Objectivism, Libertarianism and War

[Mike Renzulli]

As many of you may know I am an officer in the Arizona Libertarian Party and head an Objectivist club.

The L.P. stance on foreign policy is one of non-intervention. Meaning that the United States should maintain a policy of strict neutrality and not interfere in the affairs of foreign countries.

When 09/11 occured, the Libertarian Party and movement split into 2 camps. One side (which I subscribed to) stated 09/11 was in retaliation for U.S. government meddling in the middle east and that the U.S. should bring it's forces across the globe home.

Another side stated that 09/11 was an unprovoked attack done on U.S. soil and that the U.S. government should retaliate by attacking terrorist organizations and and countries that harbor them with a special emphasis on capturing Osama bin-Laden.

Like I said I SUBSCRIBED to the former camp but am now leaning in the other direction.

A non-interventionist foreign policy is a great posture but then you also have terrorist groups that are still hell bent on attacking the United States despite our shows of force.

In Objectivism dictatorships are seen as illegitimate governments and that free countries have the right (if not obligation) to invade and topple their regimes since they can pose a threat to free countries of the West by funding causes or groups that match or further their ideology and routinely violate the individual rights of the people who live in them.

The more I read up on the Objectivist approach to foreign policy at the Atlas Society's website, as outlined by William Thomas, the more it makes sense to me and I am coming to the conclusion that it is the best way to protect and defend the U.S.

If the U.S. government exists to protect individual rights it can use it's military power to take out depotisms (like Iran or Venezuela) that support terrorist activities that are a threat to us.

Any takers? Do any of you subscribe to this view? Any of you oppose it? If so I would be willing to hear why.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Bryce]

Our government does not and will never protect individual rights. Governments are formed and supported by collectives, and collectives do not protect individuals. So I oppose the view because no government (collective) should wield a military. If, in a less irrational world, a private military existed and was needed to fight despotism, I might support it.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Bryce

[Brant Gaede]

Our government does not and will never protect individual rights. Governments are formed and supported by collectives, and collectives do not protect individuals. So I oppose the view because no government (collective) should wield a military. If, in a less irrational world, a private military existed and was needed to fight despotism, I might support it.

Well, screw the police too.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Our government does not and will never protect individual rights. Governments are formed and supported by collectives, and collectives do not protect individuals. So I oppose the view because no government (collective) should wield a military. If, in a less irrational world, a private military existed and was needed to fight despotism, I might support it.

So what will protect rights? Vigilante groups formed ad hoc? And how long before they turn into gangs? A private military. That has been tried. The frei-korps in Germany between the Great War and WW2. These private military or militia became the S.A. which an unemployed paper hanger later use for his own nefarious purposes. If you want to see a place where there is effectively no government, then gaze upon Somalia, the Pirate capital of the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Bryce]

Our government does not and will never protect individual rights. Governments are formed and supported by collectives, and collectives do not protect individuals. So I oppose the view because no government (collective) should wield a military. If, in a less irrational world, a private military existed and was needed to fight despotism, I might support it.

So what will protect rights? Vigilante groups formed ad hoc? And how long before they turn into gangs? A private military. That has been tried. The frei-korps in Germany between the Great War and WW2. These private military or militia became the S.A. which an unemployed paper hanger later use for his own nefarious purposes. If you want to see a place where there is effectively no government, then gaze upon Somalia, the Pirate capital of the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

A man could protect his own life. If he's confronted by too strong a force, he would likely not be alone and would have allies. But if they lack size, strength, or ability, and if the ways of the world make private military's necessary, they may keep one on retainer for such an occasion. A vigilante group would never be formed. And no, a private military hasn't been tried: The Freikorps were backed by the German government. And the last of their members quit to join the political paramilitary of your unemployed paper hanger.

[Brant Gaede]

Our government does not and will never protect individual rights. Governments are formed and supported by collectives, and collectives do not protect individuals. So I oppose the view because no government (collective) should wield a military. If, in a less irrational world, a private military existed and was needed to fight despotism, I might support it.

So what will protect rights? Vigilante groups formed ad hoc? And how long before they turn into gangs? A private military. That has been tried. The frei-korps in Germany between the Great War and WW2. These private military or militia became the S.A. which an unemployed paper hanger later use for his own nefarious purposes. If you want to see a place where there is effectively no government, then gaze upon Somalia, the Pirate capital of the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

A man could protect his own life. If he's confronted by too strong a force, he would likely not be alone and would have allies. But if they lack size, strength, or ability, and if the ways of the world make private military's necessary, they may keep one on retainer for such an occasion. A vigilante group would never be formed. And no, a private military hasn't been tried: The Freikorps were backed by the German government. And the last of their members quit to join the political paramilitary of your unemployed paper hanger.

