Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rich,

Seeker?

Heh

Why do I think of a wolf in sheep's clothing?

It seeks, too...

Michael

[Xray]

X ray,

<respectfully snipped>

I do plan on listening to his [Peikoff's] podcast a number of times more and may very well transcribe it as there are a few areas I had a hard time making out because of his speech. I have not read this entire thread and others' view nor have I read views on this from others in O'ism. I have only listened to this Podcast of Peikoff's. I will more than likely be thinking more about this today and after listening to the podcast a few more times as to what he said and may post or may not post if there are any changes in my view. But as of right now and in this context, I do agree to a large extent with what he said.

Angie,

What do you think about Peikoff's "reasoning" in the video interview?

Brant Gaede: Never mind Xray; she's a believer in socialized medicine; oblivious to the doctor as a slave.

I'm an advocate of medical care for all, and therefore not opposed to public healthcare, and as for my family doctor (most of whose patients are in public healthcare) - his lifestyle suggests affluence, compared to that of the average earner here.

Martin Radwin: Xray loves to take isolated passages from Rand's writing and then draw absurd conclusions from these passages, without considering the wider context of Rand's writing. Thus, based on this passage, which admittedly involved an action by Roark not consistent with respect for property rights, she concludes that Rand did not consider property rights to be that important. Never mind all of the other things that Rand wrote contradicting this conclusion.

Hold your horses, Martin. Imagine Rand were alive today and had witnessed the horrific 9/11 attacks. Imo it is perfectly possible that she would agree with Peikoff about property rights being contextual.

I can imagine Rand would also have done some research on Rauf, and when googling "Rauf and the sharia law"

read sites like e. g. the following: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2518496/posts

What do you think of Rauf, Martin?

Has he ever been asked the question if, suppose he were in a position to do so, he would introduce the sharia law in the US?

Martin Radwin: Regarding your other criticisms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for parents considering their children to be members of their religion without the children's consent, this is just plain silly. Unless physical coercion or the threat of physical coercion is employed by the parents, the children are free to reject their membership in their parents' religion at will. They can unassign any time they wish. And I say this as someone who is an atheist.

No, a child can't unassign anytime, at least not where I live. Before the age of seven the child has no legal competence.

Between ages 7 and 12, the parents have to consent.

What many also don't know is that in the Christian faith, the act of baptism is considered as an indelible imprint on the soul, making the baptised individual forever a member of Christ's corpus mysticum. The soul is brandmarked for eternity, so to speak.

Cutting oneself off the corpus mysticum by abandoning the faith is compared to amputating a limb which then becomes worthless and will be thrown away. Where it will be thrown away is clear: hell is awaiting the apostate.

So much for religious tolerance toward apostates of that alleged "religion of peace" ...

As for abandoning Islam, leaving the Islamic faith and choosing another religion is regarded as sin carrying with it the penalty of death:

From Wikipedia:

"It is common belief among Muslims that everyone is Muslim at birth[14][15] [derived from a single source and brought into being by the single entity] but sometimes chooses to take steps to revert back to their origins. While conversion to Islam is among its most supported tenets, conversion from Islam to another religion, apostasy, is considered to be a sin, and carries with it the penalty of death.[16]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion

MR: You might as well argue that children's freedom is violated because they are taught many other things by their parents that they might subsequently reject later in life, such as the silly belief that government is a good institution deserving of their support.

I do consider any form of ideological indoctrination of child as a violation of freedom. And one could well argue that e. g. telling children about eternal hellfire awaiting 'sinners' is emotional child abuse.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray's doctor is fat and happy. A great argument for slavery! In the 19th C. South they were called "house niggers."

--Brant

yassa, massa!

Edited July 10, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

I do consider any form of ideological indoctrination of child as a violation of freedom. And one could well argue that e. g. telling children about eternal hellfire awaiting 'sinners' is emotional child abuse.

Yes, let's teach the child all about freedom! For instance, a doctor's freedom.

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

Martin Radwin: Xray loves to take isolated passages from Rand's writing and then draw absurd conclusions from these passages, without considering the wider context of Rand's writing. Thus, based on this passage, which admittedly involved an action by Roark not consistent with respect for property rights, she concludes that Rand did not consider property rights to be that important. Never mind all of the other things that Rand wrote contradicting this conclusion.

