Are taxes justified to support a war? YB says no.

[moralist]

Therefore, the actions of the U.S. and Great Britain in fighting one evil (Hitler) by supporting another, greater evil (Stalin) cannot be justified.

Of course not. It was a situation of evil people killing evil people. No outcome is ideal. Fascism, Communism and Nazism are all evil secular ideologies created by evil people in their own image.

Good people can never completely destroy evil people.

They can only prevent themselves from being completely destroyed...

...which in this case is exactly what they did.

First of all, what "good people" are you referring to?

It cannot be the FDR administration. For you have stated in Post #16 that "Good people never ignore evil." Yet FDR personally supervised propaganda that hid the murderous nature of Stalin's rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_Moscow

Secondly, you have yet to make the case that giving aid to Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler, was a necessary action to prevent the U.S. from being destroyed.

America engaged Russia's help to defeat the Nazis.

It was a case of using evil people to kill evil people.

At what point in your life did you adopt the view that you hold today?

[Francisco Ferrer]

America engaged Russia's help to defeat the Nazis.

The U.S. did not simply form an alliance of convenience. Under FDR, the U.S. rescued the Soviet Union from economic collapse, set up a propaganda wall to conceal Stalin's atrocities from the world, helped Stalin capture and murder Russians fleeing to the West, provided the USSR with the weapons necessary--including atomic--to make it a major power, and gave it the keys to half of Europe (so that it could lock up half of Europe).

It was a case of using evil people to kill evil people.

The Soviets killed far more innocent people than evil people--and FDR made it possible with eyes wide open.

At what point in your life did you adopt the view that you hold today?

In college when I turned away from the state idolatry of public schools and started reading independently. Incidentally, the books The Roosevelt Myth, Roosevelt's Road to Russia, Operation Keelhaul, and Are the Russians Ten Feet Tall, which detail the role Washington played in keeping Stalin in power, were all either recommended in Ayn Rand's newsletter or sold through her associate Nathaniel Branden's book service.

[Brant Gaede]

The history of the United States is the aggregation of state power with the democratic permission of the voters. The necessity of compromise to the establishment of the Federal Republic under this particular constitution put slavery right into this keystone document right there and then wiping out the Declaration of Independence practical moral influence replacing George III with George Washington. We can call this the triumph of Hamilton, but he would have anyway. If the South hadn't been in the original union it would have been forcibly put into it just as it was forcibly kept in it. The effective end of the westward expansion was not the end of Manifest Destiny as witness the conquest of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War and Philippines genocide by United States Marines and entry into the war that formed and informed all important world history since: the disaster of WWI.

Now the United States is turning in a major and general way on its own citizens, doing to them what it has done to the American Indians almost from the get-go, corrupting them with dependency after smashing them down.

Still, in spite of understanding this this way, psychologically it's still to me the land of the free and home of the brave and let's-go-to-war to, uh, protect all that. Makes me wonder if I'm the victim of some kind of hard-wiring. Growing up in the Cold War fearing the march of the triumph of communism coming closer even to the point of General Thermonuclear War, it was all quite obscure.

--Brant

let's try to fix it(?): the inertia of statism

[moralist]

America engaged Russia's help to defeat the Nazis.

The U.S. did not simply form an alliance of convenience. Under FDR, the U.S. rescued the Soviet Union from economic collapse, set up a propaganda wall to conceal Stalin's atrocities from the world, helped Stalin capture and murder Russians fleeing to the West, provided the USSR with the weapons necessary--including atomic--to make it a major power, and gave it the keys to half of Europe (so that it could lock up half of Europe).

It was a case of using evil people to kill evil people.

The Soviets killed far more innocent people than evil people--and FDR made it possible with eyes wide open.

At what point in your life did you adopt the view that you hold today?

In college...

