Note: This comment system was replaced with Disqus in May 2010.
Comment #1
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 13:15:03 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
I've spent some time on liberal blogs. In large part they think that America's sacrifice in Iraq was for nothing, other than the delusions of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Which I agree with.
Comment #2
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 14:09:02 mdt
Name: Trey Givens
URL: http://www.treygivens.com
If you're interested, LGF has the video of Ahmadinejad's speech: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22207 It's from August 13th and the large part of it is referring to the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflict. My quick Google search I did, did not turn up an English transcript in order to view the whole of his remarks in context.
Comment #3
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 14:15:02 mdt
Name: Trey Givens
URL: http://www.treygivens.com
I just realized that even that video is edited down. Not that I don't think he's completely nuts, but I'd like to see the "bow and surrender" remarks in their full context.
This is the same speech in which he calls for the US and the UK to be put on trial and removed from the UN security council.
Comment #4
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 15:48:00 mdt
Name: Justin Raimondo
URL: http://www.antiwar.com
If our invasion and occupation of Iraq is "America's self-sacrifice," then why wouldn't a war with Iran also be characterized in the same way? Unless, of course, you're pro-self-sacrifice ...
Comment #5
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 20:13:23 mdt
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
Rumors are flying that minesweepers and submarines are being told to get ready to deploy. It should be noted that Iran has threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which most Middle Eastern oil is shipped, if we do anything to them. The minesweepers would be useful in such a circumstance. (And if it happens get ready for $10 a gallon gas, at least for a little while--even if our politicians pull their heads out of their rectums and let our capitalists work on it, it will take time for us to replace that production capacity.)
One can only hope.
Comment #6
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 20:34:34 mdt
Name: Oakes
URL: http://oakes.thinkertothinker.com
"If our invasion and occupation of Iraq is 'America's self-sacrifice,' then why wouldn't a war with Iran also be characterized in the same way?"
I don't speak for Diana, but I think the self-sacrifice was in the appeasing, Wilsonian way it was fought, not the decision to go to war with them. Whether war with Iran would be self-sacrificial would be determined the same way.
By the way, are you really Raimondo? My friend and I go to Penn State and he's read everything you've penned. Nice!
Comment #7
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 20:49:33 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Nice?!? Like "The Objectivist Death Cult"?
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html>
Comment #8
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 23:07:22 mdt
Name: Brian Smith
That was disgusting.
Comment #9
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 23:45:00 mdt
Name: Paul (not Hsieh)
Raimondo also links 9/11 to an Israeli conspiracy. Great guy.
http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Enigma-11-Israeli-Connection/dp/0595296823/sr=8-1/qid=1158723207/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6100242-5876606?ie=UTF8
Comment #10
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 2:21:18 mdt
Name: Rachel Garrett
Which Iranian people are we supposed to bow and surrender to?
I think we should capitulate to the thousands of Iranian students who signed a petition asking Western governments to quit negotiating with the government in Teheran.
Comment #11
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 2:25:28 mdt
Name: Anon$
I often wonder about the subconcious purpose of that kind of elitist-intellectual-panty-wringing. Is it simply for the writer to justify their own choice to give up hope on life, by coating their work with cynicism and rationalizations for which they already know the real answers to? Or is it an actual belief that what they are spewing is the truth...Anyway, that's moving it off-topic.
Concerning Ahmadinejad's words, there would be a few reasons why many people fail to identify a verbal threat as as an *actual* threat (that is the root of this topic isn't it? )--- especially with a long track record of making verbal threats, while attempting to amass nukes.
To me, we're in children's territory in terms of the difficulty of this moral question. 1 + 1 = 2, anybody? Maybe if we turned the senate into a game show like "Family Feud" and put senators on the spot we'd save a whole lot of time. Oh, and whatchamacalit...lives.
"We asked 100 'children', "What would you expect your government to do, if a country amassing nuclear arms swore your themselves to your ultimate destruction?" Top five answers are on the board!"