Hold your horses, Martin. Imagine Rand were alive today and had witnessed the horrific 9/11 attacks. Imo it is perfectly possible that she would agree with Peikoff about property rights being contextual.

I can imagine Rand would also have done some research on Rauf, and when googling "Rauf and the sharia law"

read sites like e. g. the following: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2518496/posts

I think it's rather a waste of time to speculate about what any person no longer alive would think or do if they were to suddenly come back to life, since this is nothing but inherently unverifiable speculation. In any case, it's not relevant, even if your speculation about Rand's beliefs in an alternate universe in which she was still alive were true. Philosophers ideas often evolve over time, such that their beliefs in their old age may be very different than they were when they were younger. As far as I know, Rand never argued that a person's property or other individual rights should be justifiably revoked based upon their political or religious beliefs. So if Rand were alive today and argued in favor of this position, she would be going against her own previous beliefs, as well as violating core objectivist/libertarian principles.

What do you think of Rauf, Martin?

Has he ever been asked the question if, suppose he were in a position to do so, he would introduce the sharia law in the US?

I haven't spent much time researching Rauf, other than clicking on a couple of links. So I'm not really in a position to render an informed opinion. As a general rule, being as I'm an atheist, I think that anyone who believes in any religion is deluded at least insofar as their religious beliefs. Do I think that Rauf would introduce sharia law in the US if able to do so? From what little I know of him, I doubt it very much. There are one and a half billion Muslims in the world. What percentage of them do you think are actually in favor of living under sharia law? If any event, even if Rauf believes in sharia law, so what? Do you really think he'd have a snowball's chance in hell of being able to successfully impose it in the US? I can just visualize the NYPD taking orders from high level Muslims advocating sharia law! Whatever threats the US is facing in terms of its future of freedom, this is not one of them.

Martin Radwin: Regarding your other criticisms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for parents considering their children to be members of their religion without the children's consent, this is just plain silly. Unless physical coercion or the threat of physical coercion is employed by the parents, the children are free to reject their membership in their parents' religion at will. They can unassign any time they wish. And I say this as someone who is an atheist.

No, a child can't unassign anytime, at least not where I live. Before the age of seven the child has no legal competence.

Between ages 7 and 12, the parents have to consent.

So if the child rejects his/her religious teaching and says that he/she does not believe in the religion he/she has been raised, and the parents don't consent, what does this mean? That the child is legally labeled as a Christian anyway, even after having explicitly rejected Christianity? Unless the state uses coercion against the child to violate the child's rights, the child is free to reject this label, and it becomes rather meaningless.

What many also don't know is that in the Christian faith, the act of baptism is considered as an indelible imprint on the soul, making the baptised individual forever a member of Christ's corpus mysticum. The soul is brandmarked for eternity, so to speak.

Cutting oneself off the corpus mysticum by abandoning the faith is compared to amputating a limb which then becomes worthless and will be thrown away. Where it will be thrown away is clear: hell is awaiting the apostate.

So much for religious tolerance toward apostates of that alleged "religion of peace" ...

I am not defending any of these beliefs. I consider them to be stupid and, especially in the case of the belief in hell, evil. Threatening children with hell for rejecting their religious beliefs certainly constitutes a horrible form of psychological abuse. Nathaniel Branden has written extensively about this subject, as has George H. Smith. My point is that, as bad as it is to teach such things to young children, it does not constitute coercion from a libertarian perspective and, therefore, does not justify intervention by the state. Once you take the position that the state may intervene to protect children from exposure to certain ideas, no matter how harmful, you have opened the door wide open to totalitarian control of child raising by the state.

As for abandoning Islam, leaving the Islamic faith and choosing another religion is regarded as sin carrying with it the penalty of death:

From Wikipedia:

"It is common belief among Muslims that everyone is Muslim at birth[14][15] [derived from a single source and brought into being by the single entity] but sometimes chooses to take steps to revert back to their origins. While conversion to Islam is among its most supported tenets, conversion from Islam to another religion, apostasy, is considered to be a sin, and carries with it the penalty of death.[16]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion

There is a huge difference between these two cases, and they should not be conflated. In a free society, parents must be free to teach their children according to their own beliefs, even if these beliefs might be considered abhorent by you or me, such as a belief in hell for apostasy. This does not constitute coercion that may be justifiably stopped by the state. Once the state is granted the power to enforce what ideas may or may not be taught to children, the sky's the limit. If, on the other hand, parents threaten to kill or otherwise physically harm their children who abandon their religion, such parents should be arrested for threatening to murder or otherwise physically harm their children. That is, and should be, a crime. Teaching beliefs, no matter how repellant and even psychologically abusive, should not be a crime.