That makes sense. Government subsidized medrasas teach that view today. And how is your view benefitting your life? That question alludes to the fact that the real value of holding any view of the past is its effect upon a person's character in the present. For example, I love the principles upon which America was founded and so I do my best to live by them regardless of whether or not anyone else does... or even if the government does not. There is no obstacle between me and my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, except me.

This difference between our two views explains why the perceived wrongs of others doesn't quite hold the same fascination for me as it does for you. My view makes me tend to be more focused on what I do wrong here in the present, than in becoming distracted by someone else's version of what others did wrong in the dead past.

Truth is singular. It's versions are mistruths. History is versions of the truth

[BaalChatzaf]

America engaged Russia's help to defeat the Nazis.

It was a case of using evil people to kill evil people.

At what point in your life did you adopt the view that you hold today?

It wasn't the Communist hierarchy that defeated Hitler's forces, it was the people of the land. The yokels, the bumpkins, the guys from the sticks. They weren't evil either. They were Russian and that is trouble enough.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Darrell Hougen]

And, what about the very real possibility that the Soviet Union would have won WWII an taken over all of Western Europe too?

Darrell

Only because FDR wished it.

The Soviet Union did not become a military powerhouse as a result of socialist efficiency or native Russian fighting prowess. It was saved from extinction and raised to the military equal of the U.S. by FDR. Lend-Lease provided the Soviets with a constant stream of raw materials and manufactured goods.

Roosevelt's goal was not simply to weaken the Nazis, but to make Stalin ruler of half of Europe. See Roosevelt's Road to Russia.

He cheerfully helped the Soviet secret police round up escapees in Operation Keelhaul.

He gave Stalin all he needed to become the military equal of the U.S. See Hearings regarding shipment of atomic material to the Soviet Union during World War II.

And he prevented anything negative about the Soviets from reaching American citizens. US 'helped Russia cover up Second World War Katyn Forest massacre'

The issue we are debating is whether the U.S. should have entered WWII. We are not debating whether FDR was a good guy or not. FDR is near the top of my list of worst U.S. presidents. So, you're preaching to the choir. I completely agree that FDR was not a good guy. I'm not familiar with all of the material that you posted above, but, if anything, it just reinforces my negative view of the man. But, whether Roosevelt was good or bad, the question still remains as to whether the U.S. should have entered WWII.

Also, Stalin was in power far longer than Hitler. Are you so sure that Hitler wouldn't have killed millions more than he did if he had won the war?

The statistical comparison I used was for the same span of time: 1933-1945.

I'm not sure to what comparison you're referring. The link you posted earlier included all of the deaths during the Soviet period, not just during Stalin's time and certainly not just the time that Hitler was in power.

Stalin came to power in the mid 1920's, so he was already at the height of his power during the period of comparison. Hitler came to power in 1933 and was still consolidating power in 1934. The Holocaust didn't really get going until 1942. The main target was the Jews, of course, but Slavs and others were also targeted and it is hard to say how many millions of them would have been killed if Hitler had not been defeated.

You can't just say he waited 6 years before his killing machine really got going so he wasn't that bad. The Soviets didn't kill that many people at the beginning either and there is no way to know how many millions more people would have been killed if Hitler had won (or if he had been defeated and Stalin had taken over all of Europe).

You don't know what the future might have held if the U.S. had not gotten involved. So, you can complain all day about what did happen, but, you can't just assume that everything would have been hunky dory if things had turned out differently.

The same argument can be made for any governmental intervention. Things might have been a lot worse if we hadn't had a UN, foreign aid, the Vietnam War, food stamps, the Federal Reserve, TARP, TSA, etc.

The problem is that you've already made the same kind of argument in support of your position. Without some analysis, it is impossible to reasonably discuss which course of action was better. And, it might be impossible to know, definitively. But, your tactic is to say that the way things turned out was bad, therefore the U.S. made the wrong choice while ignoring all of the possibilities for what could have happened if the U.S. had made a different choice.

If a person decided to become a lawyer and ended up poor because he was a lousy lawyer, that doesn't prove that he should have become an engineer --- he might have been a lousy engineer too.

