@TimeWarp66 - The judiciary, the military, the police, emergency services and emergency health care, educating the poor, feeding the poor, providing health care to the poor, public infrastructure, roads, environmental protection etc.
@TangoAlphaDelta If you'd stopped your list after "the police" you'd be in good shape--the rest is poppycock. Most importantly, your whole approach ignores the question of rights and takes for granted that it's okay for the government to harm some to (allegedly) benefit others. The (relatively) poor in America are lavishly rich by historical standards because the founders did not ignore that question.
@Formobject I agree with you the poor enjoy relative prosperity by historical standards. This is true in all modern western countries therefore it is untenable to argue this phenomena is a consequence of the founding fathers. Rather it is a consequence of social services which have drastically reduced things like infant mortality over the last 100 years. Indeed the United States failure to keep pace with many countries is because it lags behind in providing those services.
@Formobject I do not ignore the question of rights notwithstanding that I reject the non-aggression principle as overly simplistic. Objective morality is dependent upon the outcomes achieved. As Rand put it, moral terms like "you must" are conditional.. the formula for realistic necessity is "you must, if" and the if stands for mans choice: "if you want to achieve a certain goal". The non-aggression principle does not achieve what its proponents believe.
@HomelessOnline - I have read the book. Ayn Rand was against the governments right to, and I quote, "expropriate a citizen's money". She held that government would be funded voluntarily because anything else would be the initiation of force of one man against another. Not one of her better ideas.
try phoning the institute - talk about closed minded people yet saying they are objective? to be human is to be biased which is objectiveness lol so no matter how far you go to get ride of your biases YOU CAN'T but you are insane if you think you are - that is why our justice systems can't find true justice - they are all biased and only let in evidence THEY feel is relevant according to their bias's. following this concept is to heightened your insanity lol
It's dishonest to suggest that since eg 40% of your income is spent on tax then you are spending 40% of your time working for someone else. The reality is that much of this money goes to fund government services that the individual taxpayer will eventually receive or benefit from. The problem is whether it is better for government to provide these services or leave it to consumer choice in a free market. I'd say a lot of the time the free market, but the government does a few things better.
The problem is in the details. The question of how government should exist was not really answered. A good account of why government should exist was given, i.e. to protect individual rights. But if an individual cannot ethically be taxed, then in what manner does government fund its operations?
@TangoAlphaDelta Remember that a government devoted only to the functions laid out by Rand as proper would cost a meager fraction of what government costs today. She wrote an article on this topic in the Virtue of Selfishness. Anyway, this is a relatively unimportant question in political philosophy and it would have been highly innappropriate for these commentators to digress to such a nonessential issue in this situation. So it's a credit to them that that question "was not really answered."
6:13 "productive members of........ the world we live in" - looks like he's making an effort not to use the word "society" as if it's a dirty word. Kinda the opposite of Anthem where the first person singular personal pronoun was prohibited.
Ayn Rand's nod to Aristotle's concept of "egoism" is just ridiculous. It abstracts a word to some metaphysical sense and robs it of its actual usage and meaning. Aside from this, Ayn Rand didn't have a very good concept of what Voluntaryianism truly meant. These guys are arguing for courts, police and military! Non-Agression Principle anyone?
It is more the paperwork of the IRS and the ability for the small business to compete with the huge corporations that have literally bought off our politicians, and purposefully have created this beuracratic wall against the small businessman so that he is in no position to compete against these large corporations. America is now of the Corporation, for the Corporation and by the Corporation.
Union leaders have driven your jobs to India and China, be sure to thank them for it!
How do you like that ... a segment where people can discuss the flaws of the book and the biggest flaw, the outright glorification of adultery, is not even mentioned.
I like Stossel, not because I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but he usually makes me think to justify my position. He has really dropped the ball here.
@toverkleet You've made a pretty common mistake when considering rational self-interest. Being concerned with the self does not exclude the concerns of others. Objectivists are traders; like a good businessperson, they cooperate with others to make themselves happy. Like other Objectivists, I know I need close friendships and intimate love to survive. This means finding friends worth caring about and making sacrifices for, and finding a wife worthy of devoting my entire life to.
Self-interest always ends up in the way of being selfish! Long-term rational self-interest will only reside in I think only for myself and screw the rest! Did you really think Rand died happy? Doubt that. One of her main-principles was think for yourself, but when some from her group THOUGHT for her or himself, he/she was being scolded upon because of that fact and wasnt being a student of Objectivism
And I mean self-interest as it tends to lead to egotism. Don't get me wrong, collectivism isnt good either, because that also tends to destroy life for its cause, but the effect of Objectivism makes us all alone and only thinking about ourselves.
John Stossel isn't very bright. The lady in the pink sweater completely justifiably describes how there is no such thing as a free market because the Corporatist system serves to protect established, big business against the ruthlessness of competition, through the help of government taxations, regulations, permits, entrance fees, licences etc. And all Stossel can bleat is "big business is good". That proves right there he knows nothing about what the free market is.
This is where I get mixed up with Rand and I think either I miss the point or she's just not giving a fair idea of Altruism. Last I had read that in the most Libertarian of free markets that Altruism has shown to INCREASE. Is this not a good thing?
Well first of all, Rand is opposed to libertarianism. But i think the point is that Rand is probably defining altruism differently than you are. If one derives from how you define altruism, something of value for himself, then Rand would probably not call it 'altruism', since it would be exchanging a value for a value.
The way she defined it is: "to sacrifice yourself, your self-interest or your values without getting any desired value in return."
Taxes are needed, you need infrastructure, and no you dont want privatized law, law enforcement or national defence. The idea of the government is that they represent the countries intrest. When privatized law is used, people become their own judges, hence no independant judges.
Look, the point is there needs to be a balance. A balance between the rational selfintrest and between communion thinking (and I dont mean communism). Hell in the USA there is communion thinking, think about building rich mens walling their district off.
The Banking CEO guy says that The Government plays an important role. I will agree that there is a need in society for government, but I would like to distinguish between the need for government, and the need for The Government. The major government services we need, such as law, law enforcement, and national defense, can be provided by private business. A capital-g Government is just a monopoly business that gets revenue from taxes. Why would that be better for any service than business?
@mf I agree with him too, but I don't like to think I'm only watching things because they are biased towards my own views. At least he lets people with objecting stances speak up and leaves a lot open to further debate and investigation. For instance the healthcare episode with whole foods - after I watched that I looked into it further to see if what they said on the show was really accurate.
I never said that governement 'stays' out of all moral issues, obviously murder and rape are considered 'moral issues'. What I believe is that the gov't should stay out of moral issues that are sujective from person to person and are up fo debate. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone save for a few psyshcopaths that would argue that murder and rape are moral. Issues like drug legalization, pornography, multimedia censorship, prostitution, gay marriage, and abortion are SUBJECTIVE issues.
You're not understanding me at all. I believe life begins at birth. Killing babes AFTER birth is murder, before it is abortion. This is the law of the land. Why is it SO difficult to understand? Jesus Christ, it's like arguing with someone who thinks that the sky is green. We're not on the same page, here.......
So now that The Constitution disagrees with your 'morality', you want to piss all over it? I have news for you pal, there are plenty of Christian countries where abortion is illegal due to the fact that religion is more prevalent in society and there is no Wall of Separation between Church and State. Why don't you move to Poland or The Philippines? No 'holocausts' taking place in either of those countries.
You really need to read John Locke. Many of the great ideals of this country are based on his ideas of what the gov't DOES and DOES NOT do. Everything the gov't does in rooted in one thing- protecting individual liberty. We libertarians apply this to economic, social, and foreign policy. No other political ideology is close to having a consistent stand on the issues. All others are a hodgepodge of positions crammed together to win votes from various coalitions.
Before Obama appointed Sotomayor, 7 of the 9 Justices were appointed by pro-Life Republicans who disagreed with Roe v. Wade. But it is the duty of the judges to interpret The Constitution, not let their personality determine legislation. Take it up with The Constitution.
That makes no sense. Where does the Declaration refer to abortion in any sense? Forced abortions have been taking place since the beginning of humanity itself by various means. If the Founding Fathers wanted to address that particular issue, they would have done so. If they had felt SO strongly about keeping abortion illegal they would have found a way to work it into The Constitution. They didn't so, so the issue was left up for debate.
