and why did all you guys decide to shack up?

can we have domestic violence on an Internet forum?

[Dglgmut]

Give me a true small government candidate. Don't try to force the false choice of "big government" liberal vs "small government" Republicans like Paul. I don't consider a drug warrior a "small-government" guy. And I reject the idea that the enemies of my enemies are my allies.

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

Are you saying Kacy doesn't go along to get along?

It appears Rand Paul will be elected President in 2016 and, no, I won't be supporting him. It will be a disaster. However, it will be a disaster whoever is elected, just a disaster of somewhat different color. Primarily, there is not going to be enough money to support the Federal edifice except by more and more money printing that continues to suck up private capital destroying the middle class. It's bread and circuses. It destroyed Rome. It destroyed France. It destroyed Great Britain and it will destroy the United States. But life will go on, overall for the better. The population of this country is less than 5% of the population of the planet. Few and fewer Americans are left that morally deserve what they have compared to any other population group. No Great Depression flushing out will be permitted thanks to workman's compensation and food stamps and disability just to list the easy and economically inconsequential stuff compared to massive graft on all levels and Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security. Medicare alone is unsustainable. Add on Obamacare and everything will blow up and sooner rather than later.

Ant real hope for an American future qua America as it once was lies only in people who take extremist, principled stands on important issues. If you don't stand for the principle in a situation you either stand for nothing or you stand on mush. No one will repair to your banner.

--Brant

You think the dollar can hold out till 2016? That seems hopeful.

[PDS]

In other words, you are less concerned with the philosophical issue RB and I are discussing than in focusing on how the Orthodox O's are not being Big Meanies.

SB

somebody call the whaaaaaambulance!

Funny as hell.

--Brant

when and why did all you guys decide to shack up?

can we have domestic violence on an Internet forum?

Hilarious.

Although underneath all this bile there must be love in there somewhere...

[Serapis Bey]

I've never claimed to be a paragon of reason (despite what SB likes to pretend). I do claim to hold reason as a primary absolute, and the only conceptual basket in which I place almost all of my eggs.

Indeed. Reason is your "primary absolute" and upon which you lay most of your eggs...and it is with such "reason" you have attacked, belittled and denigrated folks who are less intelligent or less sophisticated than yourself, even though such people might have been good at heart.

BTW, hope you're enjoying the boundless adventure across the world in places like Israel, Greece and Italy....on all of our dimes.

Reason, like science, is only as good as the person exercising it. Being that we are all fallible and none of us are perfect in our execution, I recognize that I can make mistakes when attempting to apply reason. I'm also swayed by the same psychological forces that influence everyone else. These are variables in human ability, not in reason itself.

Interesting choice of words.

So "reason itself" exists apart from "human ability"?

[ginny]

Do you mind if I ask a question. Do you and the other two stooges have any purpose here other than to argue amongst yourselves? You couldn't call what your doing an exchange of ideas. Do you follow each other from site to site? I mean, you're funny, but is that your only purpose?

[Serapis Bey]

Do you mind if I ask a question. Do you and the other two stooges have any purpose here other than to argue amongst yourselves? You couldn't call what your doing an exchange of ideas. Do you follow each other from site to site? I mean, you're funny, but is that your only purpose?

Dear Ginny,

A point is reached in certain people's lives where the question is asked: "Does the 'exchange of ideas' do anything other than encourage a circle-jerk?"

It is at that point that we begin to look under the hood.

Hope that makes sense.

I've posted

before:

I talk of freedom

You talk of the flag

I talk of revolution

You'd much rather brag

And if the decibels of this disenchanting discourse

Continue to dampen the day

The coin flips again and again and again and again

As our sanity walks away

All this discussion

Though politically correct

Is dead beyond destruction

Though it leaves me quite erect

And if the final sunset rolls behind the Earth

And the clock is finally dead

I'll look at me, you'll look at you, and we'll cry alot

But this will be what we said...

This will be what we said:

Look where all this talking got us, baby

Look where all this talking got us, baby

Look where all this talking got us, baby

Look where all this talking got us, baby

[KacyRay]

Do you mind if I ask a question. Do you and the other two stooges have any purpose here other than to argue amongst yourselves? You couldn't call what your doing an exchange of ideas. Do you follow each other from site to site? I mean, you're funny, but is that your only purpose?