MR: You might as well argue that children's freedom is violated because they are taught many other things by their parents that they might subsequently reject later in life, such as the silly belief that government is a good institution deserving of their support.

I do consider any form of ideological indoctrination of child as a violation of freedom. And one could well argue that e. g. telling children about eternal hellfire awaiting 'sinners' is emotional child abuse.

Telling children about eternal hellfire awaiting 'sinners' does indeed constitute emotional child abuse. No argument about that. But since you believe that any form of ideological indoctrination is a violation of a child's freedom, you must be virulently opposed to public schools, right? Public schools engage in constant ideological indoctrination, just not of the religious variety. Public schools indoctrinate children constantly in the religion of government. The history taught in public schools is incredibly distorted to convince children of how wonderful government is and how they owe government their allegiance. Children are also taught that they must unquestionably obey the school rules, how many how silly or arbitrary. And children are legally compelled to attend school, whether they wish to or not. This kind of seems like a violation of children's freedom, doesn't it?

Martin

[Xray]

Philosophers ideas often evolve over time, such that their beliefs in their old age may be very different than they were when they were younger. As far as I know, Rand never argued that a person's property or other individual rights should be justifiably revoked based upon their political or religious beliefs. So if Rand were alive today and argued in favor of this position, she would be going against her own previous beliefs, as well as violating core objectivist/libertarian principles.

This touches on a key issue: the evolvement and change of positions previously held. The whole history of mankind can also be seen as history of discarded beliefs.

Those who have problem with this are the dogmatists, the ideologocical keepers of the grail. The ideologists who can't bear even one iota of the doctrine/dogma to the modified, let alone discarded. From their perspective, this fear is perfectly justified. For they of course know that once a dogma is subject to change, it loses its power qua dogma. They can't hold up the claim of the dogma's objective value if they allow it to be changed or even abolished. For allowing a doctrine to be changed - and those changes can very quickly reach the point of the doctrine being abolished as a whole, just think of what happened in the USSR - is admitting that they were in error about the objective value of the doctrine.

This is the reason why L. Peikoff fights tooth and nail to have the pure doctrine preserved as a whole, an attitude perfectly in sync with Rand's wishes. Whether Rand would think he is doing a good or bad job is purely speculative.

Peikoff knows that once he allows people to live their personal version of Objectivism, by taking parts which suit them them and discarding others, in short practising 'patchwork philosophy', Objectivism as a package deal will naturally lose its power because it will be transformed into something else. In resisting these perfectly natural and creative transformations, the dogmatists have to pay a price they never wanted: without intending it, they in fact contribute to that which they wanted to avoid at all costs: the death of the dogma.

For not allowing fresh and inspiring elemennts into a philosophy (ideologists hardl ever allow this) is putting it on life support. This happened in the Soviet Union, and when the time of glasnost and perestroika had come, Gorbatchev finally pulled the plug on a 'patient' (the Communist ideology) long since brain-dead.

If Peikoff & Co keep isolating themselves in ther ideological Ivory ARI tower, ironically, they will contribute to Objectivism's demise more than the harshest critic ever could.

Once you take the position that the state may intervene to protect children from exposure to certain ideas, no matter how harmful, you have opened the door wide open to totalitarian control of child raising by the state.

And if you leave everything to the parents you open the door wide for total parental control. I believe in neither of these absolute positions, but in a complemantary model and reject any thinking in black and white here.

Teaching beliefs, no matter how repellant and even psychologically abusive, should not be a crime.

A key problem today's free societies are faced with: they grant the freedom to propagate their ideology also to those whose first move would be to abolish freedom if they were in position of power.

Telling children about eternal hellfire awaiting 'sinners' does indeed constitute emotional child abuse. No argument about that. But since you believe that any form of ideological indoctrination is a violation of a child's freedom, you must be virulently opposed to public schools, right? Public schools engage in constant ideological indoctrination, just not of the religious variety.

