Hello

[Hazard]

Hello,

My name is Jordan O'Leary. I am 17 and live in Michigan. I attend the same school as Bradbradallen. I have been browsing Objectivist Living for a while now, and I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the debates.

I look forward to discussing and debating with you all.

Jordan

[galtgulch]

Hello,

My name is Jordan O'Leary. I am 17 and live in Michigan. I attend the same school as Bradbradallen. I have been browsing Objectivist Living for a while now, and I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the debates.

I look forward to discussing and debating with you all.

Jordan

Jordan,

Welcome to our oasis. I wonder how you came to discover it and what your plans are for yourself.

Naturally you are aware of my obsession with saving the country. I do believe this pro freedom movement has the potential to keep growing and have a profound influence. At this point the establishment prefers to ignore or put us down as irrelevant, extreme or old fashioned. I imagine you have a perspective on how Ron Paul's candidacy was treated by the media.

Have you seen any sign of the existence of the Campaign For Liberty. Scroll down at this link for some inspiration:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/usa/MI/

Last time I looked there were 4991 members of C4L in Michigan.

I do hope your primary interest is with the Objectivist movement which I believe holds the key.

gulch

[syrakusos]

Hello,

My name is Jordan O'Leary. I am 17 and live in Michigan. I attend the same school as Bradbradallen. I have been browsing Objectivist Living for a while now, and I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the debates.

I look forward to discussing and debating with you all.

Jordan

Welcome aboard!

Have you read any of Ayn Rand's works?

(You don't need to have, of course. It's just that the discussions go easier with a common vocabulary -- though that is not always important, either.

Just by way of analogy, I have a graduate class in criminology, which is a proper subset of sociology. Graduate school being what it is, about half

the class are from other disciplines and are taking this criminology class as a "cognate elective." That's fine. But when someone says "anomie"

or "life course" that's like a symbol standing for a whole other discussion we already had two years ago. So, here, too, when someone says,

"the invention of the light bulb in Anthem" we already know the context. So, I was just wondering whether you had read any of Ayn Rand's works.)

Mike M.

(Wearing my Taggart Transcontinental shirt today.)

[Hazard]

First off, thank you all for the welcome.

Gulch,

I discovered Objectivist Living while searching Google for more information on Ayn Rand. I enjoy philosophical debates, so I soon realized that OL is my kind of forum. What exactly do you mean by "plans for myself"?

As for your cause, I did not begin to follow politics until recently, so I am not informed about Ron Paul, his stances, or how he is treated by the media.

Mike,

Yes, I have listened (in Audiobook format) to The Fountainhead and part of Atlas Shrugged, of which I am about half way through. I very much enjoy her books. Ayn Rand, in fact, is the one who engendered my fascination of Philosophy. At times, I have been over zealous without fully understanding Objectivism, but I am still learning. I'd say that I know enough to keep up with the Objectivist vocabulary.

Jordan

[Selene]

Jordan:

Welcome, I joined about two years ago when I was in Virginia.

I attended Nathaniel Branden Institute in 1962 or 1963 as I had read her a little bit earlier.

You will be fine. Excellent group of individuals and you cannot help but learn.

You "...discovered Objectivist Living while searching Google for more information on Ayn Rand." < what created that interest since apparently it did not come from politics?

Is there a debate club or society at your school?

Adam

[galtgulch]

First off, thank you all for the welcome.

Gulch,

I discovered Objectivist Living while searching Google for more information on Ayn Rand. I enjoy philosophical debates, so I soon realized that OL is my kind of forum. What exactly do you mean by "plans for myself"?

As for your cause, I did not begin to follow politics until recently, so I am not informed about Ron Paul, his stances, or how he is treated by the media.

Jordan

I would rather not distract you, as you are in the middle of Atlas Shrugged, but I did find a youtube video in which you can see that he had significant support and inexplicably little print media coverage compared to the others, but although you see him in the video his speeches are not shown at all. So he remains a mystery especially as to what it is about this obstetrician who held a seat in the Congress from Texas for ten terms and who stood as the sole "No!" vote over 300 times when he found no authorization in the Constitution for the powers sought in the bill being debated, which aroused so much enthusiasm among his admirers.

He has been re elected for eleventh term and sponsored the HR 1207 Federal Reserve Transparency Act for the Federal Reserve to be audited.

I cannot let this go without mentioning that he brought to the attention of his supporters that all the enumerated powers granted to the Congress are to be found exclusively in Article 1 Section 8. He is one of the few politicians these days who takes his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously, for the others it is a meaningless ritual. Article 1 Section 10 points out that States will hold nothing but gold and silver coins as legal tender.