Darrell

[Francisco Ferrer]

The issue we are debating is whether the U.S. should have entered WWII. We are not debating whether FDR was a good guy or not. FDR is near the top of my list of worst U.S. presidents. So, you're preaching to the choir. I completely agree that FDR was not a good guy. I'm not familiar with all of the material that you posted above, but, if anything, it just reinforces my negative view of the man. But, whether Roosevelt was good or bad, the question still remains as to whether the U.S. should have entered WWII.

It is more complex than that: there is first the matter of entering or not. There is also the matter of what side to enter on. For example, Finland at different points fought with both the Axis and Allied powers.

The alliance with Stalin happened only because the American public was misled about the nature of the Soviet horror state and is misled to this day. Very few citizens even now know that the communists were the chief mass murderers of the 20th century and that arming them may be described as literally a game of Russian Roulette. So there can be no discussion about what should have been the proper course of action in 1940 without first knowing the actual Russian threat and how much FDR concealed it.

You fretted about "the very real possibility that the Soviet Union would have won WWII an taken over all of Western Europe too," and I merely pointed out that the president who took the military course of action you endorse would have been primarily responsible if such a take-over had happened.

I'm not sure to what comparison you're referring. The link you posted earlier included all of the deaths during the Soviet period, not just during Stalin's time and certainly not just the time that Hitler was in power.

Stalin came to power in the mid 1920's, so he was already at the height of his power during the period of comparison. Hitler came to power in 1933 and was still consolidating power in 1934. The Holocaust didn't really get going until 1942. The main target was the Jews, of course, but Slavs and others were also targeted and it is hard to say how many millions of them would have been killed if Hitler had not been defeated.

You can't just say he waited 6 years before his killing machine really got going so he wasn't that bad. The Soviets didn't kill that many people at the beginning either and there is no way to know how many millions more people would have been killed if Hitler had won (or if he had been defeated and Stalin had taken over all of Europe).

The link provided broke Soviet atrocities into several periods. Comparing Germany and Russia in the same time span shows that Soviet murders were greater.

The truth of World War II is that Hitler was a vicious mass murderer, and in order to stop him the U.S. made common cause with an even worse murderer.

For argument, let's give Stalin the benefit of a doubt and stipulate that Hitler had a higher per annum body count. Now then, by what moral logic does one argue that we must give military aid and logistical support to a killer of 18 million in order to dispatch a killer of 20 million? Does anyone realistically believe that Stalin was the sort of fellow who would reward a handout from a capitalist nation with future loyalty and good deeds? Is that how he treated his fellow commies?

The problem is that you've already made the same kind of argument in support of your position. Without some analysis, it is impossible to reasonably discuss which course of action was better. And, it might be impossible to know, definitively. But, your tactic is to say that the way things turned out was bad, therefore the U.S. made the wrong choice while ignoring all of the possibilities for what could have happened if the U.S. had made a different choice.

If a person decided to become a lawyer and ended up poor because he was a lousy lawyer, that doesn't prove that he should have become an engineer --- he might have been a lousy engineer too

I responded to your claim "You don't know what the future might have held if the U.S. had not gotten involved," by pointing out that uncertainty about the future is frequently used to justify government intervention. It is true that we don't know the future with absolute preditability, but that is hardly an argument for empowering statists.

I never claimed that the reason the U.S. should not have aided the Soviets was because we couldn't be sure what would happen. In fact, one can make the argument that strengthening a monster will probably increase the likelihood of future bloodshed.

For comparison let's look at another alternate history. Suppose (as Ayn Rand wished) Goldwater had been elected in 1964 instead of Johnson. Isn't it possible a President Goldwater might have escalated the cold war with the Soviets into a hot war? Yes. Isn't it possible hundreds of millions would have died from thermonuclear blasts in major cities and from the radiation poisoning that would have followed? Yes. Are those sufficient reasons to argue that the election of LBJ was good for the world? I say no. But I can offer no airtight proof that a freer America and not a nuclear wasteland would have been the ultimate outcome of a Goldwater victory.