The Constitution does not 'support' individual choices one way or another, it only lays out what gov't can and cannot do. It neither CONDONES nor CONDEMNS abortion. Seriously man, you need to spend more time reading The Constitution and less time listening to religious zealots whose endgoal is a religious theocracy.
No, I cannot kill my own child, because the gov't protects LIFE. You are operating on the assumption that I believe a fetus is life, which I clearly do not. My definition of when life begins is that of the scientific colloquial- at Birth. At birth is when a creature first gains CONSCIOUSNESS. That's the only reasonable place to draw the line.
But the government should stay out of moral issues right?
So that means your neighbor can kill his child?
The government protects life right just not babies.....hmmmm
Abortion is a moral issue. You said the government needs to protect life. So which is it? The government needs to protect life or stay out of moral affairs?!
I have no conscience? I've never had an abortion nor do I have any friends who've undergone the procedure. So now you want to rant and rave about your relgious beliefs instead of rationally debating the issues? That's fine. I'd much rather discuss The Constitution and its implications on public policy than explain to you how narrowminded your worldview is. Which type of conversation do you want to have? Back-and-forth name calling, or tangible public policy discussions? You choose.
Just tell me where The Constitution refers to banning abortion, and I'll admit to being a hypocrite. I'm still waiting for a Constitutional argument AGAINST abortion. The Constitution details what the gov't DOES NOT intefere in, it doesn't get involved in moral issues. That is left to the states and subsequent generations. You're getting too emotional and sentimental. You think I want to discuss issues with a crybaby? Stop injecting your personal beliefs into our discussion.
Some of the major founders did own slaves, but even those that did like Jefferson wanted to see it abolished. Slavery is a perfect example of one of the 'moral' issues that they left up for future interpretation. They knew that the Constitution would not be ratified by the slave owning states if the abolishment of slavery was explicitly stated, so they created the necessary FRAMEWORK that would allow for it to eventually be abolished in the Declaration and Constitution.
And if you prefer more options....There's always Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran. They're not big fans of abortion either. Then again, they're not fans of much when it comes to individual liberty.
Fascist Germany? Really? I didn't know that we were jamming Jews into ovens and slaughtering cripples and homosexuals because they don't contribute to society. What an insult to anyone of Jewish heritage that is. I don't get offended by much, but that statement is deeply offensive to me and anyone of Jewish heritage. I am seriously starting to think that that you need mental help, man. I'm afraid that you're going be the next guy that blows up an abortion clinic.
Why are you stuck on this issue? Is abortion all you think about? Dude, just accept the fact that it will never be overturned. If conservatives can't overturn it with a 7-2 advantage, when will it ever be overturned? Why don't you just focus on doing all you can to make sure that there are no unwanted pregnancies? Support adoption and the teaching of safe sex methods. Those two things combined will drastically reduce abortions.
So free speech should only be free when you agree with it? Why not just tear the Bill of Rights to pieces then? I think I'm starting to get you concept of freedom. Your idea of freedom is allowing people to behave as they wish only to the extent that it doesn't cause gross offense to you or make you feel insecure. Thus you support restrictions caveats on the Bill of Rights and violations of The Fourth Amendment like the U.S.A. Patriot Act.
Bush violated international law time after time, so why was he not removed from his post? But I guess it's okay, because we're America. We have the right to interevene in another country? Sound like something someone at the United Nations would say while trying to cram binding legislation down our throat.
My utopian philosophy? Yes! Now you are starting to understand me. I do believe in a utopian philosophy, the same utopian philosophy that the Founding Fathers believed in, the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC that is the United States of America. Gov't protects life, liberty, and property- an idea originally propsed by John Locke and reiterated in The Declaration.
The forefathers did not believe in a utopia and knew that men were corrupt. That is why they have checks and balances and the bill of rights to counter government.
Your libertarianism is so ludicrous that it is self destructive.
You're not listening, friend- The Bill of Rights were created to protect exactly what I so cherish- Life, Liberty, and Property (or the Pursuit). That is what I believe- that is the role of the gov't. The Founders believed that certain ideas were so sacred that they must NEVER be violated, and those are the things that you read in The U.S. Constitution. They meant for the areas not covered to be determined by subsequent generations of Patriots but NEVER for it to be violated.
You believe that a fetus is life, and I respect that. But don't pretend that the Founders made any mention of abortion in either the Declaration or Constitution. The issue has been ruled upon by a conservative SC and never overturned by subsequent conservative SCs and I challenge you to find any Constitutional justification for why any of those conservative benches has been wrong on the issue.
What recent conservative SCs have ruled is that it is an issue that states can and should vary on- thus some states are stricter on the issue than others. Most of The Founders believed that issues of morality should be left to the states. I believe this to be the correct stance.
As for child molestors, that is where the government's protection of individual LIBERTY comes in. Rape is an impingement upon individual freedom, and children are obviously not old enough to be of a mature consenting age. Children are protected from being put in compromising positions until a certain age when the can choose for themselves.
Inciting fear through deception and adhering to the Constitutional protection of the First Amendment are hardly the same thing. The Constitution makes that quite clear. Opinions must remain uncurtailed, but libel, slander, and such deceptive statements as aforementioned are not protected. But what does any of this have to do with the U.S.A. Patriot Act? What Constitutional justification can you possibily give for Dick Cheney pissing all over the Fourth Amendment?
Couldn't agree with you more about spineless Cheney. The whole administration was full of draft dodgers a.k.a. faux patriots. That's actually been a recurring theme among most of our Presidential administrations. They love to talk patriotism but haven't served our country.
I find that, as a general rule, big gov't liberals and conservatives know very little about The Constitution. Anyone who knows The Constitution and the political philosophy of the Founders tends to be a libertarian. Take Sarah Palin, for example. When Glenn Beck asked her who her favorite Founder was, it took her thrity seconds of fumbling for an answer before she finally said, "Washington". She probably couldn't name a single Constitutional Amendment besides the 2nd Amendment.
You like Mike? Okay, now tell me why I should vote for him in 2012. Tell me how he will balance the budget and achieve true fiscal conservatism. Tell me why I should buy into his big gov't legislation of morality. Keep in mind that this video is primarily viewed by libertarians and small gov't conservatives, rather than folks on the Religious Right. Appealing to religious commonality will not get you anywhere with most of these folks or me.
2. He was against all the stimlus, bailouts, government takovers (wasn't wishy washy like many Republicans).
3. He did pretty good as a governnor and has a decent record.
4. Right now his stance on social issues is not the focus. Whether he is religious or not doesn't matter. We have arguablty the worst president in office to handle the economic crisis. Anything non-progressive like Huckabee is better than Obama.
Huckabee, a fiscal conservative? Don't make me laugh. I'd like for you to explain to me why the Cato Institute (their about as small-gov't, fiscally conservative as you can get) gave him an "F" for his spending and taxing policy. Then you can explain to me why he is know among fellow conservatives as "Tax Hike Mike" due to his massive sales tax increases and gas tax increases as a governor. Mike Huckabee is the textbook definition of a big gov't conservative.
I like that he's for the fair tax and would like to see that implemented, but how do you know that he will follow through on it? Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's just rhetoric designed to rope in fiscal conservatives? I'm sorry, but I tend to look at a politician's record on spending/taing rather than rhetoric. As for balancing the budget, that is a Consititutional requirement for every state governor.
I credit him for his anti-bailout stance, but that is negated by his support for a Bush-esque foreign policy approach. He is NOT a Constitutional Conservative, stating that we should "Use everything at the President's disposal to keep us safe". Great, another reactionary neocon who spends us right into Chinese slavery! You really think this guy will be any LESS of a liberal spender than Obama?
Yeah, Schiff is running as a Republican, just like Ron Paul. He's still libertarian in ideology, though. Huckabee isn't anywhere near libertarian in ideology. He's on the opposite end of the spectrum as far as Republicans go.
Yeah, the gov't's job is to protect us, but the neocons have taken this to mean that we should ignore the Foundoing Fathers belief in a non-interventionest foreign policy and violate the Constitution a la the U.S. Patriot Act. We should have captured bin Laden and ended it there. Instead we forgot about the scum who attacked us and got sidetracked with costly sandbox wars. Mr. Huckabee was a cheerleader for Iraq and doesn't share that belief.
I'm sorry, but if you refuse to admit that Iraq was anything other than a colossal blunder, than I just find it very difficult to respect anything you have to say politically. It was clear to anyone with a knowledge of Iraq's history that Iraq was MUCH weaker when W. invaded than when his father kicked Saddam's ass out of Kuwait but did not overthrow his regime. You've clearly fallen for the neocon talking points. Pre-emptive sandbox wars DO NOT keep us safe.