The Campaign For Liberty is open to everyone from anywhere on the political spectrum who cares enough to become involved, to learn more by reading a variety of crucial books, including Atlas Shrugged and her essays, and learning about the Austrian school of economics which advocates the so called laissez faire or free market with limited government to enforce individual rights.

Enjoy this video only 3:33 minutes long:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_smCw9An0E...feature=related

gulch

[Chris Grieb]

Jordan; Let me join in the welcome. You sound like a bright person. I have been interested in Ayn Rand and Objectivism since the early '60ths. I hope you look at the non-fiction Rand wrote after you read Atlas. Again Welcome!

[Alfonso Jones]

Hello,

My name is Jordan O'Leary. I am 17 and live in Michigan. I attend the same school as Bradbradallen. I have been browsing Objectivist Living for a while now, and I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the debates.

I look forward to discussing and debating with you all.

Jordan

Welcome to Objectivist Living. Browse around, post and discuss.

Regards,

Bill P

Edited April 19, 2009 by Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jordan,

Welcome aboard!

Seventeen?!!

Dayaamm!

(Don't mind me. I'm just feeling my years...)

I hope you have a grand time here.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Finest welcomes and salutations and all that, Jordan!

rde

Feel free to hit what's left of the wiener tray we leave out.

[Hazard]

Adam,

I was introduced to Ayn Rand by my Dad who learned of her through a Objectivist Radio Host. But I go to a private school, and they don't have any debate club.

Gulch,

That video is very interesting. Thank you for your enthusiasm in sharing your views with me.

And thanks to the rest of you as well.

[galtgulch]

Adam,

I was introduced to Ayn Rand by my Dad who learned of her through a Objectivist Radio Host. But I go to a private school, and they don't have any debate club.

Gulch,

That video is very interesting. Thank you for your enthusiasm in sharing your views with me.

And thanks to the rest of you as well.

Jordan,

I am glad that you found that video of interest. Ron Paul was re elected for his eleventh term in the Congress and endorsed the Young Americans for Liberty (www.YALiberty.org) which I think is largely responsible for the remarkable growth of the Campaign For Liberty (www.campaignforliberty.com 147060 at the moment)

If you are curious about his positions I would recommend the interviews with John Stossel to be found in six parts at whoisronpaul.name an admittedly peculiar link ".name" but you will find many interviews there. Many interrupt Ron Paul but Stossel lets him answer at length and throws many soft balls to let him make his positions plain.

I don't agree with him entirely. I am a physician also and I was horrified when I assisted in what was called a therapeutic abortion in medical school. Ron Paul is religious and has adopted the prolife position on traditional terms.

But I came to the prochoice position as I think it is not meaningful to attribute "rights" to a fertilized ovum, an embryo or a fetus. You will discover that Ayn Rand wrote an article about the issue and considered that a pregnant woman has the right to abort throughout her pregnancy for whatever reason of her own, even as Ayn Rand put it, "her whim!"

I can only hope that I am not the only Ron Paul supporter who is pro choice. Many want him to run in 2012. I believe that Ron Paul ignited this movement which is a pro individual freedom movement, pro strict original intent of the Constitution when it comes to the Sixteenth Amendment. Certainly in favor of woman's suffrage and an end to slavery though.

The movement should lead to many Congressional candidates in every election from now on until we succeed in outnumbering what I will euphemistically call the interventionist wing of America in both domestic and foreign affairs.

So the movement does not require being in lock step with Ron Paul on issues. The main thing is adherence to the Constitution meaning Article 1 Section 8 or just limited government, sound money, repeal of all the laws which violate the rights of citizens.

www.campaignforliberty.com 19Apr 11PM 147117

Enjoy.

gulch

Edited April 20, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Folks:

If a woman and a man choose together to have a child. They sign a contract wherein one of the clauses is that the woman will bear the common child of Johan Doe and Jane Doeess. They have chosen not to marry so as not to subject themselves to the discriminatory laws of State X which, in their opinion, has no interest in their individual familial choices.

So, with a properly notarized or signed with the same sufficiency as one would a property deed, they walk proudly together to the County Clerk's office and register their contract.

They then walk out with eyes that have no pain, fear or guilt and go make a baby in the most mutually selfish way possible. As they achieve the big objectivistic climax to their perfectly accomplished plan, they smile and look off to the setting sun, knowing it is promising a bright future for them.