Could the Great Depression have been avoided? I say yes. But I will never be able to offer a convincing argument to someone who thinks that a laissez-faire approach ignores all of the possibilities for what could have happened if the U.S. had made a choice different from the New Deal. Over the years I've argued with more than a few who are convinced that without the New Deal, the hungry masses would have risen up and installed a brutal Marxist dictatorship.

(Revised 9:18 pm)

[moralist]

Now the United States is turning in a major and general way on its own citizens, doing to them what it has done to the American Indians almost from the get-go, corrupting them with dependency after smashing them down.

While I agree with your description of the results, I don't regard the government as being the enemy, but rather as only the perverted creation of millions of failures all demanding it to make someone else pay their bills.

[Francisco Ferrer]

America engaged Russia's help to defeat the Nazis.

The U.S. did not simply form an alliance of convenience. Under FDR, the U.S. rescued the Soviet Union from economic collapse, set up a propaganda wall to conceal Stalin's atrocities from the world, helped Stalin capture and murder Russians fleeing to the West, provided the USSR with the weapons necessary--including atomic--to make it a major power, and gave it the keys to half of Europe (so that it could lock up half of Europe).

It was a case of using evil people to kill evil people.

The Soviets killed far more innocent people than evil people--and FDR made it possible with eyes wide open.

At what point in your life did you adopt the view that you hold today?

In college...

That makes sense. Government subsidized medrasas teach that view today.

What view do you mean? That Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped extend communist slavery to one-third of the human population? If true, may many "medrasas" (whatever they are) bloom.

And how is your view benefitting your life?

Thinking about FDR helps me to get better at concealing my wealth from government-salaried looters.

That question alludes to the fact that the real value of holding any view of the past is its effect upon a person's character in the present. For example, I love the principles upon which America was founded and so I do my best to live by them regardless of whether or not anyone else does... or even if the government does not. There is no obstacle between me and my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, except me.

That's quite impressive. That means either that none of the laws in the U.S. interfere with your freedom or that you are happy to comply with all existing laws.

This difference between our two views explains why the perceived wrongs of others doesn't quite hold the same fascination for me as it does for you. My view makes me tend to be more focused on what I do wrong here in the present, than in becoming distracted by someone else's version of what others did wrong in the dead past.

The fact that millions of young Americans are blissfuly uninformed about the "dead past" keeps them from being distracted by the notion that government could be any sort of threat to them.

Truth is singular. It's versions are mistruths. History is versions of the truth

The definition of version is "A description or account from one point of view, especially as opposed to another."

Your version (A) of what happened last night is that Bluto stole your wallet. Bluto's version (B) is that you gave him the wallet and told him to keep it. Since A and B are both versions, must they both be mistruths?

[Evan]

Yaron Brook says taxes are not justified, even to support a war. Listen to this audio.

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/07/22/ybrook-in-a-desperate-situation-like-an-arms-race-would-it-be-morally-justified-to-demand-taxes/

I would like to see a consortium of private companies put up a military machine that can match China or Russia.

What the hell does YB know about military matters?

We have the best military machine that stolen money can buy.

We won WW2 on stolen money and a draft army (that is involuntary servitude, by the way). So we funded a slave army with stolen money and beat the Fascists and the Japs bloody.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm late to this party, but I wanted to jump in to defend Yaron Brook. "At the age of 18 he was drafted into the Israeli Army. He served for three years (1979–1982), and was a First Sergeant in Israeli military intelligence." That is from his official biography here http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5151, but besides that the point he is making is not a technical one, it is a fundamental one. History has proven that a volunteer army is by far a superior army, and the idea of a draft is as far away from the concept of individual liberty free from government coercion as I can think of. Fighting in a war is a very moral cause, but fighting for something you were forced into to defend a nation you had no interest in upholding (in values or at that point in your life) is immoral.

