What's Happening?

[Selene]

Amen Martin!

Forget faking reality, it is Peter Keating permitting the desecration of Ayn's work, just as Cortland was Roark's work.

Ayn's statements on integrity are quite clear, unless they were changed in the name of preserving her integrity...

Huh?

Adam

[jriggenbach]

It's obvious you will not convince him [George Smith] of your arguments or interpretations.

Peter has no arguments, Michael. His abject stupidity renders him incapable of formulating any such thing, just as his hopeless ignorance renders him incapable of putting together anything that could reasonably be described as an "interpretation" of historical events.

Helpfully,

JR

[9thdoctor]

abject stupidity

...

hopeless ignorance

...

incapable of putting together anything

Jeez, he really can’t be as bad as all that. I don’t know though, I’ve pretty well given up on reading his stuff since he won’t use the quote function.

[Peter]

When I just logged on to OL there was an advertisement at the top that said. "Ann Coulter for free!" Yeah. Right. How much for the weekend?

George wrote:

Again -- and read my words very carefully so I don't have to go through this again -- the Founding Fathers rejected the notion that one generation can bind future generations. This does not mean that they framed constitutions only for their own generation. They had another explanation for how the political obligations generated by constitutions can apply to future generations. For now, I will leave it to you to figure out what that explanation was.

end quote

“. . . the land of the freeeeeeeeeee. . . . and the home . . . . of the. . . . brave!” Down in front!

I say whatever machinations you have evidence for, no matter. The Founders did not need it. You act as if The supreme Court, or a Supreme Being is going to step in and say, “Gov’mint disband, cuz the newer group of folks don’t want you!”

In my book it was a binding, multi-generational contract, sorry, TP and TJ. If an immigrant came here after it was signed, by implied consent, they agreed to it. I guess our sticking point is what about a baby born after the signing? Their rights would be upheld by the parents, until they reached majority age, but the parent with three kids couldn’t vote four times in the mean time. A slave owner was not allowed to direct the two thirds vote of each slave. (Were they?) So why would a new generation of kids be allowed to vote down the Constitution?

Now, I should wait for your surprise, but the food and beer was great and I want to watch “Jeopardy.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Wow the above was reserved for Ms. Xray

Lest we forget...damn that is a long time

http://obamaclock.org/

Adam

[Martin Radwin]

Frankly, I see competing governments all over the place. They are called countries.

I agree. That's why I inserted the qualification "given the context in which Rand was writing."

The fact that we do "see competing governments all over the place" raises an old and interesting question, viz: Why don't the Randian advocates of limited government call for a one-world government? Surely we cannot have the chaos of "competing governments" with different legal systems but no ultimate arbiter, or sovereign, to render final decisions in cases of conflict. Instead, nation-states, which exist in a state of anarchy relative to other nation-states, often resort to war and other violent means. So, again, why doesn't the minarchist apply his Randian arguments against "competing governments" to the entire planet and call for a one-world government?

I have posed this question to many minarchists over the years but have never received anything approaching a satisfactory answer. The best I have gotten is that a one-world government is "impractical." Fine, but if that is the position of Randian minarchists, they should at least be candid enough to admit that they do indeed favor a one-world government in theory, even if they think this system would be very difficult to implement in practice.

Ghs

As I recall, Rand's argument against what she called competing governments referred to multiple competing governments operating in the same geographical area. Whereas the world in which we live consists of multiple competing governments, but operating in different geographical areas. Only one government claims ultimate authority over any given geographical area, so for any given geographical area, there is one and only one ultimate authority. This addresses the problem that concerned Rand about multiple governments claiming ultimate authority over the same area.

By the way, this is not intended as a defense of Rand's argument against competing governments. I just don't see how Rand's argument implies that the correct system is one world government, for the reasons stated above.

Martin

[Selene]

Martin:

That does not apply to "territorial waters" which run from our three (3) mile limit to other countries where ever the other shore line ends!

You do have contested areas like Kashmir, for example, but that would not, I assume fall into that category.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As I recall, Rand's argument against what she called competing governments referred to multiple competing governments operating in the same geographical area.

Martin,

I knew that when I wrote what I wrote. I was just being my good old lovable smartass self ("Talk to the smiley!").