Ginny,

I don't find anything funny about SB's behavior, but to answer your question...

SB and I go back a long way (about 35 years). We've been best friends for roughly 25 years, but unfortunately, he's that friend you really can't take anywhere. But with him, instead of embarrassing you in public with his drunken antics, he embarrasses you with his social ineptitude. Like suggesting I'm a freeloader traveling the world on the taxpayers dime rather than a military professional who achieved his position through hard work and personal investment and earns what he makes. You know.. the sort of thing that everyone seems to recognize except him?

I suppose when you've watched someone grow up, ridden bikes with them, etc... it's difficult to make the switch. But most folks are able to do that. Doesn't appear he can. But he's been this way since elementary school... taunting people and laughing when they finally get pissed. Not much has changed in 30 years.

RB and i go back a-ways, maybe 11-12 years. We met on the Internet Chess Club when he was a in high school in the religious chat channel. I recognized him as an exceptionally bright kid who I knew would grow up into a powerfully intellectual adult (which has happened). He visited us in Miami a while back... maybe 8-10 years ago. We all hung out and had a good time. I knew that RB was a bit socially awkward at the time, but I'd never throw stones on that because I was as socially unintelligent as anyone as I was growing up. Thanks to the discovery of the science of social dynamics, I think RB began to "get it" at a much younger age than I did, but - like me - he sometimes has trouble balancing "The Way Things Are" with "The Way Things Should Be". I can sympathize with this sort of idealism.

All I ask is that you take note of the pattern of behavior here, and that you don't assume that we're all acting the same. I have a right to defend myself when accused of behaviors I don't endorse, and I'd ask that you distinguish between antagonism and self-defense.

SB is the kind of guy who will engage in overt disrespect and then accuse you of being over sensitive about it. This is largely because he doesn't have the capacity to recognize the difference between playful ribbing and overt disrespect. RB, on the other hand, recognizes the difference, but allows his frustration with what he sees as my refusal to fight the battles he think need fighting to serve as an excuse to engage in SB-style trolling... at least that was the problem a few years back (seems not to be as much a problem now).

To answer your question - yes, I most certainly have another purpose. In fact, I would be very happy not to have one single further instance of these interpersonal comments. I'd be very happy to just discuss ideas, positions, and formulations. I'd be happy just to ask questions and provoke discussion on hot-button topics. And it would be nice to be able to do so without being trolled.

But I do reserve the right to clear my name when I feel untruths are being spoken about me, what I believe, what my positions are, and how I think.

All I ask is that everyone remembers that no one has any authority to speak for anyone else here on the board without explicit permission. If anyone does talk about what I "think" or "believe"... they are speaking out of turn.

[Robert Baratheon]

Like suggesting I'm a freeloader traveling the world on the taxpayers dime rather than a military professional who achieved his position through hard work and personal investment and earns what he makes. You know.. the sort of thing that everyone seems to recognize except him?

The passage above is indicative of a deep philosophical divide between Kacy and SB and I. Kacy sees only his personal truth (the narrative which is in every respect most flattering to himself) - that he is a hard worker, takes pride in his job, is respected by others, and so on. He holds this out to the world as The Objective Reality, where no other insights (truths) can coexist with, compete with, or complement the narrative. It is the Bible of his personal religion in which he plays the messianic role.

SB and I don't share this purist framework. SB, from his own perspective, sees another truth, which is that Kacy's status as a military lifer is in many ways incompatible with being a risk-taker, a producer, and a self-made individual - other qualities Kacy claims to value. I - and I suspect SB - see both perspectives as containing some elements of truth. They are different, inherently limited views of a greater whole. When we add them together, we get a wider, deeper overall picture. The picture becomes even richer when we then self-examine, askijng WHY Kacy's narrative is so different from our own. But Kacy never gets to that point in analysis. Instead he merely contents himself with maintaining his self-indulgent narrative, fat and happy like my namesake, as absolute ruler of his emotional realm. This is what is so frustrating to us. We're on a never-ending journey and Kacy has already reached his destination (at the bottom of the mountain).

[Brant Gaede]

Like suggesting I'm a freeloader traveling the world on the taxpayers dime rather than a military professional who achieved his position through hard work and personal investment and earns what he makes. You know.. the sort of thing that everyone seems to recognize except him?