The strongest group, probably led by a charismatic, will take over. In this scenario, probably the military.

--Brant

Bryce: you can't get there from here, regardless

[BaalChatzaf]

A man could protect his own life. If he's confronted by too strong a force, he would likely not be alone and would have allies. But if they lack size, strength, or ability, and if the ways of the world make private military's necessary, they may keep one on retainer for such an occasion. A vigilante group would never be formed. And no, a private military hasn't been tried: The Freikorps were backed by the German government. And the last of their members quit to join the political paramilitary of your unemployed paper hanger.

And you saw where that led, I assume.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike Renzulli]

I do not mean to come across as being facetious to your statement but would point out that there are numerous examples of government protecting a person's individual rights. In Arizona there are no state restrictions on to sale, purchase or possession of firearms. This has been strengthened here recently. A law was just enacted where an Arizona resident no longer has to have a permit in order to carry a gun in a concealed manner.

On the federal level you see examples of courts striking down actions by legislative or executive branches such as the SCOTUS's overruling the Bush Administration on his ability to declare who is and is not a terrorist and if they can be prosecuted by military tribunals or in federal courts.

Also, don't forget the firearms case where the SCOTUS struck down DC's gun ban.

The courts, executive branches and legislative bodies don't do this consistently but I don't think it's that bad to where it has lead to a full consolidation of all three.

Our government does not and will never protect individual rights. Governments are formed and supported by collectives, and collectives do not protect individuals. So I oppose the view because no government (collective) should wield a military. If, in a less irrational world, a private military existed and was needed to fight despotism, I might support it.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

Ba'al you make a good point. In the society envisioned by anarcho-capitalists government wouldn't exist but people would develop and have their own manner in which to protect and defend themselves.

That means yielding to another form of authority which is a private organization. If the person in question does not agree with a decision of a private arbitration organization, there is nothing in place to make the person in question who lost in a tort, civil or criminal case comply with the arbitration group's decision.

Upon closer examination of it and no offense intended to those who subscribe to it (such as George H. Smith) but An Cap seems to be more of a form of skepticism than a strain of libertarianism. At least skepticism is the end result of an cap if one takes anarcho-capitalism to it's logical conclusions.

For example, at a libertarian conference here in December, I asked an anarcho-capitalist what was to prevent a terrorist from entering an anarcho-capitalist society from entering and releasing a deadly disease or conducting bombings. Without some way to screen people prior to entry if they are hell bent on conducting terrorist activities there would be no way to stop them.

The response I got was "We don't know. In anarcho-capitalism everyone makes up their own mind." Well if that's the case what this sounds more like something that would come from the mouth of Immanuel Kant or David Hume that nobody can really know anything about anything. There are is no absolute knowledge or standards of right and wrong only various opinions or ways to do things.

I am probably opening a Pandora's Box by saying this and let me stress that I do not mean to insult those who subscribe to An Cap but this is the conclusion I have some to.

So what will protect rights? Vigilante groups formed ad hoc? And how long before they turn into gangs? A private military. That has been tried. The frei-korps in Germany between the Great War and WW2. These private military or militia became the S.A. which an unemployed paper hanger later use for his own nefarious purposes. If you want to see a place where there is effectively no government, then gaze upon Somalia, the Pirate capital of the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 1, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

Well, screw the police too.

--Brant

I know really. I realize there maybe some bad apples who are police officers but (overall) the ones I come in contact with are decent, polite and hardworking people.

Now, back on the subject of foreign policy, in terms of dealing with dictators, I wonder if it legal to start a foundation specifically geared to raising money via tax-deductible donations in order to place bounties on the heads of dictators such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

If there is a foundation for this I would donate money to that. If there isn't I wonder if there are any on these boards that would be willing to help me start one and is something libertarians, Objectivists and even conservatives would support handily.

I would be up to starting such a group.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

It may seem trite to say this, but I have thought long and hard about it.

A prerequisite to any meaningful discussion on rights and the role of government for me has to involve some kind of premise-level thinking about good character. If you have a society of nothing but bullies and thieves, I fear the only social system that would work is tyranny--a dictatorship, pure and simple.