'Clear and present danger' is NOT in The Constitution and was introduced by big gov't enthusiast S.C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes during Woodrow Wilson's tenure. Such an abomination was omitted from The Constitution for a reason, and The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves. The neocons pray that the average citizen doesn't do a little reseach and realie that it is NOT in The Constitution. The neocons have disregarded The Constitution far more than any other coalition.
I bet your the kinda guy that will argue free speech to the point of yelling fire in a theatre.
WHat sense does it make to wait for a disaster to happen when we have intelligence that tells us we have enemies with INTENTIONS TO HARM US AND THE MEANS TO DO SO.
THe constitution is amendable bro.
We ended slavery remember?
I respect your purism for our constitution but at some point you got to use common sense.
And let's not forget that he supports the absolute trainwreck known as No Child Left Behind (also referred to as, "Our Children Fall Farther and Farther Behind Europe").
Not that the religion of any of the founding fathers mattered, when you take into account the Establishment Clause of The Constitution and Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptists which expressly stated his will for a distinct wall of separation between Church and State. You really need to become familiar with The Constitution and the history of our Founding Fathers.
3rd Party will never happen? Only if sheep like you never come out of your dogmatic stupor. Someday, you, or at least people like you will get fed up and realize that there is no such thing as liberal-conservative, only up or down. Someday you will realize that perception is not reality, reality is reality. Pretending that Huckabee or Palin will balance the budget and make gov't smaller simply doesn't make it so.
Your narrow view of politics is quite hilarious to the outside observer. You probably thought that Reagan was a fiscal conservative. It probably came as a real shock to you when a quick search of Google verified that Reagan, indeed, was no fiscal conservative. The War on drugs+ interventionist foreign policcy=Massive deficits every single year of his Presidency.
If you want true fiscal conservatism, 3rd Party is the ONLY choice. The Reps and Dems simply have too many special interests that they must bend over far. Doesn't matter which candidate, if they have a (D) or an (R) by their name, you know that they are going to spend as much money as they can get away with. They are going to attempt to re-write the Constitution as much as they possibly can. Meanwhile CHINA, a communist country, is laughing all the way to the bank. How is this happening?
The big government conservatives like Palin and Huckabee love sheep like you. All they have to do is talk a little religion and villify liberals as anti-American and they have your vote. Why? Because you see the world in black and white. Liberals=BAD. Conservatives=GOOD. That pretty much sums up your world view. I have news for you, pal. Reagan tripled the national debt and Bush doubled it. If you think conservatives deliver on their promises, you simply don't know history.
If I do indeed dislike relgion, then I have quite a bit in common with the Founding Fathers. Another thing that might surprise you is that the majority of the Founding Fathers were deists, not theists. Meaning they believed in a higher power, but not the theistic God of Judeo-Christian theology. Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin? All deists. In fact, Jefferson completely disregarded the Old Testament and created a custom Bible with just Jesus's teachings, he cut out all miracles.
Defending Rand should be secondary to defending the ideas of Objectivism. When you won't allow yourself to acknowledge that she was a bit ridiculous at times, and sometimes violated her own stated ethics, it makes the argument seem a little absurd. Also, her insistence on words like "selfish" and "altruistic" and "sacrifice" when she means something completely different than everyone else, gives people unfamiliar with her an excuse to dismiss the ideas outright.
Get the religious kooks and neocons out of the conservative movement, and the Republicans will be a great alternative to the big-gov't Dems. Until then, it is impossible for any pro-reason, secular-minded individual to take the Republican Party seriously.
Nope, I've grown disenfranchised with both major parties. I voted for Obama, but he's basically been Bush-lite. HOPE in one hand and BUSH in the other. Who says that I have to choose between the lesser of two evils? Did it ever cross your mind that there are OTHER options besides the Big Gov't Dems and Reps? Maybe I want a President who won't piss all over the Constituion in the name of keeping us safe, and mandate health insurance 'for my own good'. Is that too much to ask?
So you really think Sarah Palin is going to be the one to lead us back to the promised land? What a joke. Sarah gets in office, there will be more hundred billion dollar tax cuts for corporations that we simply CANNOT pay for. Not to mention the strong possibility of a trillion war with Iran. What makes you think Palin & Co. will be any different than Bush? The Republicans aren't any more fiscally conservative than the Dems, they just choose to spend OUR money in different ways.
Just like the Dems regulate economics. Different song, same tune. Why can't you see that both major parties are the same? Neither is working in the interest of the people. They're all about maintaining entrenched interests via the status quo. If you think your Congressman gives a damn about individualism, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Alaska. They don't give a damn about how hard you work or what you've done for our country. They just want your vote.
To quote the late Barry Goldwater, "When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." Goldwater is turning in his grave right now. The Republican Party has fallen far indeed. No wonder they can only attract flag-waving rednecks and Bible-beating anti-intellectuals these days.
Rand was an atheist, and actually refered to religion as 'immoral' in an interview. The religious Right philosophically has NOTHING in common with Ayn Rand. You really need to learn the difference between conservative and libertarian. Conservative= Small Government in economic policy, Big Government in foreign policy and social control. Libertarian= Small Government PERIOD .
The problem with libertarians is that the "live and let live" really lies on a continuum.
Simply not getting involved in world affairs may hurt us in the process. Yes We have our own destinty but we are intertwined with the rest of the world.
Social issues are complex as well. There is a fine line between individual freedom and violation of another's freedom.
The classic case would be abortion. Is it a woman's body (property) or the babies right to life?
It is a woman's property, but even if I grant you abortion, how do gay marriage, legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, and an uncensored Web impinge upon anyone else's freedom? And as for the, 'complex issues' argument, please. A big government progressive could say the same thing about economics. So what you're saying is that big gov't is good in instances where you see fit, but bad in instances where you don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too- pick a side.
"how do gay marriage, legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, and an uncensored Web impinge upon anyone else's freedom?" I agree people should be able to do what they want as long as it is hurting them and no one else.
When it comes to drugs, some are so powerful and potent that they need to be at least regulated. Yes I am for the legalization of pot because it is a mild drug compared to the others.
Gay marriage is something else. Children deserve 2 parents of opposite gender.
The government gets involved in social affairs (ie social work, child protective services, etc). So as a society we determine what is best for children.
Many experts believe that the nuclear family is the best setting for the child.
This is how conservative and liberal politics shape the laws of the land.
I have no problem with gay marriage, but the trivializing of traditional marriage at the expense of children is something else...
"As a society we determine what is best for children"
Precisely what a supporter of the big government nanny-state would say. It is up to the parents to determine what is best for children, NOT the gov't. The gov't should only intervene if the child's health and safety is at risk. It is not the responsibility of the state to determine what familial structures are best for children.
The institution of marriage is a bedrock of civilizations since the beginning of time. If we are gonna change the definition we should have a long hard debate before doing so.
Gays can enter contracts just as straight people can. They can even legally raise children.
However when it comes to tax payers money in adoption agenice etc then the BEST POSSIBLE home should be the place for that.
There you go again, repeating Republican talking points about 'family values'. I don't need adulterous politicians lecturing me on morality and how society SHOULD be, I believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility. You think we should waste tax dollars debating moralty? Fine, then. I guess a Palin-Huckabee ticket is right up your alley. I would prefer a candidate who uses out tax dollars to protect life, liberty, and property in the way that the Founders intended.
Yep, just as I suspected. You want to talk about some types of big government but not others. Your arguments in favor of big-government legislation of morality are based on unfounded fear-mongering tactics drafted up by the likes of Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson. As for the 'nanny state', I can't think of a better example of 'nanny politics' than censoring the Web just because some parents are too lazy to keep an eye on their kids.
objectivism is not a rand cult. heck, it's amazing the number of objectiviists I see/hear that openly criticise Rand herself, but hold that her philosophy is valid
Government is a tool we once needed long ago, but is less needed now. Kind of like religion. When humans didn't know better, they had to invent religion to explain how the sun crossed the sky and how people got sick. We still need it today because we don't know how life began or what happens when we die. It's the same w/ government. You think you need it to protect from foreign invaders,but what powerful army defended colonies against the greatest military in the world during the revolution?