The passage above is indicative of a deep philosophical divide between Kacy and SB and I. Kacy sees only his personal truth (the narrative which is in every respect most flattering to himself) - that he is a hard worker, takes pride in his job, is respected by others, and so on. He holds this out to the world as The Objective Reality, where no other insights (truths) can coexist with, compete with, or complement the narrative. It is the Bible of his personal religion in which he plays the messianic role.

SB and I don't share this purist framework. SB, from his own perspective, sees another truth, which is that Kacy's status as a military lifer is in many ways incompatible with being a risk-taker, a producer, and a self-made individual - other qualities Kacy claims to value. I - and I suspect SB - see both perspectives as containing some elements of truth. They are different, inherently limited views of a greater whole. When we add them together, we get a wider, deeper overall picture. The picture becomes even richer when we then self-examine, askijng WHY Kacy's narrative is so different from our own. But Kacy never gets to that point in analysis. Instead he merely contents himself with maintaining his self-indulgent narrative, fat and happy like my namesake, as absolute ruler of his emotional realm. This is what is so frustrating to us. We're on a never-ending journey and Kacy has already reached his destination (at the bottom of the mountain).

And this has what to do with the philosophy in the "philosophic divide"? It all has to do with interacting and reacting psychologies. If someone started with me on that level I'd rip him a new one, but you all obviously didn't start there but built this brick by brick over time. All three of you should by now have said just about all there is to say about each other and are repeating yourselves in a faux-intellectual dance macabre that has no point beyond last-wordism and masochism and the audience. You can put all your conversations onto one thread that no one, not even yourselves, would read after the first page of 20 posts, but since this crap is bouncing all over this site it's apparent that somehow everybody else who comes here is supposed to enjoy it too.

--Brant

I don't, even if I once did--anybody else?

[Brant Gaede]

Kacy can stop this simply by not responding any longer to SB and RB no matter what they say, no matter how intelligent, scintillating or valuable or WRONG! In one or two weeks it's all over.

--Brant

(You have what you want but why do you want it?)

[Robert Baratheon]

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

[9thdoctor]

I've been avoiding all this unseemly public personal bickering, but I'm going to stick my head in to say that Kacy's characterization of Serapis is only true of when the two of them hang out. He doesn't act this way towards me. And Kacy picks on Serapis too, in his own way.

I think if you want to get an idea of these two, imagine a montage of scenes from The Big Lebowski between Walter and The Dude, with the song Wind Beneath My Wings playing underneath. Except Kacy would never pull a gun on someone, and SB isn't that much of a slacker (he's got a mortgage and I'm sure he pays it), so you need to scale back the character traits a good bit. I don't know if I've met RB (I do vaguely remember meeting someone at SB's place who came into town to visit a good 10 years ago).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BdT5mFAk-Y

Here's a funny story: Kacy and MR (why call her MR...hey whatever) were at my place and we're supposed to be hanging out, when a panic call comes in. It's Serapis, he's at a restaurant, and it's not until he's finished his meal that he realizes he doesn't have his wallet. Who does he call to come rescue him? Now if I remember right, he actually called my phone, but that was only for me to put Kacy on. As they're leaving to go save the day, Kacy expounds at length on SB's mental failings, and particularly an incident involving SB's inept technique (quickly abandoned I'm sure) for putting butter on popcorn. I try to object that the example doesn't seem to apply to the present case, but this only takes us back to square one. When Kacy has a point to make he can be pretty darn stubborn. Rather than debate it I let him have the last word lest the rescue mission be delayed.

Here's an observation of mine, of the 'psycho-epistemelogical' type: Kacy is wired for certainty, he knows what he knows, so getting him to change his views takes work. It does happen though, he used to be a fundamentalist Christian after all. Serapis is wired for skepticism. Also he has, not a 'malevolent universe' premise, but a 'malevolent humanity' premise. Hence all that 'game' literature and Christopher Hyatt on his shelves. Yin and Yang, these two.

[Serapis Bey]

Also he has, not a 'malevolent universe' premise, but a 'malevolent humanity' premise.