The Pledge of Allegiance is indeed a form of ideological indoctriation. But where I live, we don't have to make this kind of pledge.

Public schools indoctrinate children constantly in the religion of government. The history taught in public schools is incredibly distorted to convince children of how wonderful government is and how they owe government their allegiance.

I never got the impression in my history classes of any picture of a wonderful government being painted. What I took from history is how much greed and wanting power over others guide the actions of the human species.

Children are also taught that they must unquestionably obey the school rules, how many how silly or arbitrary. And children are legally compelled to attend school, whether they wish to or not. This kind of seems like a violation of children's freedom, doesn't it?

I spoke of ideological indoctrination violating the child's [intellectual and emotional] freedom, and not that rules we as group beings all have adhere to in one form or other are per se 'freedom-robbing'.

As for being legally compelled to attend school, if that law didn't exist, parents could simply decide not to educate ther children at all.

It would interest me how 'anarcho-capitalists' tackle this issue, but don't want to get off topic here.

So back to Peikoff's podcast:

From what he says in the podcast, it is quite clear that Peikoff thinks the Cordoba Center being built constitutes a 'threat'.

I believe he does indeed feel threatened, and it looks like he and Ed Cline do hold the position that the US is "at war with Islam".

"Yes, we are at war with Islam" (E. Cline) http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2010/07/insidious-ground-zero-mosque.html

Should many American share this belief, then the City of New York going to have a lot of problems with the islamic center in that location.

Here is an open letter to Imam Rauf without any hatred outbursts as in Peikoff's podcast:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/06/dear-imama-rauf-and-daily-khan.html

From the pleading tone, I get the impression that the NY City authorities can't do anything about it from the legal perspective, but maybe I'm wrong about this.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Xray

[Jonathan]

Imagine Rand were alive today and had witnessed the horrific 9/11 attacks. Imo it is perfectly possible that she would agree with Peikoff about property rights being contextual.

Imagine that Rand were alive today and had witnessed the Oklahoma City bombing. Would she have agreed that property rights are contextual and that the citizens and government of Oklahoma City have the right to prevent her novels from being sold in downtown Oklahoma City, as well as to prevent Ojectivist-owned bookstores or conference centers from opening, and Objectivist clubs and organizations from being established in the area?

After all, we are (or should be) "at war" with anti-government extremists like McVeigh (who read and had cited Atlas Shrugged in his writings), and, since Objectivism has many similarities to the beliefs that motivated McVeigh, it would be understandable and acceptable for the people of the city to be deeply insulted by the prospect of such views being promoted or displayed near ground zero, no?

Since The Fountainhead could be seen as justifying, promoting and making a hero of Howard Roark (a character who, like McVeigh, irrationally and unjustly bombs others' property), and since Objectivism's officially-sanctioned "heirs" and leaders have claimed that Roark's actions were "logical" and "morally legitimate" (for example see Tore Boeckmann's views in Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead), Objectivism could be seen as being as closely associated with McVeigh as the proposed Cordoba House is with the terrorists of 9/11.

Add to that the fact that in Atlas Shrugged Ragnar takes matters into his own hands and destroys government-held property, and Dagny psychologically torments a guard -- an innocent, low-level government employee -- with an Objectivist philosophy lesson before coldly shooting him like a dog, and that most Objectivists claim that these characters actions were also morally legitimate and praiseworthy.

So Objectivism and Objectivists appear to advocate blowing up buildings for ideological reasons, destroying government-held property and killing innocent people who are indirectly connected to those with whom Objectivists have a gripe, just as McVeigh was willing to destroy property and kill innocent people who were indirectly connected to those who he believed had acted unjustly. And therefore Objectivists don't have "property rights" when it comes to using property to promote their irrational and violent beliefs.

Do you think that Rand would have agreed with Peikoff's views if it had been pointed out to her that the principle that Peikoff is advocating could be very easily be used against her work and ideas?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan,

Ayn Rand would not have suffered your analyses and questions: she would have attacked you instead.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Brant,

The issue isn't how Rand would have dealt with my analyses and questions, but how she would have dealt with having Peikoff's principles applied to her work and the promotion of her ideas in reality. If real people in Oklahoma City were employing reasoning like Peikoff's on contextual property rights to advocate using government to prevent the construction of an Objectivist education center near ground zero, or the sale of Rand's violent novels in Oklahoma City book stores, do you think she'd be likely to agree with the guilt-by-association principle being employed?