Comment #12
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 2:56:21 mdt
Name: J Sanchez
"I've spent some time on liberal blogs. In large part they think that America's sacrifice in Iraq was for nothing, other than the delusions of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld."
You can't drop context here. Liberals don't oppose the Iraq war for rational, egoistic reasons. They think Iraq (as well as Iran) were not hostile enemy nations. They consider the *US* to be a hostile enemy nation! Liberals don't see the evil of Islamic totaliarianism. They hate Bush, Chenyey, etc as a surrogate for hating America; which is actually a reflection of their all consuming altruism and hatred of anything which so much as even hints at egoism. Today's Left is pure filth. All you have to do to see that is spend some time slumming at Daily Kos.
Comment #13
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 4:14:06 mdt
Name: Kurt Colville
Raimondo, you're a pig.
Comment #14
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 7:59:31 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
I said: "I've spent some time on liberal blogs. In large part they think that America's sacrifice in Iraq was for nothing, other than the delusions of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld."
J. Sanchez replied:
"Liberals...,think Iraq (as well as Iran) were not hostile enemy nations."
The liberals and myself observe that Iraq, for example, was not a hostile enemy nation...at least certainly not one where we had to wage aggressive war on it.
"They consider the *US* to be a hostile enemy nation!"
This is not the case. They blame Bush, not America. They see America as pretty much taken hostage by Bush.
"Liberals don't see the evil of Islamic totaliarianism."
Yes they do. They just don't feel we have any business, nor the resourses, to clean up the whole world.
"They hate Bush, Cheney, etc as a surrogate for hating America;"
No. They hate them for what they are.
"Today's Left is pure filth. All you have to do to see that is spend some time slumming at Daily Kos."
I actually do spend quite a bit of time there. There are a lot of very articulate and rational people there. Yes, you see advocates of the welfare state and socialistic themes, but I agree with them on Iraq and Bush, as well as other issues, so in general I make common cause with them. I get into plenty of dust-ups with them on other issues, but I focus on Bush and the war. I'm actually enjoying it very much.
Further, when you disagree on DailyKos you don't get banned. I went on FreeRepublic, for example (probably the most popular conservative forum) and got banned twice (using different e-mails) very quickly, just for disagreeing with them on the war.
Finally, every chance I get, I defend everything on Objectivist principles, so it's a good way of spreading the philosophy. Hey, it gets half a million hits a day and has 105,000 members. A good place to go to spread the word.
Comment #15
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 11:24:19 mdt
Name: Oakes
URL: http://oakes.thinkertothinker.com
I actually don't know much about Raimondo, it's just that my friend quotes him a lot. I figured he was just a semi-reasonable libertarian or something.
Comment #16
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 13:30:13 mdt
Name: D Eastbrook
"The liberals and myself observe that Iraq, for example, was not a hostile enemy nation...at least certainly not one where we had to wage aggressive war on it."
Iraq was a hostile enemy nation. Just not the most dangerous one. Iran was and is. But that doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't a legitimate target. It was. But we shouldn't have attempted to rebuild it. Or if we did, we should have been totally uncompromising in reforming it. We have acted like wimps. Liberals don't see this. Scratch them deep enough and they will oppose any self defensive measure. They have pulled the wool over your eyes.
"This is not the case. They blame Bush, not America. They see America as pretty much taken hostage by Bush."
Taken hostage? Please, thats such leftist speak. The left doesn't hate Bush for legitimate reasons. They certainly don't hate him for pushing religion. If they did then they would hate the Islamists with a passion. After all, who pushes religion more than them. They have pulled the wool over your eyes.
"No. They hate them for what they are."
No. They hate them b/c they see them as symbolic for capitalism and America. They hate them b/c they associate them with individualism and egoism. Now of course the Conservatives don't represent egoism. But, the Left thinks they do b/c they are so committed to altruism that any difiance of it - no matter how slight - is an unforgivable moral transgression. They have pulled the wool over you eyes.