Now six and a half months later Jane Doess, in a hormonally induced depression, demands to abort this "baby".

Mr. Doe to protect his property, e.g., sperm and having a contract goes into Federal Court for a Temporary Restraining Order and the Magistrate:

1) should sign it under the irreparable harm standard? ___yes ___no there are no maybe choices here.

2) should deny the TRO which would probably trigger an immediate appeal? yes___ ___ again no maybes here.

Evidence is placed in the affidavit in support of the TRO that the "entity" in the womb is 90% viable with current science and an additional affidavit that the health of Ms. Doees is within the parameters of a healthy pregnant woman.

Which way would you decide?

Adam

[Hazard]

Adam,

That is a good analogy, though I didn't completely grasp the end I think I get the idea. I am Prolife - when a woman and a man mutually agree to partake in the act of sex they are responsible for what ever consequences that may bestow upon them. In the case of rape, I have no idea what to think, because I still believe that the baby has a right to life. But my previous example applies to most cases.

Jordan

[Selene]

Jordan:

Understood. I have been on both sides of this issue. I taught at the City University of NY City when I was 20-25. I was pro-death then based on a number of arguments.

I will never forget my first class which met at the un-Godly hour of 8 AM.

I would arrive with coffee and intellectual energy. However, on some Monday mornings, after enjoying my weekend and during the fall semester, wearing sunglasses and limping on Monday's because we were in an unlimited full contact money football league - the Flushing Rebels - red jerseys and helmets and confederate flag decals on the tops of our helmets, I was less than energetic. lol.

I had a wonderful student her last name was Capone - her speech to persuade was on abortion. Her conclusion was phenomenal.

She asked everyone to be a medical board gave her a set of facts about a defective woman who was pregnant with her fifth child - went through the results of the first four and it was a scenario from a "freak" show in terms of the horrid disabilities.

She asked for a vote on aborting the fifth child - it was close to 80 % for death. She stopped and concluded "Congratulations, you just killed Beetovan."

That led to me seeking a different position than being pro-death.

Ron Paul's position is Constitutionally based on the primary obligation of the Constitutionally empowered state to protect life and liberty. Abortion was certainly known by the founders.

The primacy of life is the issue.

I cannot, no matter how much I could argue that the individual woman has the right "even on a whim" to terminate a life.

Therefore, Gulch, I do not believe your argument is sustainable. It will get less and less sustainable as technology moves the survivability line closer to the penetration of the egg by the sperm.

If it is not a life it is common property. Could Mr. Doe take possession of the "lump" as a property right and compensate Ms. Doees?

Conundrums, wrapped in enigmas with ephemeral jurists looking for answers.

Adam

[Hazard]

Wow, that is an incredible story.

Jordan

[Selene]

Thank you Jordan.

It hit me strongly because she spoke with a quiet passion and she used all four parts of what I was teaching:

logical proof - logos

ethical proof - ethos

emotional proof - pathos

and my declared addition

to Aristotelian rhetoric which was audience analysis which he actually does, but had a "monolithic" culture in which there was a common sense as to what was valued, so he knew his audience and it just matter what "class" or "nature" or "humor" you were.

I am surprised that there is no debate club or society at a "private school". Actually, why don't we start one?

Adam

[galtgulch]

Ron Paul's position is Constitutionally based on the primary obligation of the Constitutionally empowered state to protect life and liberty. Abortion was certainly known by the founders.

The primacy of life is the issue.

I cannot, no matter how much I could argue that the individual woman has the right "even on a whim" to terminate a life.

Therefore, Gulch, I do not believe your argument is sustainable. It will get less and less sustainable as technology moves the survivability line closer to the penetration of the egg by the sperm.

If it is not a life it is common property. Could Mr. Doe take possession of the "lump" as a property right and compensate Ms. Doees?

Conundrums, wrapped in enigmas with ephemeral jurists looking for answers.

Adam

Adam et al,

To my way of thinking the issue is resolved by virtue of the fact that the woman unquestionably has the responsibility of whether to bear or not. To compel her to remain pregnant against her will would be to enslave her and that is clearly unconstitutional. There is no question about the possession of rights by the pregnant woman. The unborn is a potential human being not an actual human being. Of course that is a matter of the definition of human being.

Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden express the definition as a living organism which possesses a volitional conceptual consciousness. There is no evidence of that attribute in an unborn fetus. It is meaningless to attribute rights to an entity which does not have the capacity to exercise those rights.

I have tried to argue this issue with "prolife" Republican politicians and there retort is just that they are pro life, end of argument. No consideration of the wishes of the pregnant woman which is typical of the mentality of men toward women throughout history.

