Freedom School, Episode 3, Part 2: The Role of Metaphysics in Governance

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

"Wherever there is a secular gov't, people are doing real well" - Ugh, what?? USSR anyone? Communist China? I am not at all arguing for a religious government, but come on.

[Sam26100]

@TheLegalImmigrant05 I'd sooner live in Russia than Saudi Arabia.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

Who said we need a legislature as such?

What if a group of individuals agree to act consensually, without coercion, but they base their actions on something other than what Paul believes to be reality, would he come in and stop them? If yes, wouldn't he be initiating violence? If not, then what is the point of this part of the discussion?

Just asking.

[Sam26100]

hehe, you got advertising on your videos Paul. nice.

[Kmacdonald2008]

Good discussion!

[Jollyprez]

Uh, except that Objectivists are crazy blood-thirsty warmongers. As long as the war is against "mysticism."

I don't use the term 'libertarian' to describe myself anymore. The word has been stolen by the neocons. I use the word 'voluntaryist' now. Hard to distort the meaning of the word.

[Sam26100]

@Jollyprez As opposed to people who think that war is never justified unless you're building care centers in the enemy's territory?

There ARE people in this world who want to destroy or enslave you. What's your solution, curl up in a ball? Sometimes you have to identify the people who are out to kill you and put them down. There is no other optioin.

[Jollyprez]

@Sam26100 Pre-emptive war is a slippery slope at best. Once you start wars, a lot of other people suddenly get afraid of you, and you start generating enemies everywhere. Kind of like the situation the US is in now.

The INITIATION OF FORCE should be morally repugnant. Ayn Rand herself stated this many times. Until someone has initiated against you, you are not morally allowed to initiate it back. Mere mystical rhetoric does not constitute an attack.

[Sam26100]

@Jollyprez Who said anything about pre-emptive? my stepfather died in the world trade center attack

[Jollyprez]

@Sam26100 Sorry to hear that, but what does that have to do, for example, with Iraq?

There's a cartoon that came out shortly after the wars started. It shows a general in front of a large easel with a map of the Middle East. He says, "The hijackers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, so naturally we'll attack Afghanistan and Iraq."

Also, I find it odd that the Objectivists have nothing good to say about The State - except for the wars The State has started.

[Sam26100]

@Jollyprez It has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

That's why every objectivist that I've heard speak on this issue, Yaron Brook and Peikoff for example, all say that the war on Iraq was wrong, and that we attacked the wrong "enemy" The funding for the attack came from the hezzbolah which is situated in Iran. They still think we're at war with them from the events of 1971, and now they're working on getting nuclear weapons. I don't think the war in Iraq is justified, neither does Brook

[Jollyprez]

@Sam26100 You can't separate the two. And what does Afghanistan have to do with anything? Seriously.

He advocates the outright destruction of "terrorist states," especially Iran, "as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire," not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, arguing that moral responsibility for innocent deaths would lie with their governments rather than the United States.

Like I said. Bloodthirsty.

[Sam26100]

@Jollyprez "You can't separate the two"

the two what, Iraq and Iran? Yaron Brook was against our current war, if he was really bloodthirsty wouldn't he be for it??

Yes we need to kill people who are responsible for the ideology of "death to America" as quickly as possible and with the fewest casualties

Just as Charles Manson should be punished for the slayings carried out by his followers, so you have to put down the preachers who's followers attacked us on 9/11

It's self-defense