Nice distinction. I like it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a premise that needs checking with these three. (I could have said, "These three need to check a premise," but I'm beginning to like passive voice... it's so polite... )

From everything I've read so far, they base ALL of their interaction on a subtext, a...

False Premise: The readers care about what they think of each other.

False Corollary 1: The readers make character assessments based on the opinions they write in their bickering.

False Corollary 2: The readers find their bickering to be profound instead of petty.

Here is the subtext and premise underlying the reaction of the readers to their bickering (as expressed in lots of posts from several different people):

True Premise (of reader): I don't give a crap about this bickering. In fact, it's irritating because there are some interesting ideas mixed in that I would like to discuss. This sucks. I wish they would stop. So I'll skim or skip it and move on.

My suggestion is for these guys to avoid the entertainment industry if this is how they treat an audience.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

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

That's easy. Don't.

--Brant

trying to change someone has less to do with change than a desire to remain engaged if only for its own sake; as a task, it's next to impossible

some spouses love to yell and scream at each other; it can be great Viagra for those who don't physiologically need it, otherwise it's stupid

I rate both you and RB as much more intellectually interesting and stimulating than Kacy--except when you are discussing Kacy--that's because Kacy seems stuck on the surface of the things he writes about--his integration is horizonatal and implicit with no vertical axis so it's ad hoc this and that, so you guys have a beef and in your generosity you manage to keep him going with positve concern negatively delivered--I'd rather not speculate why he puts up with it, but if he wouldn't I could give what he's saying more attention which would likely ratchett up my opinion of his opinions--the same goes for you two too, for it's somewhat hard to read you expecting something more on Kacy in the back of my mind

[Mark]

R. B.,

Please take your personal vendetta somewhere else.

S.B. referred to

"... disdain for folks like Rand Paul and others for not being Perfect."

A straw man. I don't think Kacy and Brant expect Rand Paul to be perfect, with or without caps. They expect from him, if I understand them, substantive principled performance.

Take the case in hand, ending the “War on Drugs.” We might agree that injustices of long-standing are usually best ended incrementally, but it should go without saying that the increments must be substantial changes, not infinitesimal ones that go nowhere.

What would be a substantial increment? Thinking about it off the top, the following could done, in order, with no more than a few years in between:

1. End all mandatory federal sentencing immediately Sentences will be up to the judge. All past sentences made under the mandatory sentencing laws will be vacated and re-considered.

2. Decriminalize marijuana.

3. Decriminalize unrefined opium (it used to be called laudanum).

4. Phase out, in sub-stages, the criminalization of refined opiates. I haven’t thought much about what the sub-stages could be. Such opiates could be licensed like alcohol is now (but should not be). The quantity per sale per month could be restricted, etc.

Choose your own increments, just so something tangible is always getting done toward the goal instead of empty promises, which is all Rand Paul has been good for at this point. Remember his “End the TSA” bills? A complete fraud. He wasn’t to be trusted after that.

Now he seems to be promoting number one above.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/5/minimizing-authority-of-judge
I hope it’s true, and part of a continuing series of increments rather than just "fine tuning" the status quo.

By the way, the “War on Drugs” is not about helping drug addicts. The pithiest essay on the subject is
“The Function of the Drug War”
by the late J. Orlin Grabbe.

Probably the best propaganda for decriminalization is from the front line enforcers’ at
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.)

[KacyRay]

MSK,

Hey, I don’t think Palin and Beck are lunatics. I think they are extremely savvy opportunists who sell lunacy to the eager masses and make an abundant living doing so.

In Palin’s case, the lunacy is sold in the form of blind nationalism, theocratic revisionism, demagoguery, and faux-maverick-ism. I’ve seen nothing of substance originate from her at any point, ever. She makes a fantastic living selling these things – much more than she could’ve made being governor. Quitting mid-term was the best financial decision she ever made. That carrot-on-a-stick tour bus thing she did during the last election cycle helped her remain relevant for a few more months, and kept the money flowing in. She’s no dummy, she’s no lunatic, and she’s a true pioneer in the “political diva” genre.

Much like Paris Hilton did in the entertainment world, Palin demonstrated that one does not need talent or anything of particular value to offer in order to become the darling of the day. One only needs to be attractive enough, rich enough, and popular enough. and to be able to deliver the lines on cue.