In an imaginary scenario in which the State passed legislation so that the needs of the State for more citizens led to enforced impregnation and forbidden termination of pregnancy captures the essence of how a woman's position, will, desire or lack of it, to have a child of her own, can be ignored or overridden by an authority above her. To me it is all about the wishes of the pregnant woman. I have encountered pregnant women who decided that the time was not right for her and her husband, and delivered the baby and gave it up for adoption. Her choice, not imposed by the State.

www.campaignforliberty.com 19Apr 11PM 147122 notice how the number of members just keeps growing around the clock. This is a movement which has a life of its own and no longer depends on any one of us, not even Ron Paul. It is truly a struggle and endeavor of individuals who share a passion for their own freedom. If you haven't joined yet you run the risk of becoming a free rider.

gulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

So essentially, you chose not to address a single argument that the case raises. The property issue. The contract issue. Or, the Constitutional issue raise by Mr. Paul himself. Mr. Paul, apparently, is the perfect candidate ... as long as he agrees with you?

You take exactly the same action you condemn the "profile Republicans" so you obviously have never met Democrats who are against your pro-death stance.

"...the fact [hmm it is a FACT] that the woman unquestionably [ok I give in since it is unquestionable] has the responsibility of whether to bear or not."

"Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden express the definition as a living organism which possesses a volitional conceptual consciousness. There is no evidence of that attribute in an unborn fetus. It is meaningless to attribute rights to an entity which does not have the capacity to exercise those rights."

Ahh ok the Goddess and the Disciple have spoken - so at 8 months and 29 days and 23 hours let's premeditatedly kill the little Beethoven bastard before he gets his fingers to the keyboard!

Sorry, I have some serious issues with that line of "argument".

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

So essentially, you chose not to address a single argument that the case raises. The property issue. The contract issue. Or, the Constitutional issue raise by Mr. Paul himself. Mr. Paul, apparently, is the perfect candidate ... as long as he agrees with you?

You take exactly the same action you condemn the "profile Republicans" so you obviously have never met Democrats who are against your pro-death stance.

"...the fact [hmm it is a FACT] that the woman unquestionably [ok I give in since it is unquestionable] has the responsibility of whether to bear or not."

"Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden express the definition as a living organism which possesses a volitional conceptual consciousness. There is no evidence of that attribute in an unborn fetus. It is meaningless to attribute rights to an entity which does not have the capacity to exercise those rights."

Ahh ok the Goddess and the Disciple have spoken - so at 8 months and 29 days and 23 hours let's premeditatedly kill the little Beethoven bastard before he gets his fingers to the keyboard!

Sorry, I have some serious issues with that line of "argument".

Adam

Adam,

The contract issue: She should never have signed it without going over it in detail with her own attorney. Her attorney would have pointed out that she had signed away her right to terminate the pregnancy under certain unforseeable circumstances. The original contract is not written in her favor at all. If you were a woman, Adam, I am sure that you would want to have the option to abort! We know from what you have been saying that you would do your best to maintain the pregnancy to full term in your womb at all costs especially if an amniocentesis revealed that the Beethoven gene were present.

The property issue: The woman's body is her own property and therefore her right to be free to determine its use and disposal should be respected at all times.

The Constitutional issue: Thirteenth Amendment: the clause which states that involuntary servitude shall be forbidden is what applies does it not. Your mention of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

The Preamble does state a couple of things which might relate:

"We the people of the United States" : Well an unborn entity is not a person in the common usage of the term. Certainly a microscopic fertilized ovum is not a person, nor is an embryo a person, nor is a fetus a person, not in the first trimester, not in the second trimester nor in the third trimester. If the pregnant woman wants to "have a baby" then she values the potential baby at each and every stage and does what she knows best to do to nurture it, e.g. take prenatal vitamins.

The Congress can pass all the laws it wants but a law claiming that your pets are people for purposes of representation would work but you see my point. Congress may pass a Ron Paul bill to have a fertilized ovum declared to be a person but that doesn't make it so. I know such a bill exists. Ron Paul is misguided and if he gets his way on this many a young mostly unmarried woman will die in the hands and coat hangers of back alley abortionists. Another feature of sacrificing the living for the benefit of the next generation. Altruism at work.

"secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity": Ourselves in this context refers to the pregnant woman whose freedom to determine whether she remains pregnant or not is what we mean as her "liberty."

Our posterity refers to her own posterity, the potential human being within her womb. The meaning of the preamble is clear to me that our posterity and its blessings of liberty refer to succeeding generations of people who have been born.