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

Martin:

That does not apply to "territorial waters" which run from our three (3) mile limit to other countries where ever the other shore line ends!

You do have contested areas like Kashmir, for example, but that would not, I assume fall into that category.

Adam

Good point, which I should have thought of but didn't! I guess one could say that all of the oceans outside of the territorial limits of each country exist in a state of anarchy, since no government claims or exercises ultimate authority over them. The only way to eliminate this anarchic condition would be to either extend the territorial limits of each country such that every section of the ocean was controlled by one government or another, or to institute a one world government which exercised control over the entire earth, including all of the oceans. I haven't seen any objectivists propose either of these scenarios as a solution to the problem of anarchy.

Martin

[Selene]

Martin:

That does not apply to "territorial waters" which run from our three (3) mile limit to other countries where ever the other shore line ends!

You do have contested areas like Kashmir, for example, but that would not, I assume fall into that category.

Adam

Good point, which I should have thought of but didn't! I guess one could say that all of the oceans outside of the territorial limits of each country exist in a state of anarchy, since no government claims or exercises ultimate authority over them. The only way to eliminate this anarchic condition would be to either extend the territorial limits of each country such that every section of the ocean was controlled by one government or another, or to institute a one world government which exercised control over the entire earth, including all of the oceans. I haven't seen any objectivists propose either of these scenarios as a solution to the problem of anarchy.

Martin

Martin:

Thanks.

I am a little rusty on Objectivist history, but wasn't there at least two attempts to build a floating country which involved Objectivists?

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Martin:

That does not apply to "territorial waters" which run from our three (3) mile limit to other countries where ever the other shore line ends!

You do have contested areas like Kashmir, for example, but that would not, I assume fall into that category.

Adam

Good point, which I should have thought of but didn't! I guess one could say that all of the oceans outside of the territorial limits of each country exist in a state of anarchy, since no government claims or exercises ultimate authority over them. The only way to eliminate this anarchic condition would be to either extend the territorial limits of each country such that every section of the ocean was controlled by one government or another, or to institute a one world government which exercised control over the entire earth, including all of the oceans. I haven't seen any objectivists propose either of these scenarios as a solution to the problem of anarchy.

Martin

Martin:

Thanks.

I am a little rusty on Objectivist history, but wasn't there at least two attempts to build a floating country which involved Objectivists?

Adam

Nope. Not Objectivists. U read about it in Reason mag. 35 yrs ago, maybe. Crap then, nobody except u mentions it anymore. Also, some libertarian pubs.

--Brant

Edited February 19, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

In my book it was a binding, multi-generational contract, sorry, TP and TJ. If an immigrant came here after it was signed, by implied consent, they agreed to it.

The Founding Fathers did indeed appeal to a theory of implied consent to explain how later generations could be bound by the Constitution. But this variant of consent theory is far removed from the "multi-generational contract" that you have invoked. In terms of their fundamental principles, these approaches are light years apart. The Founding Fathers understood this, but you are content to lump contradictory principles into one package deal if you think this will serve your purpose.

The theory of implied consent has some fatal flaws, in my judgment, so I don't agree with the Founding Fathers on this topic. They may have been wrong, but they were serious, clear-headed thinkers (for the most part) who understood the importance of philosophical principles. I recommend that you follow their example in this respect.

I have a question for you, Peter. This is an honest, straightforward question, so I would appreciate an honest, straightforward answer. Don't respond by telling me that anarchism is impractical.

A clause in Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution reads:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

This notorious "fugitive slave clause" required that runaway slaves be returned to their owners. It only became null and void after the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in 1865.

So here is my question: Suppose you had been living, say, in Massachusetts in the 1840s, while the fugitive slave clause was still in effect. And suppose that an escaped slave came to your home seeking refuge. Given your belief in the authority of the Constitution, would you have been morally obligated to report this fugitive slave to the authorities so he could be returned to slavery? Is this what you would have done?

This is not an idle hypothetical. Many cases like this came up during the 1840s and 1850s.

So what say you, Peter? Would you have obeyed the "multi-generational contract" that you so greatly admire? Or would have ignored this particular clause, thereby picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution have "authority" over you and which do not?

