Is pro-totalitarian rhetoric as evil as totalitarianism itself?

[John Dailey]

~ I don't think that the issue is properly seen as if analogized to "A hired/asked B to kill C: who is the more evil? A, the hirer (director/teacher) or B, the trigger-man?" This is a conundrum few agree on the answer to. No point debating it (or its like) here.

~ Kant used reason to invalidate its worth as applicable to moral/ethic probs; most agree this was his main motivation in his Critique, I believe: making room for faith. I think Rand's main prob with Kant wasn't so much what doors he opened for irrationalists to make hay with, so much as his closing the door on morality for reason-oriented ones who, like Rand, had to bust through to get anywhere. Irrationalists did follow his justifications; rationalists were at a loss if following his reasons that reason was inapplicable to ethics/morals...'till Rand came along. Too bad there was no Aristotle immediately post-Kant.

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 4, 2008 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

RECAP:

~ I believe that Rand saw Kant's door-closing on rational ethicists affecting all views of ethics/morality for the worse since Kant was not only influential reputation wise, but his arguments required an Aristotle or Rand, not to see through (some had), but to show many others how they were ultimately self-contradicting, ergo worthless to accept...especially in morality. 'Till Rand, there was no Aristotle, hence the intellectual Comprachicos 'paved the way' with no one arguing against them.

~ I don't know if I accept her evaluation, but, I think this angle is really where she was concerned more with; the door-closing rather than the other door-openings.

LLAP

J:D

PS: Add in especially that he KNEW what he was doing.

Edited January 4, 2008 by John Dailey

[BaalChatzaf]

Do I have to haul out the HPO quote where you said Might Makes Right is how the world works?

That is a statement of fact, not an advocacy or a position. The world does indeed run on force (for the most part) and wrongful force at that (for the most part). That is a fact. It is not a happy or a pleasant fact.

Even in the moral sphere Might Produces Results. In the novel -Atlas Shrugged- an armed attack (an example of Might) sucures the safe release of John Galt. Once again, Might Produces Results. Righteous Might produces Righteous Results (somtimes).

Mere rectitude, as an abstract matter, produces bupkis, nada, zilch, zero, k'duchas. Action is what produces objectively observable states and processes in the world.

And I will stand on that.

I sometimes think you want to slay the messenger, because you don't like the message. Most news is Bad News. That is the way it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 7, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

Do I have to haul out the HPO quote where you said Might Makes Right is how the world works?

That is a statement of fact, not an advocacy or a position. The world does indeed run on force (for the most part) and wrongful force at that (for the most part). That is a fact. It is not a happy or a pleasant fact.

Oh. Hi there. I thought you forgot all about me. Well, it's certainly either-or. Force or freedom. Threats or the rule of law. Destruction or production. I dunno. You certainly have recently history on your side, if you throw in lying, cheating, and stealing on Wall Street. Let's agree that you think force is a good idea and so is subjugation of refugees and simpletons who have no chance of liberty or self-government. Correct?

W.

[BaalChatzaf]

Do I have to haul out the HPO quote where you said Might Makes Right is how the world works?

That is a statement of fact, not an advocacy or a position. The world does indeed run on force (for the most part) and wrongful force at that (for the most part). That is a fact. It is not a happy or a pleasant fact.

Oh. Hi there. I thought you forgot all about me. Well, it's certainly either-or. Force or freedom. Threats or the rule of law. Destruction or production. I dunno. You certainly have recently history on your side, if you throw in lying, cheating, and stealing on Wall Street. Let's agree that you think force is a good idea and so is subjugation of refugees and simpletons who have no chance of liberty or self-government. Correct?

W.

I think for for personal and collective defense (both reactive force and pro-active force) is a good idea. Without such force we would soon be prey to the jackals and wolves of the worlds.

For everyday living and activities between reasonable and decent folks force is rarely required.

Ba'al Chatzaf