To your example of last minute in gestation cases which are fortunately rare in reality I say that even then the pregnant woman's right to abort must be maintained. I am hard pressed to think of an actual case. Usually if the life of the mother were in danger because of high blood pressure or the like an emergency C section would be done and efforts to save the baby would be done.

In the spirit of Ayn Rand I am trying to imagine a situation where a pregnant woman determines at the last moment that she does not want to deliver the baby nor does she want it to be kept alive or given away to adoptive parents and rushes into the office of an obstetrician who does late term abortions demanding that one be done. What conceivable motive could she have?

Maybe an amniocentesis done months ago revealed something about the fetus of which she was not made aware at the time about some condition of the child. Maybe the reports got mixed up and this was just clarified. She is told that her child will be deformed or disabled in some horrible fashion or would have a dreaded disease which would impact its life.

Or she learns that her husband has some nefarious intention or is evil and she no longer wants his child to be born.

In any case where there is any doubt i would side with the pregnant woman or girl and her wishes rather than with some imposition from the men in three piece suits voting her fate in some grand hall of the legislature at any level of government.

www.campaignforliberty.com 20Apr 7AM 147177

The abortion issue was a deal breaker for Ayn Rand and it is for me too except that in the case of Ron Paul he is so right on so many other crucial issues which are not even being addressed by anyone else in the Congress. I think he is dead wrong on a woman's right to abort, and most abortions are done in the first trimester long before so called viability. His arguments are specious and circular and at root are religious. Is there any evidence to show that a "soul" enters the ovum at the moment of conception?

gulch

[Alfonso Jones]

And all Jordan was trying to do was to say "hello" . . .

Bill P

[galtgulch]

And all Jordan was trying to do was to say "hello" . . .

Bill P

Bill P

I am sure Jordan realizes he is not being ignored, is welcome here, that it is a bit of a hornet's nest he has stirred up, and that we are all honey bees and not the type that would eat him alive.

gulch

[Alfonso Jones]

And all Jordan was trying to do was to say "hello" . . .

Bill P

Bill P

I am sure Jordan realizes he is not being ignored, is welcome here, that it is a bit of a hornet's nest he has stirred up, and that we are all honey bees and not the type that would eat him alive.

gulch

I am confident of this also, gulch. I just find it amusing how subjects mutate on OL.

Bill P

[galtgulch]

And all Jordan was trying to do was to say "hello" . . .

Bill P

Bill P

I am sure Jordan realizes he is not being ignored, is welcome here, that it is a bit of a hornet's nest he has stirred up, and that we are all honey bees and not the type that would eat him alive.

gulch

I am confident of this also, gulch. I just find it amusing how subjects mutate on OL.

Bill P

Bill P

You might be willing to admit that the subject here was just a greeting with a kind of open ended looking forward to debating us here on issues with none made explicit.

I think the topic discussed flowed in a manner better described as a morph than a mutation.

To get back to the previous discussion which had to do with life and the abortion issue for a moment and I am not necessarily engaging you in this. As we all know there are even cultures which consider it unwise if not evil to masturbate because it was viewed that somehow one reduced one's life energy or force by doing so. Aside from the more ridiculous prohibitions such as going mad, going blind, growing hair on one's palms which are laughable in retrospect but surely were frightening when heard by young boys at that age, it is nevertheless true that each sperm is alive and a shame to waste.

The same is true of each ovum produced each month in the life of a young woman. If it is not impregnated and fertilized though it was alive it dies and is in that sense wasted. We now know that only one sperm of the millions in one ejactulate gains entrance into the ovum which means that all the other millions of sperm vying for entry are turned away to die.

I hesitate to bring this to the attention of the authorities who might think it in keeping with the prolife contingent to pass some legislation "necessary and proper" to fully realize the potential of each living sperm and each living ovum.

There is a point here somewhere. Just because something in the chain of being of organisms is alive doesn't mean that it

has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If I can only get the "prolifers" to admit that not only is it true of sperm and ova but even of a fertilized ovum that they only have the potential to become a fully grown human being. They so far fail to grasp the distinction between a potential human being and an actual human being.

www.campaignforliberty.com 147341

gulch

Edited April 20, 2009 by galtgulch

[galtgulch]

I am posting this now because although my previous post appears above it does not show up as a new post so no one knows its there, I mean here!

www.campaignforliberty.com 20 APr 5PM 147369, 8PM 147457

gulch

Edited April 21, 2009 by galtgulch