J

[Greybird]

I rarely do this, quoting without substantial comment or extracting of relevant quotes, but ...

Imagine that Rand were alive today and had witnessed the Oklahoma City bombing. Would she have agreed that property rights are contextual and that the citizens and government of Oklahoma City have the right to prevent her novels from being sold in downtown Oklahoma City, as well as to prevent Ojectivist-owned bookstores or conference centers from opening, and Objectivist clubs and organizations from being established in the area?

After all, we are (or should be) "at war" with anti-government extremists like McVeigh (who read and had cited Atlas Shrugged in his writings), and, since Objectivism has many similarities to the beliefs that motivated McVeigh, it would be understandable and acceptable for the people of the city to be deeply insulted by the prospect of such views being promoted or displayed near ground zero, no?

Since The Fountainhead could be seen as justifying, promoting and making a hero of Howard Roark (a character who, like McVeigh, irrationally and unjustly bombs others' property), and since Objectivism's officially-sanctioned "heirs" and leaders have claimed that Roark's actions were "logical" and "morally legitimate" (for example see Tore Boeckmann's views in Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead), Objectivism could be seen as being as closely associated with McVeigh as the proposed Cordoba House is with the terrorists of 9/11.

Add to that the fact that in Atlas Shrugged Ragnar takes matters into his own hands and destroys government-held property, and Dagny psychologically torments a guard -- an innocent, low-level government employee -- with an Objectivist philosophy lesson before coldly shooting him like a dog, and that most Objectivists claim that these characters actions were also morally legitimate and praiseworthy.

So Objectivism and Objectivists appear to advocate blowing up buildings for ideological reasons, destroying government-held property and killing innocent people who are indirectly connected to those with whom Objectivists have a gripe, just as McVeigh was willing to destroy property and kill innocent people who were indirectly connected to those who he believed had acted unjustly. And therefore Objectivists don't have "property rights" when it comes to using property to promote their irrational and violent beliefs.

Do you think that Rand would have agreed with Peikoff's views if it had been pointed out to her that the principle that Peikoff is advocating could be very easily be used against her work and ideas?

... I wanted to highlight what is one of the best practical twists on the reductio ad absurdum I have ever seen. Certainly in Objectivist circles. Bravo!

And it worked precisely as it should. Until I realized it was a reductio, turning the absurd premise of "contextual rights" back on Rand's own work, where royalties thereon pay for Peikoff's sports car ... I was ready for a moment to string you up verbally. But that shows the device is working.

[Xray]

- double post deleted by me -

Edited July 11, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

Jonathan,

Ayn Rand would not have suffered your analyses and questions: she would have attacked you instead.

--Brant

Rand would have attacked Jonathan, no question.

I'm convinced that Rand would have sided with Peikoff's arguments in his podcast, and that both she and Peikoff would be outraged when reading Jonathan's astute post in which he applied the same argumentation regarding her own work.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

The issue isn't how Rand would have dealt with my analyses and questions, but how she would have dealt with having Peikoff's principles applied to her work and the promotion of her ideas in reality. If real people in Oklahoma City were employing reasoning like Peikoff's on contextual property rights to advocate using government to prevent the construction of an Objectivist education center near ground zero, or the sale of Rand's violent novels in Oklahoma City book stores, do you think she'd be likely to agree with the guilt-by-association principle being employed?

Jonathan,

Property rights seem to be primary to libertarianism. I think Rand would posit that the right to life is primary to Objectivism. Each orientation has its own context. This is why(?) Objectivists tend to be more war-mongering than libertarians. If it's a just war, the inevitable collateral damage is justified. The Objectivist theory of retaliatory force somehow expands to the proactive use of force: bomb the mosques! Objectivists overall are much more tribal than libertarians--and less individualistic. That's why there is in the ARI what was in the NBI: people at the top talking down and lots of irrationality devolving even into insanity foreign policy advocacies. So almost 40 years ago Ayn Rand hopes at the FHF that there might be a just war with the Soviet Union. How do you expect to find rational application of rational principles in that?