"There are a lot of very articulate and rational people there."
You can say that with a straight face. The Daily Kos is perhaps one of the scariest cultural developments of the Leftist world. It shows that the Left is moving far down the road to totalitarianism. In that regard, it is far further down the path to tyrany than the Right. The Kos kids are not too far removed from armed revolt. I have no doubt that in time it will be their Leftist ilk that will take to some version of Leftist terrorism. They could end up just like the Bolsheviks.
"Finally, every chance I get, I defend everything on Objectivist principles, so it's a good way of spreading the philosophy. Hey, it gets half a million hits a day and has 105,000 members. A good place to go to spread the word."
Its a waste of time. There are far more fertile grounds than the wastelands of Daily KOS where the minds of its posters have been destroyed by post-modernism.
I would never have thought that on an Objectivist site like Noodlefood, someone would be defending the Kos kids. You say that you defend Objectivist principle. I would think having read your posts, that you dont understand them. There is nothing objectively good about Daily Kos.
They have pulled the wool over your eyes.
Comment #17
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 14:55:36 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
D. Eastbrook: "Iraq was a hostile enemy nation. Just not the most dangerous one."
Me: Yes, they hate us. No doubt far more now than four years ago. And therefore what?
D. Eastbrook: (paraphrase) Liberals have pulled the wool over your eyes, as they are anti-self-defense.
Me: Maybe some are. But that's not the issue here. The issue is, did we wage unnecessary aggressive war against Iraq? Yes, we did.
D. Eastbrook: "Taken hostage? Please, thats such leftist speak."
No it isn't. Rush Limbaugh used the "America taken hostage, day___" phrase practally every day during much of the Clinton years.
D. Eastbrook: "They hate them b/c they see them as symbolic for capitalism and America. They hate them b/c they associate them with individualism and egoism. Now of course the Conservatives don't represent egoism. But, the Left thinks they do b/c they are so committed to altruism that any difiance of it - no matter how slight - is an unforgivable moral transgression."
Me: I really don't care what else they hate him for. They hate him for starting and maintaining an aggressive war based on lies and that's my main common interest with them.
D. Eastbrook: "The Daily Kos is perhaps one of the scariest cultural developments of the Leftist world. It shows that the Left is moving far down the road to totalitarianism. In that regard, it is far further down the path to tyrany than the Right. The Kos kids are not too far removed from armed revolt. I have no doubt that in time it will be their Leftist ilk that will take to some version of Leftist terrorism. They could end up just like the Bolsheviks."
Me: Not at all. You should spend more time there. The right, especially with their religious fervor, is potentially more dangerous than the left anyway.
D. Eastbrook: "Iraq was a hostile enemy nation. Just not the most dangerous one."
Me: Yes, they hate us. No doubt far more now than four years ago. And therefore what?
D. Eastbrook: (paraphrase) Liberals have pulled the wool over your eyes, as they are anti-self-defense.
Me: Maybe some are. But that's not the issue here. The issue is, did we wage unnecessary aggressive war against Iraq? Yes, we did.
D. Eastbrook: "Taken hostage? Please, thats such leftist speak."
No it isn't. Rush Limbaugh used the "America taken hostage, day___" phrase practally every day during much of the Clinton years.
D. Eastbrook: "They hate them b/c they see them as symbolic for capitalism and America. They hate them b/c they associate them with individualism and egoism. Now of course the Conservatives don't represent egoism. But, the Left thinks they do b/c they are so committed to altruism that any difiance of it - no matter how slight - is an unforgivable moral transgression."
Me: I really don't care what else they hate him for. They hate him for starting and maintaining an aggressive war based on lies and that's my main common interest with them.
