Rand's Kind of Censorship!

[Jonathan]

^Complete mental disintegration.

J

[anthony]

^ My personal geiger counter. The closer what I say approaches the target, the quicker the response. Keep up the good work!

[Brant Gaede]

14 hours ago, anthony said:

You want a society of individual rights - or not? Is that the most fitting to life, or not? If yes, whatever or whomever protects yours is most certainly no enemy to be "feared".

The practical and sustainable is moral, not dreams of Utopias.

I'm neither conservative nor liberal, I don't recognise either, or any half-way, but there exist a few other people outside of me and you, and there's the crux of this argument, I've been saying. It's a big society. Hell will freeze over before everybody is always rational.

Really? Is this the first you've heard of Rand's "morality" of a good government?

WTF? I fear government for the same reason I fear cancer: they behave much the same way. Government is not a warm blanket and a soft bed we get cuddly cuddly on and with--not if we're the good guys. An Objectivist, btw, is not a liberal or conservative either, but you're as far from an Objectivist as either.

Your last sentence is hysterical.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

What is to be 'feared' first is the ideas of people. It's the same (give or take) in most countries, now. Governments are finally perceived everywhere as not man-made, but as a 'metaphyical given'; in this primitivist mindset, if you see a fruit on a tree, you pluck it and eat it. The Supernatural supplied it. What does it matter where 'the fruit' comes from or who grew it or who owns it. I'm owed it. "Government" is largely the agency and go-between which does the giving and taking and so saves one from feeling any iota of guilt in thinking about the individual who was made to sacrifice it. It wasn't MY force... Concurrent with that is the neurotic psychology which wishes and demands its government to be replacement for mom and dad, and even Deity, combined. From which all good things flow.

The first cause of this type of governance (absent of total individual rights) is ultimately from the people, their 'needs' and their dominant 'philosophy', so ultimately the first cause of Initiation of Force is the majority and their terrible philosophy, not the State except directly. And of course it is man-made, and can be 'made' another way!

 

I can't figure out where you are coherent here. Please help me. Please select one sentence. These paragraphs aren't working.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

40 minutes ago, anthony said:

^ My personal geiger counter. The closer what I say approaches the target, the quicker the response. Keep up the good work!

Like a headache.

--Brant

where's the aspirin?

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

WTF? I fear government for the same reason I fear cancer: they behave much the same way. Government is not a warm blanket and a soft bed we get cuddly cuddly on and with--not if we're the good guys. An Objectivist, btw, is not a liberal or conservative either, but you're as far from an Objectivist as either.

Your last sentence is hysterical.

--Brant

You speak of government now - I, of what it should be. Is that not simple?

Still waiting for an answer to this: Would the protector (and nothing but) of your individual rights STILL be your enemy?

I'm proudly radical and independent. If you don't recognise it (what you perceive an Objectivist to be) of me, you possibly hold a stereotypical image of one.

I hear it all. You are a Rand follower. You're a Fundy. You're "not Objectivist".

(Nathaniel Branden: "The trouble is that Objectivists don't think for themselves".)

["radical": Arisng from, or going to a root or source].

[Jonathan]

It really is like visiting an insane asylum. It's WTF?¹³.

J

[anthony]

Beep. beep --beep--beep-beepbeep.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

WTF? I fear government for the same reason I fear cancer: they behave much the same way. Government is not a warm blanket and a soft bed we get cuddly cuddly on and with--not if we're the good guys. An Objectivist, btw, is not a liberal or conservative either, but you're as far from an Objectivist as either.

Your last sentence is hysterical.

--Brant

Some people believe George Washington said this:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

You speak of government now - I, of what it should be. Is that not simple?

Still waiting for an answer to this: Would the protector (and nothing but) of your individual rights STILL be your enemy?

You betcha.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

You speak of government now - I, of what it should be. Is that not simple?

Still waiting for an answer to this: Would the protector (and nothing but) of your individual rights STILL be your enemy?

I'm proudly radical and independent. If you don't recognise it (what you perceive an Objectivist to be) of me, you possibly hold a stereotypical image of one.