Lots of borderline cases disappear when you have a group of individuals who have good character. For as much as I disagree with religious doctrine, the reason many people go to church is basically to discipline their character. I have been reading A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen. There are a couple of quotes from the Introduction that stood out to me--so much so that they were a strong part of the reason I decided to tackle this +- 1,000 pager. This book is being pumped by Glenn Beck, which is the reason I looked at it in the first place, but still, 1,000 pages is 1,000 pages.

Also, I have writing about my concern with character as a sort of missing element way before I started in on this book. I think my lost child in the wilderness thing was mostly about that, since I strongly objected to people who defended depraved indifference as a sacred right and virtue.

Here are the passages, both on p. xviii.

It is not surprising, then, that so many left-wing historians miss the boat (and miss it, and miss it, and miss it to the point where they need a ferry schedule). They fail to understand what every colonial settler and every western pioneer understood: character was tied to liberty, and liberty to property. All three were needed for success, but character was the prerequisite because it put the law behind property agreements, and it set responsibility right next to liberty.

. . .

America remains a beacon of liberty, not because its institutions have generally remained strong, its citizens free, and its attitudes tolerant, but because it, among most of the developed world, still cries out as a nation, "Character counts."

That resonates with me. Strongly.

Lack of concern with character is one of the things that has turned me off in most Objectivist-libertarian discussions I have participated in when discussing rights and government, although I have not been able to articulate why until recently.

Without good character, freedom turns into gang warfare, democracy turns into lynch mobs and a republic turns into an oligarchy led by a strong man bully. Without efforts to develop and maintain good character, individual rights are impossible to practice on earth.

This is an element of reality that sorely needs addressing in these discussions, especially among people (myself included) who dislike churches.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Well, screw the police too.

--Brant

I know really. I realize there maybe some bad apples who are police officers but (overall) the ones I come in contact with are decent, polite and hardworking people.

Now, back on the subject of foreign policy, in terms of dealing with dictators, I wonder if it legal to start a foundation specifically geared to raising money via tax-deductible donations in order to place bounties on the heads of dictators such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

If there is a foundation for this I would donate money to that. If there isn't I wonder if there are any on these boards that would be willing to help me start one and is something libertarians, Objectivists and even conservatives would support handily.

I would be up to starting such a group.

If it's tax deductible it'd be legal. It ain't legal regardless. In a dark alley I'd kill the first two. The third is irrelevant. The military is slowly taking over Iran.

--Brant

[algernonsidney]

The L.P. stance on foreign policy is one of non-intervention. Meaning that the United States should maintain a policy of strict neutrality and not interfere in the affairs of foreign countries.

When 09/11 occured, the Libertarian Party and movement split into 2 camps. One side (which I subscribed to) stated 09/11 was in retaliation for U.S. government meddling in the middle east and that the U.S. should bring it's forces across the globe home.

Another side stated that 09/11 was an unprovoked attack done on U.S. soil and that the U.S. government should retaliate by attacking terrorist organizations and and countries that harbor them with a special emphasis on capturing Osama bin-Laden.

Those people are not libertarians. If you are no longer a libertarian, please leave the party.

Like I said I SUBSCRIBED to the former camp but am now leaning in the other direction.

Did you get a job with Halliburton, Northrop Grumman, Kellogg Brown Root, or someone else like that? Do you profit from war?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is a great posture but then you also have terrorist groups that are still hell bent on attacking the United States despite our shows of force.

How do you know this? How about the US try a non-interventionist foreign policy? Then we'll see what happens. I'm willing to take the chance.

In Objectivism dictatorships are seen as illegitimate governments and that free countries have the right (if not obligation) to invade and topple their regimes since they can pose a threat to free countries of the West by funding causes or groups that match or further their ideology and routinely violate the individual rights of the people who live in them.

This country also has an illegitimate government which routinely violates the individual rights of the people who live in it. The government tortures people, holds people for indefinite periods based on no evidence whatsoever, and constantly harasses innocent people. Just look at the shithole where you live, your old hag governor just signed into law endorsing and condoning the harassment of all Latinos simply because they are Latino. And the brutal truth is that the law has popular support from the many dumbass xenophobes who inhabit this worthless country.

There is nothing special about this country. There is nothing here that is worth defending.

If the U.S. government exists to protect individual rights it can use it's military power to take out depotisms (like Iran or Venezuela) that support terrorist activities that are a threat to us.

Well, someone needs to take out the despotism that is the greatest threat to me--that despotism is the United States of America. I have voted in this godforsaken shithole of a country since I was 18. I am now 38, and every single election has been a complete waste of time. None of these scumbags who get elected represent me, whether it be the garbage on the Austin City Council, the Texas state legislature, or the crooked gang in Washington. And this applies to other states and other cities where I have lived.