[BaalChatzaf]

Yaron Brook says taxes are not justified, even to support a war. Listen to this audio.

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/07/22/ybrook-in-a-desperate-situation-like-an-arms-race-would-it-be-morally-justified-to-demand-taxes/

I would like to see a consortium of private companies put up a military machine that can match China or Russia.

What the hell does YB know about military matters?

We have the best military machine that stolen money can buy.

We won WW2 on stolen money and a draft army (that is involuntary servitude, by the way). So we funded a slave army with stolen money and beat the Fascists and the Japs bloody.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm late to this party, but I wanted to jump in to defend Yaron Brook. "At the age of 18 he was drafted into the Israeli Army. He served for three years (1979–1982), and was a First Sergeant in Israeli military intelligence." That is from his official biography here http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5151, but besides that the point he is making is not a technical one, it is a fundamental one. History has proven that a volunteer army is by far a superior army, and the idea of a draft is as far away from the concept of individual liberty free from government coercion as I can think of. Fighting in a war is a very moral cause, but fighting for something you were forced into to defend a nation you had no interest in upholding (in values or at that point in your life) is immoral.

Currently the U.S. military forces are totally volunteer forces. The only thing non-voluntary about them is that the tax payer is compelled to support them. That is true, also in Israel. They have the best army in the Middle East that stolen money can buy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Relationships are at the base force relationships except, maybe, personal and productive ones. In war taxes will be imposed. Moral justification is moot. The war itself is probably arbitrary and unnecessary, especially for the United States. Israel is like the vegetable that can't be cooked, in spite of the boiling waters of the Middle East. It and its neighbors thrive on conflict like addicts on favorite drugs, kind of like collective sources of self esteem: the ability to attack and the ability to defend. That new wall must be very discouraging, at least to the Palestinians and may help the Israelites get flabby.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Currently the U.S. military forces are totally volunteer forces. The only thing non-voluntary about them is that the tax payer is compelled to support them. That is true, also in Israel. They have the best army in the Middle East that stolen money can buy.

You mean stolen money, stolen labor and sometimes stolen lives. See Conscription in Israel.

[BaalChatzaf]

Currently the U.S. military forces are totally volunteer forces. The only thing non-voluntary about them is that the tax payer is compelled to support them. That is true, also in Israel. They have the best army in the Middle East that stolen money can buy.

You mean stolen money, stolen labor and sometimes stolen lives. See Conscription in Israel.

Every army on earth is maintained by some kind of theft. However, consider the alternative: the bad guys with their slave army and Objectopia with no army. Who do you think will survive?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

Currently the U.S. military forces are totally volunteer forces. The only thing non-voluntary about them is that the tax payer is compelled to support them. That is true, also in Israel. They have the best army in the Middle East that stolen money can buy.

You mean stolen money, stolen labor and sometimes stolen lives. See Conscription in Israel.

Every army on earth is maintained by some kind of theft. However, consider the alternative: the bad guys with their slave army and Objectopia with no army. Who do you think will survive?

If it's strictly a question of survival, then it may be smarter to be a bad guy. Mao lived longer than Rand, didn't he?

There are some whose consciences are not troubled by forcing someone else to spend three years guarding the border. But if three, why not five? If five, why not ten? Isn't it about having the best military that coercion can extract?

However, some Objectivists (and Aristotelians in general) would argue that rather than mere survival, we should seek the virtuous life. Eudaimonism, human flourishing, or the noble soul is the ideal.

How many slaves can one get away with owning, how many skulls can one pile up before that noble soul evaporates?

[Brant Gaede]

, or the noble soul is the ideal.

How many slaves can one get away with owning, how many skulls can one pile up before that noble soul evaporates?

665 slaves (skulls don't count)

666 is bad

still noble--I just keep washing off the blood

time to visit my combine

[moralist]

Ferrer writes:

What view do you mean? That Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped extend communist slavery to one-third of the human population?