As I said, this is an honest, straightforward question, so I would appreciate a clear answer.

Ghs

[Peter]

Adam wrote to Martin:

That does not apply to "territorial waters" which run from our three (3) mile limit to other countries where ever the other shore line ends!

end quote

That is an intriguing speculation. Where do territorial waters end? We claim much of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean as our watery territory simply because we surround much of it and because of The Monroe Doctrine. We claim territorial waters around each island jutting out from Alaska and we have a Naval Base at Adak Alaska, very close to Russia. We “own” waters around all our possessions and protectorates in the Pacific. We patrol if not “own” waters around the island and base we lease from Britain in the Indian Ocean. The island Diego García is a coral atoll and the largest island in that region in terms of land area.

I looked it up in Wikipedia:

In the 1960s, the Chagos archipelago was secretly leased to the United Kingdom and detached from Mauritius with the intention of expelling its entire population and establishing a military base. In 1971 the United Kingdom and United States entered an agreement under which the latter would set up a military base in Diego Garcia.

Since then, the United Kingdom enforced the highly controversial depopulation of Diego Garcia, forcing the deportation of all 2,000 inhabitants of the island, who were descendants of African slaves and Hindu laborers brought to the islands by the French in the 18th century, to the surrounding islands, including Mauritius, located 1,200 miles away. In their place, a joint British-American military base was established.

End truncated quote

Damn. We and the Brits leased and then deposed an entire population, which kind of messes with the point I was about to make.

All land masses on the earth are claimed by someone with the exception of Antarctica and the Arctic Regions. Every currently existing “large island” in all the oceans of the world is claimed by some country.

However, there are currently small islands or newly formed volcanic islands that are not claimed, in the open ocean. Those lands could be occupied by people who want no government. Now the problem would then be, if it is prosperous and noticed by covetous nations, a national defense force would need to be established.

I remember Minerva was short lived, but we humans always try, try, again.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

I got mugged by a magician. It’s not funny: he took my wallet, my watch, and every silver dollar I had behind my ear.

Craig Baldo

George switched and baited when he wrote:

(2)Suppose a government is the rogue agency that you refer to in your question, and suppose that this government is incorrect in its judgment that another agency is a rogue agency --then what? Given the sovereign power claimed by a government, which you would presumably defend, would you maintain that an unjust government should prevail over a just private agency?

End quote

This sounds like a brief synopsis of an episode of “24.”

“Jack Bauer shot both the sheriff AND the deputy; the sheriff was a terrorist and the deputy was aiding and abetting him.”

For you the government is always the rogue agency and anybody claiming to be a Rational Anarchist is always *Just.* I would more trust a legitimately uniformed and badged state trooper to pull me over, than some bozo in an unmarked car, who gets out saying, let me see your license. Do you know how fast you were going past my station behind the billboard advertising my competing defense agency? George, can’t you see the ludicrous *uncertainty* in the notion of competing defense agencies?

I have always wondered how a *Mental Anarchist* would view “24” or a James Bond movie. Who do you root for, the dirty (dirty perhaps in MY eyes, but justified in HIS eyes sheriff) or Jack Bauer?

James Bond or Goldfinger? Who was right? Goldfinger merely sought to go onto the *gold standard* using his, rational, fully capable reasoning ability, to discern the principles of justice. Goldfinger was capable, through rational persuasion, voluntary agreement, and lasering Bond’s genitalia to establish whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of the *gold standard*?

After softening up the readers with humor, I have just two semi-serious points to make.

George wrote:

True, but this doesn't render that social organization just, nor does it preclude the possibility that a person is morally justified in attempting to change it, evade or disobey its more oppressive features, or even resist those oppressive features by force.

End quote

Civil disobedience is a pain when the marchers tie up traffic keeping me from where I want to go, but sure it could be morally justified. But *force*? At some point a practical anarchist, if he is gradually attempting to disassociate himself from government will necessarily *revolt*, if the government notices him doing something illegal. Benign neglect is usually the rule for daily individual American life. We stay under the radar when the government is NOT paying attention to us. (In other words, don’t get on a Government watch list by claiming to be an Anarchist.) When the Teapot boils is up to individuals. Be very sure. For now, keep doing your naughty thing, whatever it is, but don’t cry when you have to pay the consequences.