I hear it all. You are a Rand follower. You're a Fundy. You're "not Objectivist".

(Nathaniel Branden: "The trouble is that Objectivists don't think for themselves".)

["radical": Arisng from, or going to a root or source].

You can't make it up on volume.

--Brant

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: Some people believe George Washington said this: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. end quote

The operative words are, “left to,” as if actions are from an auto pilot guidance system. Hmmm? In theory, Government should not be of the “robo cop” variety that springs out and zaps offenders, though fictionally it could prove effective. School is letting out and a driver is speeding towards the crosswalks. Suddenly the stationary robo cop ensconced on a telephone pole sends out a command to your car’s computer to slow down. You may pump the gas but you can’t go over 20 mph in a school zone. That would be morally upholding the law.

But what if someone were to walk into a bank carrying a gun, and the robo cop disguised as a suit of medieval armor, blasts him with enough volts to knock him out? When he awakens another robo cop, a Roomba disguised mini vac, has put the cuffs on. “But I’m the security guard, you idiots!”

And so on to “Colossus: The Forbin Project” and the “Terminator” movie franchises. So I would not allow government to be “left to” anything. We should continue to have our government use supervised retaliatory force and only allow Constitutional changes through the national convention process.

Peter    

[anthony]

On 2016/05/10 at 8:26 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Some people believe George Washington said this:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

And you don't think force is essential to good government? Without it, what is it? It's the implied force of government which protects you when you buy a TV or a race horse and when you sell your patio furniture or architecture design or corporation. If someone reneges on a deal, delivers faulty items, tries to defraud you or promises what they don't deliver, there is an objective arbiter to investigate and ensure the wronged party doesn't lose, civil law. 

"In a free society, men are not forced to deal with one another. They do so by voluntary agreement and, when a time element is involved, by *contract*. If a contract is broken by the arbitrary decision of one man, it may cause a disastrous financial injury to the other...but here again, [as with theft, etc.] the use of force cannot be left to the decision of private individuals. But the protection and enforcement of contracts through courts of civil law is the most crucial need of a peaceful society....Criminals are a small minority in any semi-civilized society...

"Man cannot survive, as animals do, by acting on the range of the immediate moment. Man has to project his goals and achieve them across a span of time; he has to calculate his actions and plan his life long-range. The better a man's mind and the greater his knowledge, the longer the range of his planning. The higher or more complex a civilization, the longer the range of activity it requires--and therefore the longer the range of contractual agreements among men, and the more urgent their need of protection for the security of such agreements".

(The Nature of Government)

As I see it, most of the time such "force" is hidden under the surface, but everyone knows it's there. It is what keeps many transactions straight. Crime is a small, tip of the iceberg, problem by comparison - without the implied or -potential- force backing contractual dealings, the country falls apart.

[anthony]

On 2016/05/10 at 9:59 PM, Brant Gaede said:

You betcha.

--Brant

Crazy. What is the end, every home an armed fortress?

[anthony]

On 2016/05/10 at 10:28 PM, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: Some people believe George Washington said this: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. end quote

The operative words are, “left to,” as if actions are from an auto pilot guidance system. Hmmm? In theory, Government should not be of the “robo cop” variety that springs out and zaps offenders, though fictionally it could prove effective.

 

Peter    

Peter, I fully agree with the "left to". Government, in a free society is to be watched over in its every act.

"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act.

A private individual may do anything except that which is legally *forbidden*; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally *permitted*. This is the means of subordinating "might" to "right". This is the American concept of "a government of laws and not of men".

Actual men and women, flaws and all, comprise 'government', it's not an abstraction. Rather, the abstraction is *the idea* behind objective governance, a good one (the only and greatest one) if individual rights is its full function. THIS is what I think is one's "closest ally" to not be feared.

[Brant Gaede]

37 minutes ago, anthony said:

Crazy. What is the end, every home an armed fortress?

You simply have no idea about Americans and America. Not at the root. (It's psychological, not philosophical.)

Americans might own 300 million assorted firearms, btw. No, extremely few homes are armed fortresses. I mention this in spite of--no, because of--your non-sequitur.