D. Eastbrook: "The Daily Kos is perhaps one of the scariest cultural developments of the Leftist world. It shows that the Left is moving far down the road to totalitarianism. In that regard, it is far further down the path to tyrany than the Right. The Kos kids are not too far removed from armed revolt. I have no doubt that in time it will be their Leftist ilk that will take to some version of Leftist terrorism. They could end up just like the Bolsheviks."
Me: Not at all. You should spend more time there. The right, especially with their religious fervor, is potentially more dangerous than the left anyway.
"Finally, every chance I get, I defend everything on Objectivist principles, so it's a good way of spreading the philosophy. Hey, it gets half a million hits a day and has 105,000 members. A good place to go to spread the word."
D Eastbrook: "There are far more fertile grounds than the wastelands of Daily KOS where the minds of its posters have been destroyed by post-modernism."
There is very little support for post-moodernism there. For the most part the left is really realizing that it's just bullshit.
D. Eastbrook: "Iraq was a hostile enemy nation. Just not the most dangerous one."
Me: Yes, they hate us. No doubt far more now than four years ago. And therefore what?
D. Eastbrook: (paraphrase) Liberals have pulled the wool over your eyes, as they are anti-self-defense.
Me: Maybe some are. But that's not the issue here. The issue is, did we wage unnecessary aggressive war against Iraq? Yes, we did.
D. Eastbrook: "Taken hostage? Please, that's such leftist speak."
No it isn't. Rush Limbaugh used the "America taken hostage, day___" phrase practically every day during much of the Clinton years. In fact, I think he coined it in this context. Anyway, the "taken hostage" phrase is from me; I don't recall a single leftist putting it this way, although it wouldn't matter if they did.
D. Eastbrook: "They hate them b/c they see them as symbolic for capitalism and America. They hate them b/c they associate them with individualism and egoism. Now of course the Conservatives don't represent egoism. But, the Left thinks they do b/c they are so committed to altruism that any difiance of it - no matter how slight - is an unforgivable moral transgression."
Me: I really don't care what else they hate him for. They hate him for starting and maintaining an aggressive war based on lies and that's my main common interest with them.
D. Eastbrook: "The Daily Kos is perhaps one of the scariest cultural developments of the Leftist world. It shows that the Left is moving far down the road to totalitarianism. In that regard, it is far further down the path to tyrany than the Right. The Kos kids are not too far removed from armed revolt. I have no doubt that in time it will be their Leftist ilk that will take to some version of Leftist terrorism. They could end up just like the Bolsheviks."
Me: Not at all. You should spend more time there. The right, especially the neo-cons with their religious fervor, is potentially more dangerous than the left anyway.
D. Eastbrook: "There are far more fertile grounds than the wastelands of Daily KOS where the minds of its posters have been destroyed by post-modernism."
Me: Seriously, post-modernism is now seen as irrelevant bullshit for the most part on the left. It's something they put up with in college, then drop. More fertile grounds? Well, probably none that gives me the exposure Daily Kos does.
Comment #18
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 16:53:26 mdt
Name: Oakes
URL: http://oakes.thinkertothinker.com
Dave, I'm having problems reading your comment...it seems like you somehow quadruple-posted it or something.
Anyway, I don't know you, but are you an Objectivist? It's hard analyzing your comments without knowing. Drumming out typical liber(al/itarian) sentiments is one thing, but doing it while purporting to be an Objectivist is quite another.
I don't even think Hudgins' group has stooped low enough to fuss over our enemies hating us "far more now than four years ago," calling Iraq an "aggressive war," and saying it was "based on lies." If you were sent over undercover from Kos, I am both disappointed in your fake Objectivist performance and flattered that they would care to spy on us :-)
Comment #19
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 17:02:26 mdt
Name: D. Eastbrook
Dave,
Oakes hit the nail on the head with this:
"If you were sent over undercover from Kos, I am both disappointed in your fake Objectivist performance and flattered that they would care to spy on us :-)"
All your arguments are poorly reasoned Leftist garbage. Oakes is right. Not even Ed "Appeasement" Hudgins would write such trash (and he is the king of trash). But the fact that you would try to preach that stuff on an Objectivist website is a kind of "backhanded" compliment (to borrow and distort a common phrase).