Adam quoted a Rasmussen Poll question:

The Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. Does the federal government today have the consent of the governed?

End quote

Sixty-one percent of the Americans polled said “no.” Holly crap Batman! The teapot is boiling.

George mention the concept of *Volitional consent*. How about a pledge of allegiance at age 18? And I have always been intrigued by Robert Heinlein’s idea that only those who “served,” can vote.

Semper cogitans fidele, tongue in cheek,

Double 0 Seven

[Peter]

George wrote:

This notorious "fugitive slave clause" required that runaway slaves be returned to their owners. It only became null and void after the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in 1865.

and he then continued:

So here is my question: Suppose you had been living, say, in Massachusetts in the 1840s, while the fugitive slave clause was still in effect. And suppose that an escaped slave came to your home seeking refuge. Given your belief in the authority of the Constitution, would you have been morally obligated to report this fugitive slave to the authorities so he could be returned to slavery? Is this what you would have done?

end quote

Cripes George you gave away the answer. “Morally obligated?” NO! “Legally obligated?” Yes! Would I have complied? Hell, NO!

George wrote:

Or would have ignored this particular clause, thereby picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution have "authority" over you and which do not?

end quote

I would have picked my moral authority over that of the Constitution, in this particular instance. It is not a slippery slope toward Anarchism. I would expect to pay the consequences if I were caught harboring a slave, or Anne Frank in Nazi held territories during WWII, and I suppose if you were a slave, in 1840, it was as bad for you, as being under Nazi rule. Would I ALWAYS attempt to evade detection from any despotic government? Yes.

George wrote “In defense of rational anarchism”:

“Likewise, an activity, if moral when pursued by a government, is equally moral when pursued by someone else. All this should be obvious to those who agree with the principles put forth by Ayn Rand. If, therefore, the principles of justice are objective (i.e., knowable to human reason), then a government can no more claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force than it can claim a monopoly on reason.”

End quote

MAN. Have we had this discussion before?

Equally moral? YES. That equivalency does NOT equate or extend to the individual legally initiating force. Government’s monopoly on the use of force is a prerequisite for a just society. There is an implied consent to allow the retaliatory use of force to be in the hands of the government. And, for good reason. Just ask Judge Judy 8-)

Yes, it is equally moral for a government or an individual to recognize justice, but not practical, advisable or legal for an individual to act forcibly. The retaliatory use of force, except in an emergency, is reserved for the Government. Why? Because rational people can disagree. Yes, objective knowledge is knowable to all, but there are still legitimate disagreements.

That is why arbitration is required, not a shoot out at the OK corral. “Why can’t we all just get along?” as the back-bone of Anarchism efficacy, demonstrates it’s unreasonableness. Some people want their way. They don’t want to get along.

Vigilantism may be personally satisfying, but are you a trained professional? Would you trust your security force or theirs to always achieve justice? Would you trust your neighbor’s jurisprudence, or his handling of a truck load of dynamite? NO? And they would not trust your knowledge of the philosophy of law to un-govern, but require them to act as you see fit. I would rather trust a Constitutional Government, but of course, there will be times the Government will be wrong.

Rational Anarchy is Utopianism. I DO appreciate your sweeping views, your paradigms and what you can teach. It’s great, George, how you use Philosophic and Legal History almost like legal precedent, but it does not prove your arguments.

George wrote in “Defense” . . . :

“If I am arrested for smoking pot or for reading a prohibited book (say, Atlas Shrugged) do I have a right forcibly to resist my incarceration? If you say "no," then you are defending absolutism. If you say "yes," then what happened to the sovereign power of government to render final decisions in matters of law? - for in resisting the government I am clearly acting as judge in my own case. “

End quote

It’s not an “either, or” situation. Rebellion, to be morally right is further down the slope. Civil disobedience George, which you may be suggesting, only enforces the idea of “the consent of the governed.” Yes, we can change things, and keep the same Constitution. Anyone may ascertain the justice of an act, but not enforce justice. That’s what appeals courts, referendums, letters to the editor, and constitutional amendments are for.