I don't know much about Ayn Rand or her following. I read the book and gleaned out of it what I agreed with and threw away what I disagreed with according to my personal principle of the nonaggression axiom and my own personal ethics. Anyone who would blindly follow another person based on a book is pretty mindless and would exhibit cult-type tendencies. Just like xians and the bible. Use common sense and you'll like the book for what it has to offer - individual responsibility vs. group think.
I don't know anybody who follows Rand. We objectivists follow the principles of objectivism, which are essentially that morality is a province of reason not faith or force and that individual freedom is more important than collective ambitions. Well there's much more than that but those are essential things
I disagree with Rand in a few areas myself even though I concider her books to be the best novels i've ever read
I recomend you check out "The Fouintainhead" it's better in some ways
"the whole notion of a cult when you talk about individualists is absurd"
well that's what I've gotten out of reading objectivist articles or speaking to some online, lol. They seem very culty. You can't even question Rand's stances on anything. Maybe this has changed a little(i certainly hope so, or else they're just gonna keep on getting labeled as a cult....rightfully so if they act like that)
i have noticed cult like tendencies, but on the whole remembering that Rand's maxim: "the greatest sin is not thinking"— if you do develop a set of principles, can logically defend them, then the error is someone else's; when encountered with someone who is oblivious of logic and observations, then they are defeating the whole point, which is consistency and verifiable conclusions.
you can question Rand's stances.. be prepared to do justify your own, and find ppl who are willing to learn w/ U
"but on the whole remembering that Rand's maxim..."
in that case, I don't think some objectivists keep that in mind. Plus, a lot of them seem like old cranks. Again, that's just the basic gist I get from seein them post online and such. I've only met one objectivist in person and he seems pretty cool. He's one of the officers in a club I'm in for libertarians.
If you understand anything, Rand is the normal one.Personally I have a problem with John Lennon's fan base, they seem a lot cultish to me. At least Rand's "cult" is full of sober, sane intellectuals.
The whole scapegoating of a fanbase is just politics and politics is worthless.
who was it that said that cults are not cults if they grow? I forget the exact quote, but the point is that ideas are never called cults if they become popular, even if they're completely insane.
No, that's perfectly fine. But some people i've seen post online DO sound like they worship her, lol. Some of them don't even seem all that objective about things.
I did as a teenager first exposed to being either a "hippie" because I had long hair, or reading "For the New Intellectual", keeping my hair long and mouthing some of the essentials in "The Unknown Ideal"— having a good logical bent saw me thru some weird times— one cannot just spout "A is A" without exposure to axiomatic systems, but there were those who did, and didn't know what the contra-positive is.
Now not much has changed, except I am happier having a logical basis on my views,
lol, i don't keep track of ppl's usernames. It's not like it happens to me all the time. I've only come across a few objectivists online. I generally don't see that many make posts where I go so there's no reason for me to keep tabs on it or anything. I generally visit libertarian kinda sites to post on.
Oh my god and you think those elites in DC who think you dont have a brain and are almost giddy with power to control your life are not selfish?? What does the American dream mean to you?
iss figewing ow sehfish behavur
CollectivePreference 3 days ago
@TimeWarp66 - The judiciary, the military, the police, emergency services and emergency health care, educating the poor, feeding the poor, providing health care to the poor, public infrastructure, roads, environmental protection etc.
TangoAlphaDelta 8 months ago
@TangoAlphaDelta If you'd stopped your list after "the police" you'd be in good shape--the rest is poppycock. Most importantly, your whole approach ignores the question of rights and takes for granted that it's okay for the government to harm some to (allegedly) benefit others. The (relatively) poor in America are lavishly rich by historical standards because the founders did not ignore that question.
Formobject 3 weeks ago
@Formobject I agree with you the poor enjoy relative prosperity by historical standards. This is true in all modern western countries therefore it is untenable to argue this phenomena is a consequence of the founding fathers. Rather it is a consequence of social services which have drastically reduced things like infant mortality over the last 100 years. Indeed the United States failure to keep pace with many countries is because it lags behind in providing those services.
TangoAlphaDelta 4 days ago
@Formobject I do not ignore the question of rights notwithstanding that I reject the non-aggression principle as overly simplistic. Objective morality is dependent upon the outcomes achieved. As Rand put it, moral terms like "you must" are conditional.. the formula for realistic necessity is "you must, if" and the if stands for mans choice: "if you want to achieve a certain goal". The non-aggression principle does not achieve what its proponents believe.
TangoAlphaDelta 4 days ago
@HomelessOnline - I have read the book. Ayn Rand was against the governments right to, and I quote, "expropriate a citizen's money". She held that government would be funded voluntarily because anything else would be the initiation of force of one man against another. Not one of her better ideas.
TangoAlphaDelta 8 months ago
wodger wabbit
icognito01 8 months ago
try phoning the institute - talk about closed minded people yet saying they are objective? to be human is to be biased which is objectiveness lol so no matter how far you go to get ride of your biases YOU CAN'T but you are insane if you think you are - that is why our justice systems can't find true justice - they are all biased and only let in evidence THEY feel is relevant according to their bias's. following this concept is to heightened your insanity lol
Judy101101 9 months ago
I'm waiting for John Gault to tap ME on the shoulder!
KeithMcElwain 10 months ago
It's dishonest to suggest that since eg 40% of your income is spent on tax then you are spending 40% of your time working for someone else. The reality is that much of this money goes to fund government services that the individual taxpayer will eventually receive or benefit from. The problem is whether it is better for government to provide these services or leave it to consumer choice in a free market. I'd say a lot of the time the free market, but the government does a few things better.
TangoAlphaDelta 10 months ago
@TangoAlphaDelta
What "few things" does it do better exactly?
TimeWarp66 8 months ago
The problem is in the details. The question of how government should exist was not really answered. A good account of why government should exist was given, i.e. to protect individual rights. But if an individual cannot ethically be taxed, then in what manner does government fund its operations?
TangoAlphaDelta 10 months ago
@TangoAlphaDelta - nobody made the argument that charging taxes is unethical. You might consider reading the book.
HomelessOnline 10 months ago
@TangoAlphaDelta Remember that a government devoted only to the functions laid out by Rand as proper would cost a meager fraction of what government costs today. She wrote an article on this topic in the Virtue of Selfishness. Anyway, this is a relatively unimportant question in political philosophy and it would have been highly innappropriate for these commentators to digress to such a nonessential issue in this situation. So it's a credit to them that that question "was not really answered."
Formobject 3 weeks ago
6:13 "productive members of........ the world we live in" - looks like he's making an effort not to use the word "society" as if it's a dirty word. Kinda the opposite of Anthem where the first person singular personal pronoun was prohibited.
TangoAlphaDelta 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5:10 to 6:18 Excellent explanation. I hope among those who watched some light bulbs went off.
Objectivism explained in that way is as simple as thinking things far enough through that you make the correct decision.
How can you argue with good advice like "think things through".
I know this may sound simplistic but....character limits!
ramv36 10 months ago
Comment removed
ramv36 10 months ago
5:10 to 6:18 Excellent explanation. I hope among those who watched some light bulbs went off.
ramv36 10 months ago
Ayn Rand's nod to Aristotle's concept of "egoism" is just ridiculous. It abstracts a word to some metaphysical sense and robs it of its actual usage and meaning. Aside from this, Ayn Rand didn't have a very good concept of what Voluntaryianism truly meant. These guys are arguing for courts, police and military! Non-Agression Principle anyone?
Yanirakarola 11 months ago
@4:50 Isn't that the guy who trashed his girlfriend on CSPAN?
TRZbebop675 11 months ago
It is more the paperwork of the IRS and the ability for the small business to compete with the huge corporations that have literally bought off our politicians, and purposefully have created this beuracratic wall against the small businessman so that he is in no position to compete against these large corporations. America is now of the Corporation, for the Corporation and by the Corporation.
Union leaders have driven your jobs to India and China, be sure to thank them for it!
MyITRcom 11 months ago
Has anybody noticed that all the Ayn Rand critics on this video look like clones?! The effects of Collectivism ...?
WintersAscension 1 year ago
How do you like that ... a segment where people can discuss the flaws of the book and the biggest flaw, the outright glorification of adultery, is not even mentioned.
I like Stossel, not because I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but he usually makes me think to justify my position. He has really dropped the ball here.
GuRiRu 1 year ago
@GuRiRu That's the biggest flaw with the book in your opinion? I think that's probably the nicest criticism the book could ever get lol.