Yes. Your view of someone else's version of what happened.

If true, may many "medrasas" (whatever they are) bloom.

You have your wish. For Universities already flourish under the financial blessing of the government for the purpose of imprinting leftist jihadis.

Thinking about FDR helps me to get better at concealing my wealth from government-salaried looters.

In specifically what way? How does pondering someone else's version of a dead President help you to hide money?

That's quite impressive. That means either that none of the laws in the U.S. interfere with your freedom or that you are happy to comply with all existing laws.

The government treats me exactly as decent as I am. This means that I am the only one who is responsible for my own direct personal experience of getting the government I deserve.

The fact that millions of young Americans are blissfuly uninformed about the "dead past" keeps them from being distracted by the notion that government could be any sort of threat to them.

We are the only ones who can be our own worst threat by how we live in the present. Everything else is just old dust bunnies left in the corners to be squabbled over by blind scribes.

The definition of version is "A description or account from one point of view, especially as opposed to another."

Yes. And one is true... while the rest are lies.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Ferrer writes:

What view do you mean? That Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped extend communist slavery to one-third of the human population?

Yes. Your view of someone else's version of what happened.

If true, may many "medrasas" (whatever they are) bloom.

You have your wish. For Universities already flourish under the financial blessing of the government for the purpose of imprinting leftist jihadis.

I'll call you on this one. 1. Explain how my criticism of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt's aid to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics constitutes or is even remotely related to "imprinting leftist jihadis," and 2. Name one major university where such a criticism is regularly taught.

Thinking about FDR helps me to get better at concealing my wealth from government-salaried looters.

In specifically what way? How does pondering someone else's version of a dead President help you to hide money?

Studying the way FDR seized gold from the private citizens of America teaches me how I can better conceal my own wealth. Next, why is it necessarily "someone else's version of a dead President"? Why can't it be my version? Are you taking the absurd position that a man must doubt everything except what he's seen himself, in his own lifetime?

That's quite impressive. That means either that none of the laws in the U.S. interfere with your freedom or that you are happy to comply with all existing laws.

The government treats me exactly as decent as I am. This means that I am the only one who is responsible for my own direct personal experience of getting the government I deserve.

Great, that means that the government does not take any of your money to give to the Democrats in Washington. The IRS was not so kind to me.

The fact that millions of young Americans are blissfuly uninformed about the "dead past" keeps them from being distracted by the notion that government could be any sort of threat to them.

We are the only ones who can be our own worst threat by how we live in the present. Everything else is just old dust bunnies left in the corners to be squabbled over by blind scribes.

By that calculus, if you get mugged on the street, you are to blame, not the mugger. If a hijacker flies a 767 into your office building, you are to blame, not the hijacker.

The definition of version is "A description or account from one point of view, especially as opposed to another."

Yes. And one is true... while the rest are lies.

Then your claim in Post #29 that "Truth is singular. It's versions are mistruths" is false. Versions are not necessarily mistruths.

[Brant Gaede]

Good luck arguing with mere asseverations, but good post any way.

--Brant

[moralist]

I'll call you on this one. 1. Explain how my criticism of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt's aid to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics constitutes or is even remotely related to "imprinting leftist jihadis,"

You have adopted the leftist version of history.

and 2. Name one major university where such a criticism is regularly taught.

Every government sanctioned and subsidized University with Howard Zinn's leftist textbook version of history in it... which is all of them.

Studying the way FDR seized gold from the private citizens of America teaches me how I can better conceal my own wealth.

Apparently you didn't learn much.

Had you ever considered how foolish it is to publicly announce that you are hiding your wealth from the government?

Next, why is it necessarily "someone else's version of a dead President"? Why can't it be my version?

It is now. For you have adopted someone else's version as your own.

Are you taking the absurd position that a man must doubt everything except what he's seen himself, in his own lifetime?