--Brant

[anthony]

Jonathan,

Ayn Rand would not have suffered your analyses and questions: she would have attacked you instead.

--Brant

Rand would have attacked Jonathan, no question.

I'm convinced that Rand would have sided with Peikoff's arguments in his podcast, and that both she and Peikoff would be outraged when reading Jonathan's astute post in which he applied the same argumentation regarding her own work.

Well, seeing we're all speculating here, I disagree on "what Ayn Rand would have done."

I think, guess, and believe, that she would not have sided with Dr Peikoff.

Xray, congrats, strike up one success - you finally have me convinced of Rand's moral lacks, and I'm turning in my O'ist membership card, and retiring to a Tibetan monastery.

That drip, drip, drip, wore me down, finally.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan,

Ayn Rand would not have suffered your analyses and questions: she would have attacked you instead.

--Brant

Rand would have attacked Jonathan, no question.

I'm convinced that Rand would have sided with Peikoff's arguments in his podcast, and that both she and Peikoff would be outraged when reading Jonathan's astute post in which he applied the same argumentation regarding her own work.

Well, seeing we're all speculating here, I disagree on "what Ayn Rand would have done."

I think, guess, and believe, that she would not have sided with Dr Peikoff.

Xray, congrats, strike up one success - you finally have me convinced of Rand's moral lacks, and I'm turning in my O'ist membership card, and retiring to a Tibetan monastery.

That drip, drip, drip, wore me down, finally.

Tony

After seeing Rand in action quite a few times, it's not much of a speculation.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Ayn Rand's public statements about foreign wars were inconsistent.

She always retained her opposition to US entry into World War II, which still shows up in comments from the 1970s. She believed that statism, including growing statism in America, led to war. She thought the US should never have gotten involved in Vietnam, but the prospect of unilateral withdrawal gave her fits. She gave no indication of itching for war with the Soviet Union in the 1950s or 1960s, but delivered several bloody-minded proclamations about it during the last decade of her life, which included a doctrine of collective war guilt for the citizens of aggressor nations.

I agree with Brant that as a matter of mentality and institutional structure, Rand's followers have been prone to tribalism.

I still can't envision Rand ever putting forth arguments like this:

http://dontletitgo.com/2010/06/30/mosque/

I think there are a couple issues here that prevent some Objectivists from wholeheartedly agreeing with Leonard Peikoff’s view. First, I think that one’s understanding of the nature of Islam will affect whether one believes that building a Mosque in the United States is an exercise of property rights. So long as one believes in the existence of a predominantly peaceful Islam, with only some fringe elements (call them what you want) being responsible for terrorist attacks on the U.S., then one is more likely to believe that property rights are the relevant principle at stake. Of the Objectivists who I have seen weigh in on this debate in the past couple of weeks, those on the “anti-mosque” side seem to be better versed in the nature of Islam and Jihad.

There’s another issue, however: even if you agree that in reality, there is no property right to build a Mosque in the U.S., much less near Ground Zero, you might still think that you want the government to follow proper procedures – i.e., respect the ideal of the rule of law – before stripping any legal rights away from the owners of the property at issue. You might be concerned that, should proper procedures/precedents not be followed or set, then you will be statism’s next victim. I have a few thoughts on this.

We are good people living under a bad government in a time of war. Objectivists have argued, properly, that if our government was bad, in the sense of being an aggressor in war, then we should be prepared to suffer the consequences when another country acts in self-defense. However, here our government is not the aggressor, it’s the appeaser. Do we similarly have to sit back – in the name of the rule of law – and let ourselves be wiped out as collateral damage? One argument that has been made is that, because we’ve allowed our government to go down this path, we have to be prepared to accept the consequences. But note that the argument is not that we have to accept the consequences in order to preserve the principle of property rights; instead the issue, as I see it, boils down to the preservation of the rule of law. So what can be said about that?

Robert Campbell

[Martin Radwin]

We are good people living under a bad government in a time of war.

When was the last time "we" were not at war? The US is now is a more or less permanent state of war, war without reason and without end. This is hugely profitable for the government and the military-industrial complex, not so much for the rest of us who have to pay for it all. Have Peikoff or her followers ever bothered to ask themselves why we are in a state of permanent war, and whether or not this is actually necessary for our defense or merely to expand the power of government and enrich the military-industrial complex?