The right to resist DOES NOT exist “. . . at any point, ” as you insist. It DOES exist at a certain point. For now, I cannot give anyone my judgment as to when the teapot comes to a boil. Want to take the “way back” machine to 1970, Mr. Peabody? I’m in no rush for that street fight. Hang in there Thomas Paine, perhaps the tea parties are just the beginning.

A strict, literally Constitutionally interpreting President will need to begin canceling ALL infringements upon individual rights, that are contradictory to OUR Constitution, The government must regain traction on the road to solvency, or we may ironically hear what Anarchists, but not Objectivists, wish for:

Bulletin. This is the emergency broadcasting system. All the major networks are off the air. We are waiting expectantly for a rational explanation. Wait. Something is being broadcast.

“Good evening my fellow Americans. This is John Galt speaking.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

PS

Copyrighted George wrote “In defense of rational anarchism”:

“I don't defend anarchism because I ever expect to see an anarchist society. (An anarchist America is almost as unlikely as an Objectivist America.) But I do think we can effectively combat statism with the right intellectual ammunition, and this includes the total repudiation of political sovereignty in favor of individual rights and voluntary institutions.”

End of quote

Think about this. Put this paragraph at the beginning of the article, and the article is BETTER. Excerpted without this paragraph and virtually EVERYONE will immediately dismiss it. At the least, if people fear you will take the law into your own hands, at your own discretion, at any time, then fear and confusion reigns over Anarchy.

Respectability ain’t necessarily a bad thing, George.

Now where is the Founding Fathers justification past “Implied Consent?

[George H. Smith]

George switched and baited when he wrote:

(2)Suppose a government is the rogue agency that you refer to in your question, and suppose that this government is incorrect in its judgment that another agency is a rogue agency --then what? Given the sovereign power claimed by a government, which you would presumably defend, would you maintain that an unjust government should prevail over a just private agency?

End quote

This sounds like a brief synopsis of an episode of “24.”

“Jack Bauer shot both the sheriff AND the deputy; the sheriff was a terrorist and the deputy was aiding and abetting him.”

For you the government is always the rogue agency and anybody claiming to be a Rational Anarchist is always *Just.*

I made no such assumption.

I was addressing some questions put to me by Robert Hartford. He understood the point of my response, even if you do not. He replied:

"I don't know the answers, but let me rephrase the problem in a neutral manner, using "political institutions" as surrogate for either "governments" or "justice agencies." Then let's see how far we can get together and where our views might diverge."

As a result of this reformulation, Robert and I ended up agreeing on some important points. It was a productive exchange, partially because Robert, unlike you, understands the key issues involved in the minarchist/anarchist debate, and partially because Robert, unlike you, doesn't salivate uncontrollably and go into a cognitive spasm whenever he discusses political theory with an anarchist.

At some point a practical anarchist, if he is gradually attempting to disassociate himself from government will necessarily *revolt*, if the government notices him doing something illegal.

This is nonsense, as usual.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George wrote:

Or would have ignored this particular clause, thereby picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution have "authority" over you and which do not?

end quote

I would have picked my moral authority over that of the Constitution, in this particular instance. It is not a slippery slope toward Anarchism.

To claim that you have a right to pick and choose which constitutional precepts and laws you should obey and which you should not is a type of practical anarchism, at the very least. And if carried to its logical conclusion, your reasoning will result in philosophical anarchism.

I would expect to pay the consequences if I were caught harboring a slave, or Anne Frank in Nazi held territories during WWII, and I suppose if you were a slave, in 1840, it was as bad for you, as being under Nazi rule. Would I ALWAYS attempt to evade detection from any despotic government? Yes."

You appear to be saying that the U.S. Constitution established a "despotic government" prior to the abolition of slavery in 1865. Good for you, Peter! The anti-slavery abolitionists would have been proud of you.

But to say that you would "expect to pay the consequences" if you were caught harboring a slave is not really the point. This is simply a fact of reality with no moral implications per se, a fact that no anarchist would disagree with. The important question is: Would punishing you for harboring a slave be just?