By the way, I did a search over at Kos under "Ayn Rand" and nothing came up. I actually wish that the Kos Kiddies would spend more time denouncing Ayn Rand (because if they denounce Bush and Cheyney, they have to denounce Rand; she makes them look like Mother Terresa - to quote an Al Qaeda "intelectual"). That would be further evidence of Rand's growing influence.
Comment #20
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 18:26:14 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Oakes:
Sorry about the post problems...I'll take a look at it.
Yes, I am an Objectivist.
No, I can assure you I'm not undercover. Heh.
Comment #21
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 18:33:55 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
D. Eastbrook said:
"All your arguments are poorly reasoned Leftist garbage. Oakes is right. Not even Ed "Appeasement" Hudgins would write such trash (and he is the king of trash). But the fact that you would try to preach that stuff on an Objectivist website is a kind of "backhanded" compliment (to borrow and distort a common phrase)."
Let me know when you have an argument.
"By the way, I did a search over at Kos under "Ayn Rand" and nothing came up."
Strange. Tell me how you did your search.
Comment #22
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 18:49:59 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Sorry for the mess of my third post below. I not only tripled it, but some of my answers are revised. Let me know if I should repost anything from it. I was probably trying to do another thing or two at the same time.
Comment #23
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 19:42:45 mdt
Name: cuddlywill
If you type the following into a google search box, you'll see references to Ayn Rand on The Daily Kos:
Ayn Rand site:www.dailykos.com
Comment #24
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 19:47:23 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Another thing. Let's say I was in fact a liberal "spy" from Daily Kos. So what?
Comment #25
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 19:56:01 mdt
Name: Oakes
URL: http://oakes.thinkertothinker.com
Dave, I was joking. I've conversed with enough "Blame America" libertarians to know that reasonable discussion with them is impossible, except for entertainment purposes.
Comment #26
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 20:00:16 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Oakes...that's cool. Anyway, let me know when you find a "Blame America libertarian." I don't like them either.
Comment #27
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 20:46:46 mdt
Name: Kurt Colville
Dave Harrison, the first Google hit for Ayn Rand on DailyKos comes up with this article title: Ayn Rand was a socialist, posing as a capitalist and trying to subvert American minds
Case closed.
Comment #28
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 20:48:00 mdt
Name: Oakes
URL: http://oakes.thinkertothinker.com
I would but they tend not to admit being part of that group. Makes it hard to spot them.
Comment #29
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 21:21:42 mdt
Name: D. Eastbrook
"Let me know when you have an argument."
I've already offered you essentialized arguements. You're not open to argumentation. And you're not an Ojbectivist although you may aspire to be. But judging from what you've written, you're a long ways off.
Kurt Colville is right. The case is closed on Kos. It is one of the most anit-intellectual places on the net.
Comment #30
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 21:23:57 mdt
Name: D. Eastbrook
Oh, and if I'm going to waste time reading the comments section of any of the major blogs, it would be Little Green Footballs. True, there's a ton of religion, but there are also some of the best and funniest one-liners I've encountered. Especially when the bust on Kos Kids.
Comment #31
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 21:44:07 mdt
Name: J Sanchez
From Daily Kos:
"Ayn Rand has such a unique brand of politics she really should be separated out and given her own ideology. Many of her followers hold true to the name "Objectivism" and reject the title libertarianism. I support using such a system because I find that on foreign policy, Ayn Rand and objectivists tend to be supportive of imperialism and hold the same world view as neo-conservatives. Their view of the economy, which focues entirely on government as an oppressor of the CEO and not as oppressor of the the worker, is warped IMHO."