NotRadicalLogical 1 year ago
@toverkleet You've made a pretty common mistake when considering rational self-interest. Being concerned with the self does not exclude the concerns of others. Objectivists are traders; like a good businessperson, they cooperate with others to make themselves happy. Like other Objectivists, I know I need close friendships and intimate love to survive. This means finding friends worth caring about and making sacrifices for, and finding a wife worthy of devoting my entire life to.
SeekingSanctity 1 year ago 2
Self-interest always ends up in the way of being selfish! Long-term rational self-interest will only reside in I think only for myself and screw the rest! Did you really think Rand died happy? Doubt that. One of her main-principles was think for yourself, but when some from her group THOUGHT for her or himself, he/she was being scolded upon because of that fact and wasnt being a student of Objectivism
toverkleet 1 year ago
And I mean self-interest as it tends to lead to egotism. Don't get me wrong, collectivism isnt good either, because that also tends to destroy life for its cause, but the effect of Objectivism makes us all alone and only thinking about ourselves.
toverkleet 1 year ago
All the brain dead 20 year old in the audience proves the socialist brain washing system known as the public school system shows that is working.
stjdavis 1 year ago
@stjdavis Love the complete non-sequitor by the idiot kid in the audience. Its as if Einstien had problems in School somehow renders e=mc2 false.
MyITRcom 11 months ago
John Stossel isn't very bright. The lady in the pink sweater completely justifiably describes how there is no such thing as a free market because the Corporatist system serves to protect established, big business against the ruthlessness of competition, through the help of government taxations, regulations, permits, entrance fees, licences etc. And all Stossel can bleat is "big business is good". That proves right there he knows nothing about what the free market is.
tridentmovies 1 year ago
I love the supposition that the government "has to tax or something." Awesome.
syghur 1 year ago 2
This is where I get mixed up with Rand and I think either I miss the point or she's just not giving a fair idea of Altruism. Last I had read that in the most Libertarian of free markets that Altruism has shown to INCREASE. Is this not a good thing?
Oyaji291 1 year ago
@Oyaji291
Well first of all, Rand is opposed to libertarianism. But i think the point is that Rand is probably defining altruism differently than you are. If one derives from how you define altruism, something of value for himself, then Rand would probably not call it 'altruism', since it would be exchanging a value for a value.
The way she defined it is: "to sacrifice yourself, your self-interest or your values without getting any desired value in return."
tridentmovies 1 year ago
I wish the dude would stop using the word 'hero' when describing Rand. I don't like Propaganda on ANY side.
Oyaji291 1 year ago
Taxes are needed, you need infrastructure, and no you dont want privatized law, law enforcement or national defence. The idea of the government is that they represent the countries intrest. When privatized law is used, people become their own judges, hence no independant judges.
toverkleet 1 year ago
@toverkleet
The goverment has a tax, its called inflation. They make about 10 trillion from it each year.
stjdavis 1 year ago
@stjdavis what kind of conspiracy theorist are you? :S Inflation doesnt go to the government, you really need to check your economy-lessons....
toverkleet 1 year ago
Look, the point is there needs to be a balance. A balance between the rational selfintrest and between communion thinking (and I dont mean communism). Hell in the USA there is communion thinking, think about building rich mens walling their district off.
toverkleet 1 year ago
The Banking CEO guy says that The Government plays an important role. I will agree that there is a need in society for government, but I would like to distinguish between the need for government, and the need for The Government. The major government services we need, such as law, law enforcement, and national defense, can be provided by private business. A capital-g Government is just a monopoly business that gets revenue from taxes. Why would that be better for any service than business?
JETZcorp 1 year ago
@JETZcorp Exactly like the mafia. Pay us for protection money.
Shahn718 1 year ago
This show couldn't be more one-sided, but I agree with Stossel so it's OK.
mf91007 2 years ago
@mf I agree with him too, but I don't like to think I'm only watching things because they are biased towards my own views. At least he lets people with objecting stances speak up and leaves a lot open to further debate and investigation. For instance the healthcare episode with whole foods - after I watched that I looked into it further to see if what they said on the show was really accurate.
RocknCorruptrepublic 1 year ago
I never said that governement 'stays' out of all moral issues, obviously murder and rape are considered 'moral issues'. What I believe is that the gov't should stay out of moral issues that are sujective from person to person and are up fo debate. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone save for a few psyshcopaths that would argue that murder and rape are moral. Issues like drug legalization, pornography, multimedia censorship, prostitution, gay marriage, and abortion are SUBJECTIVE issues.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
SUBJECTIVE?
EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE DUMBMASS!.
IN NAZI GERMANY JEWS WERE CONSIDERED LESS THAN HUMAN!.
Alot of fucking Germans believed that.
Know the government takes a stand. It eventually did on slavery and it should do the same for abortion.
All the other shit you mentioned needs to be debated one at a time.
I am for individual freedom and for people to freely destroy themselves from life decisions.
When a child or baby is the victim from their choices I DRAW THE LINE.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
You're not understanding me at all. I believe life begins at birth. Killing babes AFTER birth is murder, before it is abortion. This is the law of the land. Why is it SO difficult to understand? Jesus Christ, it's like arguing with someone who thinks that the sky is green. We're not on the same page, here.......
JBeatty17 2 years ago
DUDE.
LIFE DOESN"T BEGIN AT BIRTH.
Are you honestly telling me that a baby that is separated by skin is not a baby at 9 mos?
Yes that is comparable to NAZI GERMANY
Leaving babies to die on from failed abortions is comparable to what Nazis did to the Jews.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago 2
So now that The Constitution disagrees with your 'morality', you want to piss all over it? I have news for you pal, there are plenty of Christian countries where abortion is illegal due to the fact that religion is more prevalent in society and there is no Wall of Separation between Church and State. Why don't you move to Poland or The Philippines? No 'holocausts' taking place in either of those countries.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Consitution?
Dude I am a history major.
I know about the forefathers.
Quit giving me a history lesson cause I am particularly passionate about our foundings.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
You really need to read John Locke. Many of the great ideals of this country are based on his ideas of what the gov't DOES and DOES NOT do. Everything the gov't does in rooted in one thing- protecting individual liberty. We libertarians apply this to economic, social, and foreign policy. No other political ideology is close to having a consistent stand on the issues. All others are a hodgepodge of positions crammed together to win votes from various coalitions.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
You cherish life but not the unborn huh?
Property is more sacred then a baby separated by flesh?
OKKKKKK.
It's nice to have a free country with a holocaust.
Makes sense.
Conservative bench? So what you are saying is that the SUPREME COURT HAS HAD ENOUGH CONSERVATIVES to KILL ROE VS WADE?
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Before Obama appointed Sotomayor, 7 of the 9 Justices were appointed by pro-Life Republicans who disagreed with Roe v. Wade. But it is the duty of the judges to interpret The Constitution, not let their personality determine legislation. Take it up with The Constitution.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
In other words you have no conscience.
Take it up with the Declartation of Independence.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
That makes no sense. Where does the Declaration refer to abortion in any sense? Forced abortions have been taking place since the beginning of humanity itself by various means. If the Founding Fathers wanted to address that particular issue, they would have done so. If they had felt SO strongly about keeping abortion illegal they would have found a way to work it into The Constitution. They didn't so, so the issue was left up for debate.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
"Where does the Declaration refer to abortion in any sense? "
THE RIGHT TO LIFE JUSTIFIED BY THE CREATOR.
DUDE ABORTION WAS NOT ON THE BOOKS DURING THE FOUNDING FATHERS TIME.
THERE WAS NO LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO JUSTIFY ABORTION. THAT ONLY PROVES MY POINT.
Yeah and murder has been going on since the beginning of time.
Dude your logic is retarded.
OMG,
THE LAW OF THE AND AT THE TIME WAS MURDER IS WRONG!
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Dude this really bothers me.
You can preach Constitutional purity and claim the judges are PRO LIFE but believe somehow that the constitution supports abortions?
Give me a fucking break.
Yeah, and I am the supporter of unjust wars but you can turn a blind eyet o 50 million abortions since 73?!
Yes and the nazis were just following orders...
RIGHT TO LIFE MY ASS!.
You don't respect the sanctity of life man.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
The Constitution does not 'support' individual choices one way or another, it only lays out what gov't can and cannot do. It neither CONDONES nor CONDEMNS abortion. Seriously man, you need to spend more time reading The Constitution and less time listening to religious zealots whose endgoal is a religious theocracy.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
"INDIVIDUAL CHOICES"
SO YOU CAN FUCKING KILL YOUR CHILD IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR HOUSE BECAUSES IT"S YOUR CHOICE?!