--Brant

keep your friends close and your enemies closer

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

You simply have no idea about Americans and America. Not at the root. (It's psychological, not philosophical.)

Americans might own 300 million assorted firearms, btw. No, extremely few homes are armed fortresses. I mention this in spite of--no, because of--your non-sequitur.

--Brant

keep your friends close and your enemies closer

What should give you the idea I'm talking about America (only)? All I'm interested in here is the concept of individual rights. And a stripped down government, whose only purpose is their defence. All I can predict coming from their lack is every man for himself and no back up, and only arbitrary, subjective response and retaliation and punishment/vengeance. Also guns I'm all for, as a first line of self-defence.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, you're a man of the world. I'm so provincial. I never imagined Objectivism operable in China--how about India?--for hundreds of years, but I can imagine Christianity this century. It doesn't seem to have made much headway in Africa, yet. Is there someone besides you? I have come to the conclusion that what Objectivism needs is not atheism--that's negative--but pantheism. That could get Ayn Rand into foreign lands. Essentially, I think you're a European corrupted by her philosophy about as much as that's possible. Congratulations. (This is not sarcasm.)

When you get into arguments here it's mostly because of where you frequently end up and stuck because of your lack of simple logical extrapolations and identifications. You do best, usually, when you present a block of this or a block of that. I can't call it "reason."

--Brant

[anthony]

I do nothing but identify and extrapolate as a matter of habit and enjoyment, which is where people may lose me. There's too much I take as self-evident, or given, perhaps, but here in this place I can't take blame for anyone not knowing where my basic premises came from. I'd rather not explain my premises every time, and I request some amount of 'charity reading', as I readily allow others.

Earlier I made a few (extrapolated) identifications and observations: First, causality. Initiation of force is the state acting on behalf of its people/supporters/voters - and/or acting 'idealistically' for the altruist-collectivist-egalitarian principle of 'good' for all - or, frequently, in favour of randomly chosen 'special interest groups'. (Secondary thoughts, that there are indeed individuals or 'groups' whose rights haven't had full recognition, notwithstanding). Therefore, I maintain it follows that the primary source of force arises from the people, not State alone, who demand regulatory force and benefit from it. The State merely panders as go-between, while (I don't forget) amassing power and longevity for itself.

Also, and a radical shift to some it seems, I break with the tradition of automatically fearing government ... in any form, whatsoever. (Of course, I know its disgusting manifestations and degrees of it everywhere today, and better than anyone, especially where I live). However, if it were one of individual rights alone, in advance I enthusiastically endorse it. To borrow George Washington's "fire" metaphor, fire is destructive and fire is also a basic good for life. Objective value, not intrinsic nor subjective. To take your eyes off a fire for too long, is not a good thing, clearly. I suspect too, that intellectuals and all others "fearing" Government, on principle, will not serve but rather retard, bringing into existence this moral, minimalist government.

Both are open to debate and opposition, but now I hope no one can say they can't understand me.

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Well, you're a man of the world.

--Brant

You read me accurately. That was my earliest remembered sense, for myself and future, and I assumed for all others. I still hold that naive recall of no geographical and political boundaries to roam through. Much later, *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal* brought to me powerfully and permanently Rand's most fundamental idea of freedom, of how men can and should co-exist and freely move about. On top of that, I have (or have had) four nations which involve me personally and I have considered worthy and of concern, both my parents' countries, where I live now and the USA.

[Brant Gaede]

One reason America is so powerful is Americans are unto themselves and America. (There are other substantial reasons.) When they go abroad as soldiers or tourists it's Americans sensibilities--moralistic and otherwise--they take with them. Most Americans, for instance, only speak English. That doesn't sound typically European, does it? If I had been born in Germany, France or Italy I might be speaking several romantic languages if not English too, and speak (and write?) them very well. (I have no idea how that might work if I had been born in the UK.)

The only way to keep the United States from being the number one country in the world the rest of this century is to physically destroy it. The geo-political advantages are too over-whelming. (A tyranical government would make it even more powerful [militarily] and dangerous.) Americans know all this in their gut. Rome had a lot of ruin in it yet to be realized when Augustus took over from the Republic.