"I do not think that Ayn Rand would like what these guys [ARI - ed] are doing to her legacy.
The neo-cons running it from Marina del Rey are shameless, as all neo-cons are."
"As for Ayn Rand, her writing is crappy and the philosphy is sophomoric..."
"Barbara Brandon describes Rand cooking a dinner in her apartment for her and Nathaniel in her book on Rand and her own memoir. It is a frightening example of a control freak in the kitchen that Barbara B does not even get. But she describes it so accurately that we can get it... Personally flawed people cannot make a new philosophy based on freedom unless they clear out their own hypocrisy." [Note who they are using for a refference - none other than Barbara Branden. Why am I not suprised. -ed]
"Read this article called What's wrong with libertarianism over at Zompist.com -- if for nothing else, it's a good resource for when you get stuck in internet combat with the Ayn Rand loons."
What else needs to be said.
Comment #32
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 23:20:19 mdt
Name: jgb
The quote from the Iranian president reminds me rather strongly of a few lines spoken by Voldemort at the end of Harry Potter, book 4, at the beginning of his duel with Harry Potter:
We bow to each other, Harry. Come, the niceties must be observed.
Bow to death...
You won't? ... obedience is a virtue I need to teach you before you die.
Perhaps another little dose of pain?
Bow to death... it might even be painless... I wouldn't know, i've never died.
It is interesting (in a sad sort of way) to compare Bush with the characters in the Harry Potter books. The contrast between Bush vs. Dumbledore and Harry is night and day. Never in Dumbledore or Harry does one find denial of the threat posed by the death eaters, nor any sign of appeasement.
At his best, Bush is like Cornelius Fudge: issuing pamphlets on elementary home and personal defense, arresting the wrong people, and trying to look like he is winning the war on terror. On his best days, Bush might resemble Rufus Scrimgeour, with vigorous talk of fighting our enemies, but with no real action.
On an ordinary day, we find Bush 'seeking diplomatic solutions', urging 'cooperation' with our own world's death eaters. Where in J.K. Rolling's world does one find a person who advocates cooperation with the death eaters?
Perhaps in Peter Pettigrew? I am not trying to say that Bush is as bad as Pettigrew; after all Pettigrew is an actual servent of Voldemort. (On the other hand, the anti-war American left *is* that bad.) But that is how low one has to look in the the world of Harry Potter to find someone who could advocate the creation of a Palestinian state, only days after September 11. Or to find Isreal in the equivalent of the war that is waging in the opening chapters of the 'Half-Blood Prince', and to force Israel to accept a cease-fire with the death-eaters. Dumbledore would have helped them fight and crush Hezbollah.
Comment #33
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 5:27:14 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Kutt Colville said:
"Dave Harrison, the first Google hit for Ayn Rand on DailyKos comes up with this article title: Ayn Rand was a socialist, posing as a capitalist and trying to subvert American minds
Case closed."
Wow, we have a genuine Perry Mason here! Great work, Kurt! You win!
Comment #34
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 5:29:14 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Oakes said:
"I would but they tend not to admit being part of that group. Makes it hard to spot them."
You seem pretty sharp, though. I bet you can do it!
Comment #35
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 5:36:54 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
D, Eastbrook said:
"I've already offered you essentialized arguments."
Where?
"You're not open to argumentation."
Oh, man you've got me pegged. I think I might declare you the winner too. Got a tie so far. Maybe we'll have a playoff.
"And you're not an Objectivist although you may aspire to be. But judging from what you've written, you're a long ways off."
I hear ya...if the US does it, by that fact it has to be correct and rational. That's Objectivist then, I guess.
Comment #36
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 5:39:54 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
J. Sanchez:
Of course there's a lot of screwy ideas on Rand over there. And it's lots of fun straightening those guys out when I have the chance.
Comment #37
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 8:17:51 mdt
Name: michael
After reading Justin Raimondo's "Death Cult" speech, I was honestly puzzled by the idea that making fun of someone's voice or accent could somehow be considered rational argument for or against war on Iran.