There were around 4 million slaves in the United State by 1860. Did ratification of the Constitution in 1788 by "We the people" bind slaves then living and future generations of slaves? I assume you will say No -- or at least I hope you will. If so, I would like to know the general principle by which you exempt millions of people from your intergenerational contract.

George wrote “In defense of rational anarchism”:

“Likewise, an activity, if moral when pursued by a government, is equally moral when pursued by someone else. All this should be obvious to those who agree with the principles put forth by Ayn Rand. If, therefore, the principles of justice are objective (i.e., knowable to human reason), then a government can no more claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force than it can claim a monopoly on reason.”

End quote

MAN. Have we had this discussion before?

This issue is irrelevant to the current topic.

PS

Copyrighted George wrote “In defense of rational anarchism”:

“I don't defend anarchism because I ever expect to see an anarchist society. (An anarchist America is almost as unlikely as an Objectivist America.) But I do think we can effectively combat statism with the right intellectual ammunition, and this includes the total repudiation of political sovereignty in favor of individual rights and voluntary institutions.”

End of quote

Think about this. Put this paragraph at the beginning of the article, and the article is BETTER...

Thanks for the advice about how to improve my writing. I will take it under consideration after I follow the advice of the Marquis de Sade about how to improve my sex life.

Ghs

[Peter]

The Immortal Constitution.

If strictly interpreted, what would we need to cut or add to keep The Constitution protecting individual rights into the 25 century?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

The Immortal Constitution.

If strictly interpreted, what would we need to cut or add to keep The Constitution protecting individual rights into the 25 century?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Two things would help a great deal.

First, the 1936 Supreme Court decision "United States v. Butler" would need to be overturned. This is where Alexander Hamilton's broad interpretation of the "general welfare" clause was explicitly adopted, thereby gutting the enumerated powers doctrine advocated by Jefferson and other strict constructionists. As Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, put it:

"Hamilton…maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised for the general welfare."

The odds of this decision ever being overturned are virtually zilch.

Second, the Supreme Court would need to wake up to the fact that we have a Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

On this, see Randy Barnett's excellent article "Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment" at:

http://www.randybarnett.com/reconcieving.htm

Of course, Randy is a libertarian anarchist -- our views on this topic are virtually identical -- so Peter may wish to write a refutation of his article by pointing out that anarchism isn't practical.

Ghs

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

This campaign that you seem to be imbued with against what George writes about the founders is, frankly, bizarre at best, but to the observer, it is tedious and frankly inept, unfunny and completely off any point of reference to the founders. You should give it a rest.

end quote

Adam you are bizarre. Do you have any idea how far out of the mainstream your’s and George’s opinion of the Founding Fathers is? This is not meant to be used as a proof that I am right, but come on! You guys are on the Lunatic Fringe.

Ask the Objectivists on or off this list if I do not bring a deservedly contrary view to George’s “no referent in reality.” Some would ask me, “Why are you wasting your time?” Ask any patriot, who they agree with.

Walk into any working class bar and start spouting the bullshit you routinely espouse here, and see how long you are still standing. Go to any military base during open house, head for the NCO club, and run off at the mouth. The MP’s will soon be called.

Take your’s, my and George’s letter’s and print them in a thousand newspapers, and do a Rasmussen poll as to which the respondents agree. I have no doubt I would win hands down 98 to 2 percent.

Adam. You should give your attempt at censorship a rest.

I freely admit George is a more fascinating writer. I hope he stays here. I am not trying to drive him off.

Engage!

Semper cogitans fidele,

The People’s Voice

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

Each and every time you attempt to inform me that I could not:

1. walk in Baltimore at 1 AM;

2. now that I could not speak with service men in a PX or Officer's club about the idea that self control is the primary responsibility of an individual,

freedom is the ultimate right that we have all given our personal oath to die for, that this is the greatest country in the history of man and that a pure society of

self controlled individualists would be an ideal goal, or

3. and this last one about the working class bar is hilarious, those are my prime environments to recruit folks.

So, therefore, you remain somewhat confused by conflating truth and common sense as being beyond a person in a working class bar.

You stay in your effete environment and I will continue to bring Ayn and her ideas into bars, boardrooms and baseball games.

Adam

Post Script:

Arguing philosophically about anarchism is not the same as rolling a bomb down a street, my friend.