In Beck’s case, the lunacy is sold in the form of fear mongering, theocratic revisionism, conspiracy-theory, and demagoguery. We’re all in danger, and he’s the guy who can open our eyes to salvation. And he’s going to cry big ol’ tears and tell us how scared he is for us every day until we’re all saved.

The best thing that happened to him was when Fox News decided he was a liability. That pulled him out of the mainstream and allowed him to go into his own realm where only those who have already bought what he’s selling have to continue consuming it. To this day he claims he left because “his life depended on it” or some such nonsense. Those who worked with him tell quite a different story.

So hopefully this will put an end to the consistent “lunatics” and “psychopath” strawmen. I never said these were lunatics. Rather, lunacy is their stock-in-trade. And boy, do they know how to sell it. Palin wraps it in a MILF-a-licious package. Beck, in crocodile tears.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As far as SB/RB – I’m done with that. I’ll be back at OL sometime later on. Right now I see nothing to be gained by sticking around in the near term. At this point I can’t express a point of view without being harassed and trolled. RB registered here for one reason and one reason only – to troll and harass me. You see, I won’t let him on my FB page, so when he found out I was here, I guess he saw that as his golden opportunity. I don't suspect he'll stick around when his only real incentive for being here is removed.

In SB’s case, I am sure that in my absence he will grow bored and wander off to lurk other boards where his prejudices are reinforced. Notice he didn’t post here very actively at all until I started posting? I suspect it’ll die down in my absence.

I’m a bit disappointed that no distinction was drawn between those trolling and those attempting to defend themselves from trolling. It made me think of how in the NFL it is commonly known that it’s never the guy who instigates that draws the flag… it’s the guy who reacts. Kinda felt that way here (and I’m sure that will delight the trolls to no end).

But there are a lot of powerful minds here (and Brant!). I like this place, and I have no problem being the voice of dissent from time to time. I am not going to let trolls who follow me here chase me off for good. You run a great forum. I’ll see you guys around.

After all... I wouldn't deny you the opportunity to show me how right Dennis May was about Glenn Beck single-handedly bringing the Obama regime to its knees!

[Robert Baratheon]

RB registered here for one reason and one reason only – to troll and harass me. You see, I won’t let him on my FB page, so when he found out I was here, I guess he saw that as his golden opportunity. I don't suspect he'll stick around when his only real incentive for being here is removed.

Ah, I see. So when I posted my own topic on moral foundations of economic behavior (http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13276#entry183524), it was all merely part of an elaborate plan to harass you. The ensuing conversation must have been just a pretext to ensnare your attention, right? Thanks for commenting on that topic by the way - oh wait, you couldn't be bothered (douche). I did, however leave multiple substantive comments, that were in no way "trolling," on your MSNBC-talking-head-esque RAND PAUL DRUG WARRIOR WHARRGHARBL. Here was your only remotely substantive response to my arguments in that topic:

"I favor small government. If you don't like that fact that I use the term "Libertarian" as a shortcut to describe myself, either get over it or ignore it. Either way, too damn bad if you don't like it. And no, I won't support Rand Paul. Too damn bad."

Magnificent fodder for discussion, Kacy! Have you ever considered that you might get out of things what you put into them?

Similarly, when I responded to SB's topic on the IRS targeting conservative groups (http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13286#entry183758), and other topics posted by fellow members where you weren't a participant, I must have just been secretly praying that you would grace us with your presence there. This is what you actually think? Well that tells us more about you than it does about me by a long stretch.

Notice how everything's always about YOU in your posts. Your topic is titled "A couple reasons *I* couldn't vote for Rand Paul." So it's really just a topic about YOU, as if people here give the slightest flip who you would vote for. And you have the gall to accuse me of being a narcissist? I can at least talk about things other than myself, when people manage to put the effort in. And SB and I are not the only commenters who have bemoaned your lack of intellectual curiosity here, in case you haven't been paying attention. The distinct impression most here seem to have of you is that you want to post a bunch of cheap Mother Jones-type talking points, have a good bash on religious conservativism, then rinse and repeat. Kudos to them for refusing to drag the blog down to that base level.

I came here because SB invited me here. I told him I was looking for a new blog. He told me that he respected this blog and its moderator. I didn't mention you ONCE in that conversation, you may be surprised to know.