Dude that is insanity.
Dude I do read the constitution.
This isn't an intellectual debate man.
THIS IS ABOUT WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT AND WRONG!.
SOmething you athiests libertarians don't have a fucking clue about.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
No, I cannot kill my own child, because the gov't protects LIFE. You are operating on the assumption that I believe a fetus is life, which I clearly do not. My definition of when life begins is that of the scientific colloquial- at Birth. At birth is when a creature first gains CONSCIOUSNESS. That's the only reasonable place to draw the line.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
"reasonable place to draw the line. "
Yeah what is reasonable?
Clearly there is no agreement on this.
SINCE LIFE IS CLEARLY PRECIOUS TO ALL then I SAY the most stringent standards should be applied to life.
Your rational that simply changing a word from baby to fetus is a slippery slope.
partial birth abortion is as barbaric as you can get and they use your line of thinking to justify this practice.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
"No, I cannot kill my own child,"
But the government should stay out of moral issues right?
So that means your neighbor can kill his child?
The government protects life right just not babies.....hmmmm
Abortion is a moral issue. You said the government needs to protect life. So which is it? The government needs to protect life or stay out of moral affairs?!
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
I have no conscience? I've never had an abortion nor do I have any friends who've undergone the procedure. So now you want to rant and rave about your relgious beliefs instead of rationally debating the issues? That's fine. I'd much rather discuss The Constitution and its implications on public policy than explain to you how narrowminded your worldview is. Which type of conversation do you want to have? Back-and-forth name calling, or tangible public policy discussions? You choose.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
NAh man.
Why discuss a document that was flawed at the time and supported slavery?
Yeah and slavery was debated as a BASIS FOR CHOICE WAS WELL.
NARROWMINDED?
Because I have a sense of morality?!
Dude your moral relativism is pathetic.
Dude you piss me off because you claim to be a purist and loyal to a document but you are a hypocrite to it.
You have no regard no life man.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Just tell me where The Constitution refers to banning abortion, and I'll admit to being a hypocrite. I'm still waiting for a Constitutional argument AGAINST abortion. The Constitution details what the gov't DOES NOT intefere in, it doesn't get involved in moral issues. That is left to the states and subsequent generations. You're getting too emotional and sentimental. You think I want to discuss issues with a crybaby? Stop injecting your personal beliefs into our discussion.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
By liberal standards you are the narrowminded person.
You cling to a document written by slave owners over 200 years ago and our shutdown to any new ideas.
Why not completely rewrite the constitution dude?
Lets be like Europe and "grow up".
Don't preach at me about narrowmindedness when we are in the same boat.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Some of the major founders did own slaves, but even those that did like Jefferson wanted to see it abolished. Slavery is a perfect example of one of the 'moral' issues that they left up for future interpretation. They knew that the Constitution would not be ratified by the slave owning states if the abolishment of slavery was explicitly stated, so they created the necessary FRAMEWORK that would allow for it to eventually be abolished in the Declaration and Constitution.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
My point was that the Constitution was not a perfect document. Of course we keep what is good and throw what is bad out (proper process of amendment).
"the government doesn't get involved in moral issues"
THE RIGHT TO LIFE..PROTECTS A BABIES LIFE!
No slavery is not left to the states. We don't get to choose on slavery and WE DON"T GET TO CHOOSE ON ABORTION.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
And if you prefer more options....There's always Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran. They're not big fans of abortion either. Then again, they're not fans of much when it comes to individual liberty.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
JBeatty17,
I have a right to be frustrated by my country. I am not gonna leave it. I LOVE my country.
I VOTE and I have served in the army.
I am not proud of the fact that 50 million abortions have occured since 73.
What good is freedom when our morality has sunk to the level of fascist Germany?
I admire libertarians fiscal conservatism.
Beyond that forget it.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Fascist Germany? Really? I didn't know that we were jamming Jews into ovens and slaughtering cripples and homosexuals because they don't contribute to society. What an insult to anyone of Jewish heritage that is. I don't get offended by much, but that statement is deeply offensive to me and anyone of Jewish heritage. I am seriously starting to think that that you need mental help, man. I'm afraid that you're going be the next guy that blows up an abortion clinic.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
I hope it offended you.
Not sure if there is a heart in there or you can actually feel.
You don't give a shit about babies seconds away from birth dude.
Who is really the asshole?!
No I won't blowup clinics cut it won't do any good.
The battle is taking place in the hearts and minds of Americans and in the legislative process.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
You earlier told me life begins when consciousness is detected.
now you say that when the baby is born is when life is detected.
You are confused bro.
The answer is you don't know for sure.
So let the most stringent standards apply to life.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Why are you stuck on this issue? Is abortion all you think about? Dude, just accept the fact that it will never be overturned. If conservatives can't overturn it with a 7-2 advantage, when will it ever be overturned? Why don't you just focus on doing all you can to make sure that there are no unwanted pregnancies? Support adoption and the teaching of safe sex methods. Those two things combined will drastically reduce abortions.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
So free speech should only be free when you agree with it? Why not just tear the Bill of Rights to pieces then? I think I'm starting to get you concept of freedom. Your idea of freedom is allowing people to behave as they wish only to the extent that it doesn't cause gross offense to you or make you feel insecure. Thus you support restrictions caveats on the Bill of Rights and violations of The Fourth Amendment like the U.S.A. Patriot Act.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Bush violated international law time after time, so why was he not removed from his post? But I guess it's okay, because we're America. We have the right to interevene in another country? Sound like something someone at the United Nations would say while trying to cram binding legislation down our throat.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Dude,
AGAIN CHIEF.
I AM NOT DEFENDING BUSH"S ACTIONS.
DO YOU READ MY POSTS MAN?
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN INTERVENTION FOR THE HELL OF IT WITHOUT JUST CAUSE....
THE UNITED NATIONS IS A JOKE PERIOD!.
I am interested in protecting the U.S....
Not in accomodating your irrational and utopian philosophy based in LA LA LAND.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
My utopian philosophy? Yes! Now you are starting to understand me. I do believe in a utopian philosophy, the same utopian philosophy that the Founding Fathers believed in, the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC that is the United States of America. Gov't protects life, liberty, and property- an idea originally propsed by John Locke and reiterated in The Declaration.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Utopian as in a world that doesnt' exist.
The forefathers did not believe in a utopia and knew that men were corrupt. That is why they have checks and balances and the bill of rights to counter government.
Your libertarianism is so ludicrous that it is self destructive.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
You're not listening, friend- The Bill of Rights were created to protect exactly what I so cherish- Life, Liberty, and Property (or the Pursuit). That is what I believe- that is the role of the gov't. The Founders believed that certain ideas were so sacred that they must NEVER be violated, and those are the things that you read in The U.S. Constitution. They meant for the areas not covered to be determined by subsequent generations of Patriots but NEVER for it to be violated.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
You are preaching to the choir dude.
I know the history of our country.
WHen you say the government protects life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS then thats where the debate is taking place.
Is abortion taking a life? Where does my liberty end? Can I pursue happiness and molest children if I am a child molestor?
How exactly does our government PROTECT US?
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
You believe that a fetus is life, and I respect that. But don't pretend that the Founders made any mention of abortion in either the Declaration or Constitution. The issue has been ruled upon by a conservative SC and never overturned by subsequent conservative SCs and I challenge you to find any Constitutional justification for why any of those conservative benches has been wrong on the issue.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
What recent conservative SCs have ruled is that it is an issue that states can and should vary on- thus some states are stricter on the issue than others. Most of The Founders believed that issues of morality should be left to the states. I believe this to be the correct stance.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
As for child molestors, that is where the government's protection of individual LIBERTY comes in. Rape is an impingement upon individual freedom, and children are obviously not old enough to be of a mature consenting age. Children are protected from being put in compromising positions until a certain age when the can choose for themselves.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
I am interested in protecting the U.S. too.....just not nation-buidling and meddling where we're not wanted and not needed.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
FREE SPEECH IS ABOUT PROTECTING OFFENSIVE SPEECH AND CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO.
I know what free speech is.
But are you honestly gonna tell me that yelling fire in a theatre is perfectly O.K?