Now that you love war, how do you plan on paying for it? A number I hear a lot now is that it costs $1,000,000 per year to keep a soldier deployed in some foreign country. Where do you get the money? And what happens when everyone else around the world figures out that the American dollar is worth about as much as toilet paper?

Will Thomas also worships Lindsay Perigo--that says enough about him. Then, again, I know enough about Will based on my own personal contact with him, although it was years ago. When people like that get into leadership positions, you know the movement is in big trouble.

Of course, another one of David Kelley's rising stars used to be Diana Brickell Hsieh. We all know what happened there. I could have predicted that back in 1996.

Rand never advocated open confrontation with the Soviet Union. She was wise enough to know that the evil empire would collapse on its own in time. It is regrettable and tragic that she did not live to see it happen--one can only speculate what her reaction would have been.

You act as if these little pissant countries are more powerful than the USA. Do you honestly think that either Venezuela or Iran can mount a successful attack on the USA?

What about the USA supporting terrorist activites? The US has supported dictators all over the world and still does. They fund terrorist groups in foreign countries. Are you now going to pretend that such things do not exist?

What do you think is going to happen to Iran and Saudi Arabia when all the oil runs out? That is easy. Those people are going to go back to crawling on their stomachs, eating worms and bugs. That is what is going to happen to them. Just as the Russians were always going to be poor for worshipping Karl Marx, they will always be poor until they have enough brains to burn all their damned Korans. They have their choice--either get rid of Islam and live like civilized people or keep Islam and continue to be subhuman barbarians. They don't have enough brains to achieve anything in the scientific realm after all, so I certainly don't expect them to do anything that could be a threat. Maybe they never will enough brains to burn their Korans--and if they are that stupid, then any civilized nation has nothing to fear.

Imagine if you put a brick wall around the Islamic/Arab world. Every 100 years, take out one brick so you can look in to see if anything changes. Trust me, nothing there will change.

There is one thing that definitely does need to change in the West. People in the West need to start having children again. The savages may be really stupid, but they do know how to produce kids.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Chris Baker

[Brant Gaede]

"Non-intervention" as a keystone of a foreign policy is on so superficial an analysis of anything as to justifiably trivialize libertarianism. Interventionism in the sense discussed is merely a reflection of what leviathan will do if it has the means. The US State is bankrupting itself and its interventionism will consequently recede as its military contracts. This will not lessen in the short to intermediate term the general risk of war or acts of war both involving and particularly directed at this country.

--Brant

[algernonsidney]

I know really. I realize there maybe some bad apples who are police officers but (overall) the ones I come in contact with are decent, polite and hardworking people.

What happens anytime any police officer is accused of breaking the law? All of the other police officers come to his defense. All of these bad police officers are defended and supported by these so-called "good" police officers. A good police officer is one who wants to see bad police officers off the force. If he defends and protects the bad police officers, then he is just as bad as they are.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is nothing special about this country. There is nothing here that is worth defending.

Chris,

That's a hell of a statement. After being absent for 32 years, I came back and I am glad I did. So I don't share your evaluation, not by a long shot, but I do share agreement with some of the reasons you cite for arriving at it.

There is one thing that definitely does need to change in the West. People in the West need to start having children again. The savages may be really stupid, but they do know how to produce kids.

Why do they need to start making more babies?

In light of your evaluation, "there is nothing here that is worth defending," why, in your view, does the population need to increase (presumably as a form of defense against being overtaken by "savages")? Is there somewhere else in the West that you think does need defending?

Michael

[Bryce]

--Brant

Bryce: you can't get there from here, regardless

What do you mean?

And you saw where that led, I assume.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes. Once again, that was a political paramilitary and not private. You're confusing (or aligning) the two.

I do not mean to come across as being facetious to your statement but would point out that there are numerous examples of government protecting a person's individual rights. In Arizona there are no state restrictions on to sale, purchase or possession of firearms. This has been strengthened here recently. A law was just enacted where an Arizona resident no longer has to have a permit in order to carry a gun in a concealed manner.

On the federal level you see examples of courts striking down actions by legislative or executive branches such as the SCOTUS's overruling the Bush Administration on his ability to declare who is and is not a terrorist and if they can be prosecuted by military tribunals or in federal courts.

Also, don't forget the firearms case where the SCOTUS struck down DC's gun ban.

The courts, executive branches and legislative bodies don't do this consistently but I don't think it's that bad to where it has lead to a full consolidation of all three.