Objectivists have argued, properly, that if our government was bad, in the sense of being an aggressor in war, then we should be prepared to suffer the consequences when another country acts in self-defense.

Really? I don't recall any objectivist associated with ARI or TAS ever arguing such a thing. The argument always used by objectivists is that people living in other countries ruled by tyrannical governments are fair game as collateral damage should their governments be considered by the US government to pose a threat to us. Thus, if Saddam Hussein was a threat to the security of the US, such that it became necessary to go to war against Iraq, then all of the Iraqis killed during the war were legimitate collateral damage and their death the sole responsibility of Saddam Hussein. I have never seen any objectivist argue that the same rule applies to us, even though, since ethical principles are universal in their application, the logical implication is that, if the US government has the right to kill innocent people in foreign countries whose governments are perceived as threats to the security of the US, then foreign governments should equally have the right to kill innocent Americans if they perceive that the US government is a threat to their security.

I have long thought that this is the ultimate reductio against this absurd notion that people living under a dictatorship are responsible for the actions of their government and therefore legitimate targets of mass murder in war. Suppose, hypothetically, that another terrorist attack such as 9/11 or perhaps even worse, were launched against the US. Suppose, further, than the US government used this attack as an excuse to declare martial law and turn the US into a totalitarian dictatorship. According to the usual objectivist argument, dictatorships have no rights and are therefore subject to legitimate attack, and all those living under the dictatorship killed by the attack are legitimate collateral damage, their death the sole responsibility of the dictator. Using this hypothetical, how many objectivists would argue that another government that perceived the US government as a threat to its security would be within its rights to nuke Washington D.C or New York or Chicago or Los Angeles, and that the resulting deaths would be the responsibility of the US government, not the government launching the attack?

However, here our government is not the aggressor, it’s the appeaser.

Of course she would say this. When was the last time anyone associated with ARI (or TAS) labeled anything that our government did as being the act of an aggressor? As far as I know, never. The US government has engaged in aggressive acts of imperialism for over a hundred years, going all the way back to the Spanish-American war and beyond. Has anyone at ARI ever admitted this, or suggested in any way that anything the US government has ever done in its entire history related to foreign policy was the act of an aggressor? Perhaps this is how she is able to say, with a straight face, that objectivists have argued that we should be prepared to suffer legitimate retalitation for the aggressive acts of our own government. Well of course we should, but since our government has never engaged in aggressive acts and never will, we have nothing to worry about!

Do we similarly have to sit back – in the name of the rule of law – and let ourselves be wiped out as collateral damage?

The subject of the discussion was whether or not a Muslim center should be built near ground zero. If such a center were to be built, how would this constitute letting ourselves be wiped out as collateral damage? Does Ms. Peikoff think Muslims are somehow going to stockpile weapons at the center and launch attacks against Americans, who will thereby be the collateral damage? This is paranoia bordering on insanity.

[Brant Gaede]

Rand claimed that the United States (1964) had the moral right but not the moral duty to invade any "slave pen" (Cuba, I believe, was the reference in the Playboy Interview). In those days the U.S. was the good guy against the communist bad guys. I came to Objectivism from the interventionist conservative side and when it came to anti-communism Rand was effectively one with Buckley's National Review crowd. She also stated that an economic blockade would do in Cuba without the need for an invasion. As it turns out the economic blockade only solidified Castro's grip on the island. The screwed up Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 did the same. The amateur President JFK almost caused WWIII with his foreign policy bs. WWIII would have been a general nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union and the almost utter destruction of both countries.

Now we have another amateur President, even worse, and you can bet something really bad is going to happen before he's done.

--Brant

bombs away! (got Spam?)

[anthony]

According to Pamela Geller's "Atlas Shrugs" website (sorry, no link) Imam Rauf is being connected by State Department and US Treasury, to the so-called peace group IHH - which funded the blockade-busting Free Gaza Movement - itself designated a "Sponsor of Terrorism."

This changes things; I had based my arguments on the presumption of innocence by the mosque planners - I mean how stupid is Rauf, knowing that he was going to be thoroughly investigated?

Seems unlikely that the mosque gets built.

Tony

[blackhorse]

Islam at its core is anti-life and I would say well nigh evil. If there is to be any freedom, liberty, and bright future for mankind then it will only happen WHEN islam is either wiped from the face of the earth or it denounces its murderous tenants.-I'm putting my money on the former.