But I was most thunderstruck by the statement, "although why freedom, in the abstract, and not just one’s own freedom, cannot be a value in and of itself is not at all clear to me."
A very succinct of the essential idea behind modern Libertarianism.
I can answer that in one sentence. As soon as "freedom" becomes an axiomatic value, separate from more fundamental values such as my own life, my freedom to live becomes morally indistinguishable from someone else's freedom to make me die.
Comment #38
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 9:47:31 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
"As soon as "freedom" becomes an axiomatic value, separate from more fundamental values such as my own life, my freedom to live becomes morally indistinguishable from someone else's freedom to make me die."
Very good point.
Libertarians can't squirm out of it by appealing to NIOF because philosophy is required to define what constitutes "initiation of force".
Comment #39
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 16:28:13 mdt
Name: D Eastbrook
"I hear ya...if the US does it, by that fact it has to be correct and rational. That's Objectivist then, I guess."
You don't understand Objectivism and how to apply it to the realm of warfare. That much is apparent. So knock yourself out over at Kos. I'm sure you will make alot of Objectivist converts and live happily ever after.
Comment #40
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 16:30:30 mdt
Name: L.S.
It's amazing that the confused kiddies calling ARI "neo-cons" aren't aware of all the ARI-affiliated detailed writing and speaking against the neo-cons specifically. It's been all over the ARI Web site for years now.
Criticizing from ignorance is pretty ugly, but par for the course when it comes to criticism of Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and ARI.
Comment #41
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 18:14:56 mdt
Name: J Sanchez
"Of course there's a lot of screwy ideas on Rand over there. And it's lots of fun straightening those guys out when I have the chance."
Judging from your posts here, you seem to hold some of the same "screwy" ideas. I would get your own house in order before attempting to "straighten out" anyone else.
Comment #42
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 20:38:26 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
To D.Eastbrook:
Here's some homework for you, for starters. Get back to me when you understand it and we'll talk.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp
Comment #43
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 20:43:22 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
J. Sanchez:
Lol!
If you want to talk about the war, read the article I suggested for Eastbrook. You should get up to snuff before you get completely lost in this.
If you want to discuss Objectivism, Atlas Shrugged is a good place to start. Pay particular attention to Galt's speech.
Comment #44
Friday, September 22, 2006 at 0:07:29 mdt
Name: J Sanchez
Dave Harrison,
How old are you?
Comment #45
Friday, September 22, 2006 at 5:07:26 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
J. Sanchez:
I'm 55.
Anyway, stop pestering me, ok?
Comment #46
Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 1:40:00 mdt
Name: J Sanchez
"Anyway, stop pestering me, ok?"
I wouldn't care if you were hit by a bus my friend.
Comment #47
Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 14:28:37 mdt
Name: Justin Raimondo
URL: http://www.antiwar.com
To Oakes: Yes, I am Justin Raimondo, and tell your friend at Penn State I really appreciate his interest.
To Diana Hsieh: I think you misunderstand Oakes use of the word "nice" in this context. In any case, I see you haven't deigned to answer my question, which I'll put another way: How is it in America's self-interest to go to war with Iran? The invasion and occupation of Iraq was -- and is -- clearly a case of self-sacrifice. War with Iran will be no different.
To Michael: I'm not sure I understand your point.
Comment #48
Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 20:31:00 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Justin, I don't have the time required to adequately respond to your question. Even if I did, I'd be more than a bit unenthused about engaging in any such debate with you.