Our government does not and will never protect individual rights. Governments are formed and supported by collectives, and collectives do not protect individuals. So I oppose the view because no government (collective) should wield a military. If, in a less irrational world, a private military existed and was needed to fight despotism, I might support it.

Those examples are of the government preventing itself from being restrictive. What good would I do if I appointed you to protect my right to free speech by virtue of you telling yourself that you will not violate my right to free speech?

The (corrupt) nature of man is the premise of all arguments used against anarcho-capitalism and it is the same premise that collectivists use to esteem the virtues of socialism. Man possesses an immoral or dangerous condition that necessitates controls or restrictions on his life. The premise would be absent from Objectivism except for Objectivist morality and a belief in very minimalist government. And it's the premise used against me, in this thread, by asserting that government is necessary. Really, a man who yearns for government protection should ask himself why he or privatized arbitration would be less effective at protecting his own life than the state.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Bryce

[Brant Gaede]

--Brant

Bryce: you can't get there from here, regardless

What do you mean?

A private military is just warlordism. That's all that can be got from that idea.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The (corrupt) nature of man is the premise of all arguments used against anarcho-capitalism and it is the same premise that collectivists use to esteem the virtues of socialism.

Bryce,

This really is a premise that needs checking. "Corrupt" or "not corrupt" nature of man according to what standard?

In other words, does morality derive from the nature of man, or does the nature of man derive from morality?

That is a fundamental issue. I see a lot of confusion on it in our little world, too.

I hold that man's nature is neither "corrupt" nor "not corrupt" because those adjectives do not apply. Man's nature just is. And that nature is the standard for judging all moral identifications and issues.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

I have been reading A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen.

Good luck with that. I found reading that book caused uncontrollable spasms of gagging and heaving. You'll find my discussion of the loathsome thing in the last chapter of my recent book on American history.

http://mises.org/books/historynot.pdf

JR

[Martin Radwin]

Well, screw the police too.

--Brant

I know really. I realize there maybe some bad apples who are police officers but (overall) the ones I come in contact with are decent, polite and hardworking people.

Have you ever read any of the exposes of police abuse by Radley Balko or Jacob Sullum at the Reason blog or by Charles Johnson at his web site, radgeek.com? They have been documenting horror stories related to the police for years now. The idea that there are just a few bad applies among the police is ridiculous; the police are infested with bad apples, and the entire culture of modern day police departments is one of a horrific fraternity designed to protect the fraternity brothers (and, occasionally, sisters) at all cost, such that police officers can literally get away with murder and face minimal sanctions. This has gotten much worse over the last several decades with the advent of SWAT teams and the increasing militarization of the police that has occurred since 9/11. It will only continue to get worse in the future as police departments recruit increasingly from ex soldiers or reservists who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, whose military experience has taught them a rather different set of rules of engagement than should be followed by peace officers.

There are undoubtedly some cops who are decent people in their personal lives. But there is simply no way to be a decent cop on the job, insofar as the job requires the arrest and incarceration of innocent people for the commission of victimless crimes. Arresting people who have violated noone's rights and locking them in cages is indecent to the core. There is no justification for this whatever, no matter how decent or polite some cops may be in their personal lives. Why some objectivists attempt to defend the police and to rationalize their behavior is beyond me.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Well, screw the police too.

--Brant

I know really. I realize there maybe some bad apples who are police officers but (overall) the ones I come in contact with are decent, polite and hardworking people.

Have you ever read any of the exposes of police abuse by Radley Balko or Jacob Sullum at the Reason blog or by Charles Johnson at his web site, radgeek.com? They have been documenting horror stories related to the police for years now. The idea that there are just a few bad applies among the police is ridiculous; the police are infested with bad apples, and the entire culture of modern day police departments is one of a horrific fraternity designed to protect the fraternity brothers (and, occasionally, sisters) at all cost, such that police officers can literally get away with murder and face minimal sanctions. This has gotten much worse over the last several decades with the advent of SWAT teams and the increasing militarization of the police that has occurred since 9/11. It will only continue to get worse in the future as police departments recruit increasingly from ex soldiers or reservists who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, whose military experience has taught them a rather different set of rules of engagement than should be followed by peace officers.

There are undoubtedly some cops who are decent people in their personal lives. But there is simply no way to be a decent cop on the job, insofar as the job requires the arrest and incarceration of innocent people for the commission of victimless crimes. Arresting people who have violated noone's rights and locking them in cages is indecent to the core. There is no justification for this whatever, no matter how decent or polite some cops may be in their personal lives. Why some objectivists attempt to defend the police and to rationalize their behavior is beyond me.