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Inciting fear through deception and adhering to the Constitutional protection of the First Amendment are hardly the same thing. The Constitution makes that quite clear. Opinions must remain uncurtailed, but libel, slander, and such deceptive statements as aforementioned are not protected. But what does any of this have to do with the U.S.A. Patriot Act? What Constitutional justification can you possibily give for Dick Cheney pissing all over the Fourth Amendment?
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Agreed patriot act is crap.
Dick Cheney is a CHICKEN HAWK as stated by JESSIE VENTURA.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Couldn't agree with you more about spineless Cheney. The whole administration was full of draft dodgers a.k.a. faux patriots. That's actually been a recurring theme among most of our Presidential administrations. They love to talk patriotism but haven't served our country.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
I find that, as a general rule, big gov't liberals and conservatives know very little about The Constitution. Anyone who knows The Constitution and the political philosophy of the Founders tends to be a libertarian. Take Sarah Palin, for example. When Glenn Beck asked her who her favorite Founder was, it took her thrity seconds of fumbling for an answer before she finally said, "Washington". She probably couldn't name a single Constitutional Amendment besides the 2nd Amendment.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
" ...out of your dogmatic stupor"
Now who is failing to live in the real world?
You or me?
Yes I suppose if the world is perfect we can all share jelly beans and lollipops and wouldn't need a government.
That just isn't the case.
I don't like are 2 party system but it's gonna take more than your petty insults and rants to change it dude.
I AM A PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE.
I am not a mere blind follower of a party.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Tell you what lets organize the debate.
I will number the discussions and you pick one and we will go from there. Here are some selected topics.
1) Reagan
2) Sarah Palin
3) Conservative vs Libertarianism
4) Founding fathers
5) Mike Huckabee
6) Liberalism vs Conservatism and why it is important to know the difference
7) Principles versus politiicans
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
5) Mike Huckabee
You like Mike? Okay, now tell me why I should vote for him in 2012. Tell me how he will balance the budget and achieve true fiscal conservatism. Tell me why I should buy into his big gov't legislation of morality. Keep in mind that this video is primarily viewed by libertarians and small gov't conservatives, rather than folks on the Religious Right. Appealing to religious commonality will not get you anywhere with most of these folks or me.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
1. He is for the fair tax (look it up).
2. He was against all the stimlus, bailouts, government takovers (wasn't wishy washy like many Republicans).
3. He did pretty good as a governnor and has a decent record.
4. Right now his stance on social issues is not the focus. Whether he is religious or not doesn't matter. We have arguablty the worst president in office to handle the economic crisis. Anything non-progressive like Huckabee is better than Obama.
Mccain (mcshame) is a progressive.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Huckabee, a fiscal conservative? Don't make me laugh. I'd like for you to explain to me why the Cato Institute (their about as small-gov't, fiscally conservative as you can get) gave him an "F" for his spending and taxing policy. Then you can explain to me why he is know among fellow conservatives as "Tax Hike Mike" due to his massive sales tax increases and gas tax increases as a governor. Mike Huckabee is the textbook definition of a big gov't conservative.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Yeah I will address his record in a bit. There is fair criticism on his record.
But Ilike for you to address the fair tax which he is all about.
And you have to admit he has been consistent about the bailouts.
Did he not leave as governor with a deficit or a surplus? Check that record at least.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
I like that he's for the fair tax and would like to see that implemented, but how do you know that he will follow through on it? Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's just rhetoric designed to rope in fiscal conservatives? I'm sorry, but I tend to look at a politician's record on spending/taing rather than rhetoric. As for balancing the budget, that is a Consititutional requirement for every state governor.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
I credit him for his anti-bailout stance, but that is negated by his support for a Bush-esque foreign policy approach. He is NOT a Constitutional Conservative, stating that we should "Use everything at the President's disposal to keep us safe". Great, another reactionary neocon who spends us right into Chinese slavery! You really think this guy will be any LESS of a liberal spender than Obama?
JBeatty17 2 years ago
JBeatty17,
I agree with the notion that a President should do everything at his disposal.
Of course the president is limited by the Constituion...ie checks and balances.
I don't think he is suggesting we create a temporary dictator...but the government's job is to PROTECT US.
Liberal spending? At this point any Republican that was consistnetly against the bailouts and stimulus will be better than Obama.
Obama is a naked Marxist.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Yeah, Schiff is running as a Republican, just like Ron Paul. He's still libertarian in ideology, though. Huckabee isn't anywhere near libertarian in ideology. He's on the opposite end of the spectrum as far as Republicans go.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Yeah, the gov't's job is to protect us, but the neocons have taken this to mean that we should ignore the Foundoing Fathers belief in a non-interventionest foreign policy and violate the Constitution a la the U.S. Patriot Act. We should have captured bin Laden and ended it there. Instead we forgot about the scum who attacked us and got sidetracked with costly sandbox wars. Mr. Huckabee was a cheerleader for Iraq and doesn't share that belief.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Look man,
If we lay aside the conspiracy with Bush and his supposed deceit in invading Iraq...
So in other words if TRULY THE INFORMATION at the time was that there was weapons of mass destructions...
then we had a justifiable means to invade.
When there is a perceived clear and present danger from another nation then we can kick some ass...
I agree though self determination is important for any country.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but if you refuse to admit that Iraq was anything other than a colossal blunder, than I just find it very difficult to respect anything you have to say politically. It was clear to anyone with a knowledge of Iraq's history that Iraq was MUCH weaker when W. invaded than when his father kicked Saddam's ass out of Kuwait but did not overthrow his regime. You've clearly fallen for the neocon talking points. Pre-emptive sandbox wars DO NOT keep us safe.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Come onnnnnnnn.
Dude Saddam Hussein clearly was breaking international law...they were not cooperating at the minimum...
I AM NOT DEFENDING THE DECISION TO INVADE IRAQ....
It is like you want to marginalize me as a NEO CON and not as an individual thinker.
Look, if you want to end the debate thats your call.
Just don't insult me. I consider myself an intelligent person. I can analyze for myself.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
'Clear and present danger' is NOT in The Constitution and was introduced by big gov't enthusiast S.C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes during Woodrow Wilson's tenure. Such an abomination was omitted from The Constitution for a reason, and The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves. The neocons pray that the average citizen doesn't do a little reseach and realie that it is NOT in The Constitution. The neocons have disregarded The Constitution far more than any other coalition.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
JBeatty,
Use your fucking brain man.
I bet your the kinda guy that will argue free speech to the point of yelling fire in a theatre.
WHat sense does it make to wait for a disaster to happen when we have intelligence that tells us we have enemies with INTENTIONS TO HARM US AND THE MEANS TO DO SO.
THe constitution is amendable bro.
We ended slavery remember?
I respect your purism for our constitution but at some point you got to use common sense.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Foreign policy is not black and white man.
There is a threshhold to whitch we have THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY.
That point at which it is though is debatable
Then there is debate on when to leave a nation after we invaded...
There comes a point where libertarianism is not based in reality....much like marxism is.
If we regulate nothing and allow everything then there is room for chaos.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
JBeatty17,
Good counterpoints.
Who really knows what a politican will actually do once he is in office.
You should follow up on Peter Schiff.
THat man knows his shit and predicted the recession. He is a libertarian but is running as a Republican for senator.
Why?
Because he knows he doesn't have a chance at winning as an independent.
He has to play ball TO AN EXTENT.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
And let's not forget that he supports the absolute trainwreck known as No Child Left Behind (also referred to as, "Our Children Fall Farther and Farther Behind Europe").
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Not that the religion of any of the founding fathers mattered, when you take into account the Establishment Clause of The Constitution and Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptists which expressly stated his will for a distinct wall of separation between Church and State. You really need to become familiar with The Constitution and the history of our Founding Fathers.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
3rd Party will never happen? Only if sheep like you never come out of your dogmatic stupor. Someday, you, or at least people like you will get fed up and realize that there is no such thing as liberal-conservative, only up or down. Someday you will realize that perception is not reality, reality is reality. Pretending that Huckabee or Palin will balance the budget and make gov't smaller simply doesn't make it so.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Your narrow view of politics is quite hilarious to the outside observer. You probably thought that Reagan was a fiscal conservative. It probably came as a real shock to you when a quick search of Google verified that Reagan, indeed, was no fiscal conservative. The War on drugs+ interventionist foreign policcy=Massive deficits every single year of his Presidency.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
" narrow view of politics "
So if i dont' see the world like you do then im a narrow minded kool aid drinking sheep.