[George H. Smith]

Adam you are bizarre. Do you have any idea how far out of the mainstream your’s and George’s opinion of the Founding Fathers is? This is not meant to be used as a proof that I am right, but come on! You guys are on the Lunatic Fringe.

You've got a set of balls on you, Peter, but they are not a substitute for brains.

You know almost nothing about the ideas of the Founding Fathers, and much of what you claim to know is flat wrong. Everything I have said on OL about their ideas is mainstream and can be found in almost any historical text that discusses these matters.

If those ideas strike you as "on the lunatic fringe," that's because the Founding Fathers were extremely radical by today's standards. After all, they instituted a violent revolution against the British government -- a government that didn't violate rights nearly to the extent that the U.S. Government does today. Taxes were virtually nonexistent in the colonies, for example, and the Boston Tea Party was a protest against a tax that was minuscule, even by 18th Century standards.

Ask the Objectivists on or off this list if I do not bring a deservedly contrary view to George’s “no referent in reality.” Some would ask me, “Why are you wasting your time?” Ask any patriot, who they agree with.

Ignorance is not a necessary precondition of patriotism.

Walk into any working class bar and start spouting the bullshit you routinely espouse here, and see how long you are still standing. Go to any military base during open house, head for the NCO club, and run off at the mouth. The MP’s will soon be called.

Take your’s, my and George’s letter’s and print them in a thousand newspapers, and do a Rasmussen poll as to which the respondents agree. I have no doubt I would win hands down 98 to 2 percent.

I've never seen such a metaphysical second-hander in my life. Are you sure your last name isn't really "Keating"?

Ghs

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

You seem to have jumped the rails, Peter. The only value George could have to you is as a political-philosophical historical expert or a whipping boy because he says he's an anarcho-capitalist. One is left to conclude you are only interested in the latter. In any case the Constitution cannot be fixed no matter how much you modify it.

End quote

George has GREAT value to me as a political-philosophical historical expert. I would not mind having a beer or two with George.

What I want you to consider is that the quotes and thinking he has had for a long time are to justify a preconceived notion. He is not scientific. Every quote or fact he divulges is to bolster his argument that Government is bad. Any pleasantry he has about America Government is a sop, or an aside and of no consequence.

I am sort of a Climategate guy. I don’t like missing facts, slant, and a pre-conceived agenda, tied to fanaticism.

Brant, if you think the “Constitution cannot be fixed no matter how much you modify it,” then you should stand by your words of hate. I see you will be a limp dick in the coming war/campaign.

“Out, damn spot!”

The Bard

Get your idealism and enthusiasm back, brother. God bless America!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

What I want you to consider is that the quotes and thinking he has had for a long time are to justify a preconceived notion. He is not scientific. Every quote or fact he divulges is to bolster his argument that Government is bad. Any pleasantry he has about America Government is a sop, or an aside and of no consequence.

What the f*** are you talking about? The ideas about the Founding Fathers that I have presented on OL are exactly the same ideas I presented and expanded upon in four lengthy manuscripts (about 180 pages total) that I wrote for Knowledge Products in the late 1980s. (I also assigned the writers for the other four tapes and edited their manuscripts.)

Those tapes, narrated by Walter Cronkite, became part of the official set for the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. As such, my manuscripts had to pass review by a board of leading historians and constitutional experts. No changes -- not one -- were demanded or even suggested by that committee. On the contrary, KP got a letter from one member congratulating the writers for a job well done.

Those tapes sold in the tens of thousands and have been used in many college classrooms. And they are still available on CD from Blackstone Audio.

I have thus reached more people with a pro-freedom interpretation of the Founding Fathers than you would ever reach in 100 lifetimes.

Maybe you can't separate your historical views from your personal opinions, but I sure can. And, unlike you, I don't create a fictional history by using my personal views as a starting point.

I've forgotten more about 18th century American history than you will ever know.

Ghs

[Selene]

Dick jokes!

Great junior high school never dies...

So you would have loved the slogan I used in the Nixon campaign, especially at colleges...

NOBODY CAN LICK OUR DICK

VOTE FOR NIXON END THE DRAFT

Adam

wow what a great argument limp dicks can't shoot straight