Martin

What I meant, of course, was if there is no justification for the military there is also none for the police under a government.

--Brant

[algernonsidney]

There is nothing special about this country. There is nothing here that is worth defending.

Chris,

That's a hell of a statement. After being absent for 32 years, I came back and I am glad I did. So I don't share your evaluation, not by a long shot, but I do share agreement with some of the reasons you cite for arriving at it.

There is one thing that definitely does need to change in the West. People in the West need to start having children again. The savages may be really stupid, but they do know how to produce kids.

Why do they need to start making more babies?

In light of your evaluation, "there is nothing here that is worth defending," why, in your view, does the population need to increase (presumably as a form of defense against being overtaken by "savages")? Is there somewhere else in the West that you think does need defending?

If people who see themselves as "Western" are concerned about "western civilization," then they do need to start having kids. I realize that Ayn Rand herself believed that children and family were irrelevant. The Brandens and the Blumenthals obviously felt the same way about children and family. And, of course, the Objectivist movement is becoming more and more of a bachelor movement. I don't know if this is by choice or by simple resignation.

I attended the IOS seminar back in 1996. Nathaniel Branden spoke there. It was the first time he had been at such an event since 1968. A reliable source told me that the first thing Branden said when he showed up was: "What happened to the women?"

A movement that regards children as irrelevant is doomed to oblivion. You can pretend that is not the truth, Michael. That is your choice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

You didn't answer my question. I will repeat it in different words to make it clearer. If there is nothing you, Chris Baker, thinks is worth defending in this country, then why does Chris Baker think something needs to be done to defend it (whatever it is) by making more babies?

This leads to another question, just to be fair. Is there something else here in the West that Chris Baker has not yet talked about that Chris Baker thinks is worth defending? If so, what is it?

That's the gist of my question. Since Chris Baker made such a negative evaluation, I am interested in what possible value Chris Baker finds left over. I was not asking anything about "them" or "they" or Rand or the Brandens or anyone else.

In fact, you did a typical maneuver I see with politicians all the time. Someone asks a politician, "What do you think about xxxxx?" Politician responds, "Some people (yada yada yada--talking all around xxxxx), and they (yada yada yada--talking all around xxxxx)." He never tells you what he himself thinks about xxxxx.

If that's not clear enough, I can try another approach.

(btw - I agree that ideas alone cannot compete with other cultures if raising children according to those ideas is not included.)

A movement that regards children as irrelevant is doomed to oblivion. You can pretend that is not the truth, Michael. That is your choice.

Are you talking to me? I don't recognize anything that I write or think here.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have been reading A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen.

Good luck with that. I found reading that book caused uncontrollable spasms of gagging and heaving. You'll find my discussion of the loathsome thing in the last chapter of my recent book on American history.

http://mises.org/books/historynot.pdf

JR

Jeff,

I didn't have time to read all 212 pages of your book, Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction To Revisionism, but I did read the part at the end dealing with Schweikart and Allen. Ironically, despite your "uncontrollable spasms of gagging and heaving," you actually sold me on finishing their book.

Seriously.

Here is a quote from you, p. 202:

The problem here is not, mind you, that Schweikart and Allen get their facts wrong. They don’t. Their facts are all in order, and they’re all correct. It’s their selection of the facts that is troublesome. To put the matter in a slightly different way, it’s not so much what they chose to include that is troublesome; it’s what they chose to leave out.

So you blast them on "sense of life" and promoting the view that it is good for the USA government to win wars.

I, personally, can live with reading solid facts without becoming ill because I disagree with the fact-presenter's selectivity or views. So long as I know the facts are correct, I am content. If there are not enough facts, or if the selectivity has been too slanted, I can get more facts elsewhere and build on solid knowledge, not opinions dressed up as facts (which is my true concern in my present undertaking of starting to read history).

As I try not to base my own evaluations on those of the authors I read, and Schweikart and Allen are very clear (so far in my reading) about what is their view as opposed to what is fact, I think reading this book is worth the time. Their style is dry, but light, so it's not a hard read, either.

I am so sick of the USA bashing that permeates our culture that it is refreshing to read a book presenting a view of America's exceptionalism, even if I know the book is overly-biased in that direction. I am probably more sensitive to this than most other people here because I lived 32 years in another country. So I have a much different perspective on the many wonderful things I see here that other folks take for granted.

Michael