Comment #49
Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 22:10:48 mdt
Name: Justin Raimondo
URL: http://www.antiwar.com
No time to justify your opinions: only time enough to assert them. On such a grave topic as whether to go to war with Iran, such an attitude seems unserious, at best. The issue isn't whether you want to debate with me, specifically, but whether you can defend your pro-war stance at all, on rational (and, presumably, Objectivist) grounds. I'll leave it to your readers own judgement as to whether such a defense is possible. The reality is that the foreign policy positions upheld by the alleged "Objectivists" at ARI (and TOS, for that matter) are in direct contradiction to the principles of Objectivism as upheld by Ayn Rand -- especially the attack on "just war" theory launched by ARI, which is a moral obscenity.
Comment #50
Sunday, September 24, 2006 at 5:32:08 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
Justin Raimondo and his buddies at "Anti-War.com": The Great Defenders of Ayn Rand.
The real moral obscenity is the sight of anarchists and libertarians - especially those who regard Murray Rothbard as a hero and whom Ayn Rand loathed - claiming to uphold Objectivism and to speak for her based on an anti-concept like "non-interventionism" in foreign policy. That being, as she made crystal clear, as much of an anti-concept as "isolationism".
Comment #51
Sunday, September 24, 2006 at 5:56:41 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
If Ayn Rand was a seeming "isolationist" and "American First-er" circa 1940 and if she appeared to have little enthusiasm for WWll - and in fact said remarkably little about it - it was because she regarded the Soviet Union as the major beneficiary. And she was right. That in fact is what happened - that and the altruistic privilege we eagerly embraced to pour billions of dollars into European recovery (and thus to bolster their welfare states).
However, the result of that horrendous policy to bolster the Soviet Union was that we created a monster at our doorstep with ambitions of world dominance. In contrast to the anarchists and libertarians who remained stuck in the 1940's, she recognized the danger the Soviet Union posed and the need we now faced to oppose it - by nuclear war if necessary. The very same anarchists who joined the Marxists in advocating appeasement of Russia are now once again joining them in the appeasement of the Islamic fascists.
Comment #52
Sunday, September 24, 2006 at 9:57:16 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Being 100% "anti-war" or "pro-war" is suicidal; as is 100% "non-interventionism" or "interventionism." It's all a matter of context and assessment of a threat against our citizens.
Comment #53
Sunday, September 24, 2006 at 11:15:28 mdt
Name: Justin Raimondo
URL: http://www.antiwar.com
The moral obscenity involved is advocating the murder of innocent civilians in the name of a philosophy which holds that violence is justified "in self-defense, and only against those who initiate its use."
Murray Rothbard has nothing to do with it. I would just like an answer to my question, please: HOW is it in America's interest to go to war with Iran? How do they threaten us, our territory, or our citizens? Until and unless you can show how and where the threat exists, then it is clear that going to war with Iran would amount to sacrificing American soldiers -- and Iranians -- for no good reason.
Comment #54
Sunday, September 24, 2006 at 11:30:27 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Justin:
How do you assess whether a civilian is innocent?
How do you respond if missiles are coming at you from a village if land invasion is not an option?
Comment #55
Sunday, September 24, 2006 at 13:34:21 mdt
Name: PMB
Justin writes: "The moral obscenity involved is advocating the murder of innocent civilians in the name of a philosophy which holds that violence is justified 'in self-defense, and only against those who initiate its use.'"
But force *has* been initiated--by Islamic totalitarians who want to impose their vicious ideology on the world. We therefore have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend ourselves.
"HOW is it in America's interest to go to war with Iran? How do they threaten us, our territory, or our citizens? Until and unless you can show how and where the threat exists, then it is clear that going to war with Iran would amount to sacrificing American soldiers -- and Iranians -- for no good reason."
Objectivists have made this point many times. That you disagree with our answer doesn't change that. Iran is fountainhead of Islamic totalitarianism. They took Americans hostage. They fund Hezbollah, which has murdered more Americans than any terrorist organization save al Qaeda. They are pursuing nuclear weapons--which is justification enough for attacking any dictatorship.
It is only by evading the link between al Qaeda and the anti-American ideology that motivates them that anyone can claim to be confused on the propriety of attacking Iran.