My position is that my own direct personal experience of the consequences set into motion by my own actions in the present trumps other peoples' versions of the dead past. Sure it's entertaining to talk about those versions as long as the perceived wrongs of others in the dead past don't become distractions diverting attention away from our own personal wrongs in the present.

Great, that means that the government does not take any of your money to give to the Democrats in Washington.

No. It means that the government treats me exactly as decent as I am, because it answers to exactly the same higher moral law that I do.

The IRS was not so kind to me.

Is that complaint an indication of the success of someone else's version of FDR on your life?

Then your claim in Post #29 that "Truth is singular. It's versions are mistruths" is false. Versions are not necessarily mistruths.

Truth is an island surrounded by a sea of lies.

And reality hands down the final verdict through the consequences of our actions of whether we are standing on dry land or swimming with the sharks.

[Francisco Ferrer]

I'll call you on this one. 1. Explain how my criticism of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt's aid to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics constitutes or is even remotely related to "imprinting leftist jihadis,"

You have adopted the leftist version of history.

and 2. Name one major university where such a criticism is regularly taught.

Every government sanctioned and subsidized University with Howard Zinn's leftist textbook version of history in it... which is all of them.

I've read Zinn's book. I suspect you haven't. Nowhere in it does he criticize FDR for his alliance with the Soviets. On the other hand, Ayn Rand has. Read her "The Roots of War."

If I am a leftist for criticizing FDR, then Ayn Rand must have been one as well.

Studying the way FDR seized gold from the private citizens of America teaches me how I can better conceal my own wealth.

Apparently you didn't learn much.

Had you ever considered how foolish it is to publicly announce that you are hiding your wealth from the government?

That is irrelevant to the question of whether or not one can learn something from studying tyrants. And I haven't made any statement about having broken U.S. laws. You should read more carefully.

Next, why is it necessarily "someone else's version of a dead President"? Why can't it be my version?

It is now. For you have adopted someone else's version as your own.

Are you taking the absurd position that a man must doubt everything except what he's seen himself, in his own lifetime?

My position is that my own direct personal experience of the consequences set into motion by my own actions in the present trumps other peoples' versions of the dead past. Sure it's entertaining to talk about those versions as long as the perceived wrongs of others in the dead past don't become distractions diverting attention away from our own personal wrongs in the present.

If you can give your valuable time to the Objectivist Living forum to discuss World War II history without being too distracted, I suppose others can do the same.

Great, that means that the government does not take any of your money to give to the Democrats in Washington.

No. It means that the government treats me exactly as decent as I am, because it answers to exactly the same higher moral law that I do.

Delighted to hear that Obama is being decent to you and is answering to higher moral laws. And I suppose the leftist university professors are doing the same.

The IRS was not so kind to me.

Is that complaint an indication of the success of someone else's version of FDR on your life?

What do you mean "someone else's version"? A few lines above you wrote, "It is now. For you have adopted someone else's version as your own."

Do you even bother to read your own stuff?

Then your claim in Post #29 that "Truth is singular. It's versions are mistruths" is false. Versions are not necessarily mistruths.

Truth is an island surrounded by a sea of lies.

And reality hands down the final verdict through the consequences of our actions of whether we are standing on dry land or swimming with the sharks.

I see you didn't answer my question about the mugger and the 767 hijacker.

[moralist]

By that calculus, if you get mugged on the street, you are to blame, not the mugger. If a hijacker flies a 767 into your office building, you are to blame, not the hijacker.

Blame... no. Responsible... yes.

Each of us is personally responsible for where we are at any given moment due to the undeniable fact that we have free choice.

If you get mugged, you gave the mugger your sanction to become his victim. If a plane flies into your office, you freely chose to go to work that day.

If you don't grow up and take personal responsibility for your own life... who will?

[moralist]

Delighted to hear that Obama is being decent to you and is answering to higher moral laws.