In the last century the US took down Germany twice and Russia once and it was the "American Century." So is this one. What you are reading is a combination of arrogance and fact and it's straight out of my acquired, starting at birth, cultural DNA. While it's not genes, there's no getting rid of it. But I do know what is going on.

--Brant

Rand still had a lot of Russian in her when she died--and if she had been born here she couldn't have written AS because AS has very few Americans in it (all hoi polloi in it are Russians and give-upism is heroic [Dagny and Hank were the most American, especially until the destruction of the John Galt Line.])

(What did John Galt "invent" after he "invented" his motor?)

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

I do nothing but identify and extrapolate as a matter of habit and enjoyment, which is where people may lose me. There's too much I take as self-evident, or given, perhaps, but here in this place I can't take blame for anyone not knowing where my basic premises came from. I'd rather not explain my premises every time, and I request some amount of 'charity reading', as I readily allow others.

Earlier I made a few (extrapolated) identifications and observations: First, causality. Initiation of force is the state acting on behalf of its people/supporters/voters - and/or acting 'idealistically' for the altruist-collectivist-egalitarian principle of 'good' for all - or, frequently, in favour of randomly chosen 'special interest groups'. (Secondary thoughts, that there are indeed individuals or 'groups' whose rights haven't had full recognition, notwithstanding). Therefore, I maintain it follows that the primary source of force arises from the people, not State alone, who demand regulatory force and benefit from it. The State merely panders as go-between, while (I don't forget) amassing power and longevity for itself.

Also, and a radical shift to some it seems, I break with the tradition of automatically fearing government ... in any form, whatsoever. (Of course, I know its disgusting manifestations and degrees of it everywhere today, and better than anyone, especially where I live). However, if it were one of individual rights alone, in advance I enthusiastically endorse it. To borrow George Washington's "fire" metaphor, fire is destructive and fire is also a basic good for life. Objective value, not intrinsic nor subjective. To take your eyes off a fire for too long, is not a good thing, clearly. I suspect too, that intellectuals and all others "fearing" Government, on principle, will not serve but rather retard, bringing into existence this moral, minimalist government.

Both are open to debate and opposition, but now I hope no one can say they can't understand me.

Aside from your premises we're having trouble understanding your Objectivism--especially Rand's to yours.

--Brant

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Aside from your premises we're having trouble understanding your Objectivism--especially Rand's to yours.

--Brant

I'm very open, I don't come here to teach Objectivism, clearly I'm not qualified. There are Rand and academics to do that. What you see is what I understand of Objectivism applied to many, wide experiences and observations, the findings re-applied to principles. Perhaps a few do find value from my exercise, even when erroneous. They could consider my input diary notes of a journey. All the concepts have to created by oneself; it has to come with large effort and some mistakes, mostly self-rectifiable.

Mainly I'm an "implementer"- that gives me original ways to approach real situations, and fresh insight into basic principles - and in the final analysis, validates Objectivism for me. What else is this philosophy for, but to use, I ask? There is no better way to learn and test it than to constantly put theory into practice.

But please, whoever the "we" are, I invite argument and criticism. You could begin with what I've put forward on individual rights and government and where it supposedly differs from Rand. (As distinct from libertarianism...).

[Brant Gaede]

This is not a teach Objectivism place except maybe ad hoc this or ad hoc that. I do see the philosophy as a train, a locomotive with four cars. The locomotive is people and the first car is metaphysics, the second epistemology, the third ethics and the fourth politics. To understand this one walks back and forth one car to the next noting how one leads logically to the next and why. To use the philosophy one puts the locomotive in motion and down you go on the self-laying tracks of your life.

--Brant

no car left behind

[KorbenDallas]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The locomotive is people and the first car is metaphysics, the second epistemology, the third ethics and the fourth politics. To understand this one walks back and forth one car to the next noting how one leads logically to the next and why. To use the philosophy one puts the locomotive in motion and down you go on the self-laying tracks of your life.

--Brant

no car left behind

Except for esthetics?