Has anyone heard this news story yet? http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ecline/2010/07/13/appeasement-doesnt-work-fatwa-issued-against-draw-mohammed-day-cartoonist/

The USA needs to drop MOPS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator on the major threat muslim cities and send in our Marine Corps snipers to dispose of any muslim who issues a fatwa or death threat against any American. This tyrannical cult will not be tolerated.

[Brant Gaede]

Islam at its core is anti-life and I would say well nigh evil. If there is to be any freedom, liberty, and bright future for mankind then it will only happen WHEN islam is either wiped from the face of the earth or it denounces its murderous tenants.-I'm putting my money on the former.

Has anyone heard this news story yet? http://bighollywood....day-cartoonist/

The USA needs to drop MOPS http://en.wikipedia....ance_Penetrator on the major threat muslim cities and send in our Marine Corps snipers to dispose of any muslim who issues a fatwa or death threat against any American. This tyrannical cult will not be tolerated.

Ah, another military expert.

--Brant

for me, it hurts--sorta like a surgeon being instructed by a child (argument from authority!)

edit: yre puttin' us on, wright?

Edited July 15, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I'm amused that Objectivists fight over tertiary (at best) policy decisions over which they have no say :-).

Jim

[Greybird]

[...] When was the last time anyone associated with ARI (or TAS) labeled anything that our government did as being the act of an aggressor? As far as I know, never.

Not in foreign policy, since Rand and the Brandens first began animadverting on such matters in 1961. Not beyond occasionally decrying international application of "altruism" or foolish over-generosity at taxpayer expense.

I have watched carefully for any such admissions from Rand, or from either of these putative institutional "authorities." I have seen none. In regard to the US or, for that matter, Israeli governments. And with Robert's and others' exhumation of Rand's later spoken viewpoints (actual, not ARI-bowdlerized), the lack of reasoning has only kept worsening over the decades.

[...] The US government has engaged in aggressive acts of imperialism for over a hundred years, going all the way back to the Spanish-American war and beyond. Has anyone at ARI ever admitted this, or suggested in any way that anything the US government has ever done in its entire history related to foreign policy was the act of an aggressor?

That would require engaging in real work about the philosophy of history. Not the farrago of non-objective, non-scholarly, propagandistic efforts found in The Ominous Parallels, from its title downward to its over-masticated, under-documented pages. Rand's endorsement of that book as being part of "Objectivism" gave her explicit sanction to such shoddy efforts, later perpetrated in nearly the identical empty manner by Peter Schwartz, Robert Tracinski, and ... others. (Some of whom are, erhm, problematic as to whether I can mention them here.)

Perhaps this is how [Amy Peikoff] is able to say, with a straight face, that objectivists have argued that we should be prepared to suffer legitimate retalitation for the aggressive acts of our own government. Well of course we should, but since our government has never engaged in aggressive acts and never will, we have nothing to worry about!

All true as to her implicit position — but even "never has" and "never will" don't come anywhere near to exhausting Rand's (and Dr. and Ms. Peikoff's) attempts at abusing history. The view of Rand was that such actions were essentially impossible — in any sense requiring moral condemnation — for the government created under the Constitution of 1787 to ever permanently engage in, period.

I've made a lengthy attempt to limn the initial case for this, though, in an article posted here, "Immaculate Conceptions," so I'll refer the interested reader to that thread.

[Greybird]

I'm amused that Objectivists fight over tertiary (at best) policy decisions over which they have no say. :-)

That's half the point of reifying things into a "movement," amigo. To make sure the pronouncements get made, whether or not they have any bearing on reality. And to read people in and out of the relevant segment of humanity.

"What's important isn't so much what you want to ban. It's the fact that you take part in the banning process. That's what democracy is all about." ~ Dave Barry

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Islam at its core is anti-life and I would say well nigh evil. If there is to be any freedom, liberty, and bright future for mankind then it will only happen WHEN islam is either wiped from the face of the earth or it denounces its murderous tenants.-I'm putting my money on the former.

blackhorse,

Genocide is the answer?

As to myself, I prefer real intellectual efforts. I don't consider preaching genocide an intellectual effort. In fact, I hold that genocide is evil.

Michael