Since Obama has nothing to do with me or my day to day personal life, I honestly can't complain as I consistently continue to enjoy my life, my liberty and my pursuit of happiness regardless of who happens to occupy the Oval Office.

This is due to the fact that government is not the source of those rights. I'm the one who is solely responsible, as it is impossible to enjoy those rights without first living a life which is deserving of them.

And I suppose the leftist university professors are doing the same.

How silly. They have absolutely nothing to do with me or my life as they can only influence their own kind.

With most of my life behind me I have discovered this moral principle to hold true by my own personal experience. In face to face real world interactions, I've observed that people treat me exactly as decent as I am. And even if they are not, they treat me as if they were.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Delighted to hear that Obama is being decent to you and is answering to higher moral laws.

Since Obama has nothing to do with me or my day to day personal life, I honestly can't complain as I consistently continue to enjoy my life, my liberty and my pursuit of happiness regardless of who happens to occupy the Oval Office.

This is due to the fact that government is not the source of those rights. I'm the one who is solely responsible, as it is impossible to enjoy those rights without first living a life which is deserving of them.

In Post #26 you wrote, "America engaged Russia's help to defeat the Nazis. It was a case of using evil people to kill evil people." But why go to that trouble? After all, Hitler and the Nazis were not the source of rights. The civilians of Germany and the rest of Europe were solely responsible, "as it is impossible to enjoy those rights without first living a life which is deserving of them."

So why bother to send soldiers off to Nazi-occupied Europe or any other place? Why not just enjoy one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness regardless of who happens to occupy the Chancellery in Berlin?

Instead of "using evil people to kill evil people," why not just say, "There is no obstacle between me and my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, except me." (Post #29)

And I suppose the leftist university professors are doing the same.

How silly. They have absolutely nothing to do with me or my life as they can only influence their own kind.

With most of my life behind me I have discovered this moral principle to hold true by my own personal experience. In face to face real world interactions, I've observed that people treat me exactly as decent as I am. And even if they are not, they treat me as if they were.

So it really doesn't matter what is taught in leftist universities, government subsidized "medrasas," or public high schools. Even if 99% of Americans believe their government should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, they will continue to treat the 1% "exactly as decent" as they are. Perhaps supporting evidence for this can be found in history books that are not "someone else's version of what happened."

Quote

By that calculus, if you get mugged on the street, you are to blame, not the mugger. If a hijacker flies a 767 into your office building, you are to blame, not the hijacker.

Blame... no. Responsible... yes.

Each of us is personally responsible for where we are at any given moment due to the undeniable fact that we have free choice.

If you get mugged, you gave the mugger your sanction to become his victim. If a plane flies into your office, you freely chose to go to work that day.

If you don't grow up and take personal responsibility for your own life... who will?

Therefore, if my gravel truck dumps a two-ton load on your car, the responsible party is you, not I. After all, you have free choice, including the choice not to park in that particular spot on the street.

Paying for your own car's damages will teach you to grow up and take personal responsibility for your own life.

[anthony]

By that calculus, if you get mugged on the street, you are to blame, not the mugger. If a hijacker flies a 767 into your office building, you are to blame, not the hijacker.

Blame... no. Responsible... yes.

Each of us is personally responsible for where we are at any given moment due to the undeniable fact that we have free choice.

If you get mugged, you gave the mugger your sanction to become his victim. If a plane flies into your office, you freely chose to go to work that day.

If you don't grow up and take personal responsibility for your own life... who will?

Damn, but moralist this is self-responsibility on steroids!

How did you get to this?

It looks like the law of causality gone berserk.

I'm used by now to the thread of a consequentialist morality running through your writing: i.e. that whatever you do that turns out right for other people is 'the good' - conversely, 'the bad'.

But now with this (I acknowledge your consistency at least) you've turned it upon yourself.

I'm not sure whether to credit this to a desire for omniscience, or to a weird, off-the-charts egoism.

Bad things happen, and (beyond a certain point) to take all of it on yourself is zip to do with volition and self-responsibility.