GOT IT. NOW LETS STICK TO SUBSTANCE DUDE. PLEASE!
I never said Reagan was perfect?
Did I?
Yet your going to Reagan and then claiming I"m a worshiper of Palin?!
If you seriously want to have a conversation man remove the insults and we will go one by one on the arguments.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
If you want true fiscal conservatism, 3rd Party is the ONLY choice. The Reps and Dems simply have too many special interests that they must bend over far. Doesn't matter which candidate, if they have a (D) or an (R) by their name, you know that they are going to spend as much money as they can get away with. They are going to attempt to re-write the Constitution as much as they possibly can. Meanwhile CHINA, a communist country, is laughing all the way to the bank. How is this happening?
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Whats with Sarah Palin?
How about Nancy Pelosi? Is she gonna pull us out of the recession?
Your so worried about a woman from Alaska that you forget about the she devil from San Francisco.
Damn dude WHO IS IN POWER RIGHT NOW?
I like Sarah Palin because i share her values.
However, I don't think she is gonna be elected president.
Mike Huckabee will be.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
"3rd Party is the ONLY choice. "
It will never happen man. Right now we simply have primaries to weed out the liberals pretending to be conservatives in the Republican party.
You don't like religion? Thats your problem.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that our rights our given by a Creator.
It is a bias document and anti athiest in nature.
Deal with it.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
The big government conservatives like Palin and Huckabee love sheep like you. All they have to do is talk a little religion and villify liberals as anti-American and they have your vote. Why? Because you see the world in black and white. Liberals=BAD. Conservatives=GOOD. That pretty much sums up your world view. I have news for you, pal. Reagan tripled the national debt and Bush doubled it. If you think conservatives deliver on their promises, you simply don't know history.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
"sheep"
please dude don't resort to stupid insults. Palin is not my hero.
DUDE? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
On your analysis of of Reagan did you forget the Carter era that proceeded it?
DUDE. You seriously need to separate conservatism and politicians who fail to live up to their values.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
If I do indeed dislike relgion, then I have quite a bit in common with the Founding Fathers. Another thing that might surprise you is that the majority of the Founding Fathers were deists, not theists. Meaning they believed in a higher power, but not the theistic God of Judeo-Christian theology. Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin? All deists. In fact, Jefferson completely disregarded the Old Testament and created a custom Bible with just Jesus's teachings, he cut out all miracles.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Defending Rand should be secondary to defending the ideas of Objectivism. When you won't allow yourself to acknowledge that she was a bit ridiculous at times, and sometimes violated her own stated ethics, it makes the argument seem a little absurd. Also, her insistence on words like "selfish" and "altruistic" and "sacrifice" when she means something completely different than everyone else, gives people unfamiliar with her an excuse to dismiss the ideas outright.
lifeofbob 2 years ago
Get the religious kooks and neocons out of the conservative movement, and the Republicans will be a great alternative to the big-gov't Dems. Until then, it is impossible for any pro-reason, secular-minded individual to take the Republican Party seriously.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
" Until then, it is impossible for any pro-reason, secular-minded individual to take the Republican Party seriously. "
Dude you would rather have Obama bankrupt us and enslave us to the Chinese?
Your a bigger idiot idealogue than I thought.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Nope, I've grown disenfranchised with both major parties. I voted for Obama, but he's basically been Bush-lite. HOPE in one hand and BUSH in the other. Who says that I have to choose between the lesser of two evils? Did it ever cross your mind that there are OTHER options besides the Big Gov't Dems and Reps? Maybe I want a President who won't piss all over the Constituion in the name of keeping us safe, and mandate health insurance 'for my own good'. Is that too much to ask?
JBeatty17 2 years ago
"BUSH-LITE"
You mean BUSH heavy.
DUDE I KNOW THAT BOTH PARTIES SUCK and ARE ABOUT SPECIAL INTERESTS.
With Obama though he is literally digging a hole so deep we may not get out of.
Bush may have started it but he is definitely finishing it.
I had no real confidence in Mccain (Mcshame either).
Still. We are talking about our country's survival.
The lesser of 2 evils may keep us alive.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
So you really think Sarah Palin is going to be the one to lead us back to the promised land? What a joke. Sarah gets in office, there will be more hundred billion dollar tax cuts for corporations that we simply CANNOT pay for. Not to mention the strong possibility of a trillion war with Iran. What makes you think Palin & Co. will be any different than Bush? The Republicans aren't any more fiscally conservative than the Dems, they just choose to spend OUR money in different ways.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
"I can't think of a better example of 'nanny politics' than censoring the Web just because some parents are too lazy to keep an eye on their kids."
Dude we regulate some drugs...why can't we regulate porn sites?
We are not banning anything here.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Just like the Dems regulate economics. Different song, same tune. Why can't you see that both major parties are the same? Neither is working in the interest of the people. They're all about maintaining entrenched interests via the status quo. If you think your Congressman gives a damn about individualism, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Alaska. They don't give a damn about how hard you work or what you've done for our country. They just want your vote.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
To quote the late Barry Goldwater, "When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." Goldwater is turning in his grave right now. The Republican Party has fallen far indeed. No wonder they can only attract flag-waving rednecks and Bible-beating anti-intellectuals these days.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
Does that guy honestly think that you won't find immature people amongst people much older than teens?
FatherTime89 2 years ago
Does anyone know how you actually pronounce Ayn?
FatherTime89 2 years ago
It's like the word "I" with and n on the end. Like the German word for one, Ein.
BlazingGoddess 2 years ago
Thanks.
FatherTime89 2 years ago
Rand was an atheist, and actually refered to religion as 'immoral' in an interview. The religious Right philosophically has NOTHING in common with Ayn Rand. You really need to learn the difference between conservative and libertarian. Conservative= Small Government in economic policy, Big Government in foreign policy and social control. Libertarian= Small Government PERIOD .
JBeatty17 2 years ago 2
The problem with libertarians is that the "live and let live" really lies on a continuum.
Simply not getting involved in world affairs may hurt us in the process. Yes We have our own destinty but we are intertwined with the rest of the world.
Social issues are complex as well. There is a fine line between individual freedom and violation of another's freedom.
The classic case would be abortion. Is it a woman's body (property) or the babies right to life?
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
It is a woman's property, but even if I grant you abortion, how do gay marriage, legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, and an uncensored Web impinge upon anyone else's freedom? And as for the, 'complex issues' argument, please. A big government progressive could say the same thing about economics. So what you're saying is that big gov't is good in instances where you see fit, but bad in instances where you don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too- pick a side.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
"It is a woman's property"
So you say. But even Ron Paul says that a woman cannot kill her child in her house which is her property.
Again a person's liberty has limits and ends when another person's liberty is jeopardized.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
"how do gay marriage, legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, and an uncensored Web impinge upon anyone else's freedom?" I agree people should be able to do what they want as long as it is hurting them and no one else.
When it comes to drugs, some are so powerful and potent that they need to be at least regulated. Yes I am for the legalization of pot because it is a mild drug compared to the others.
Gay marriage is something else. Children deserve 2 parents of opposite gender.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
The government gets involved in social affairs (ie social work, child protective services, etc). So as a society we determine what is best for children.
Many experts believe that the nuclear family is the best setting for the child.
This is how conservative and liberal politics shape the laws of the land.
I have no problem with gay marriage, but the trivializing of traditional marriage at the expense of children is something else...
It can't be avoided.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
"As a society we determine what is best for children"
Precisely what a supporter of the big government nanny-state would say. It is up to the parents to determine what is best for children, NOT the gov't. The gov't should only intervene if the child's health and safety is at risk. It is not the responsibility of the state to determine what familial structures are best for children.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
" child's health and safety is at risk."
exactly abortion would be on that list
The institution of marriage is a bedrock of civilizations since the beginning of time. If we are gonna change the definition we should have a long hard debate before doing so.
Gays can enter contracts just as straight people can. They can even legally raise children.
However when it comes to tax payers money in adoption agenice etc then the BEST POSSIBLE home should be the place for that.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
There you go again, repeating Republican talking points about 'family values'. I don't need adulterous politicians lecturing me on morality and how society SHOULD be, I believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility. You think we should waste tax dollars debating moralty? Fine, then. I guess a Palin-Huckabee ticket is right up your alley. I would prefer a candidate who uses out tax dollars to protect life, liberty, and property in the way that the Founders intended.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
"what you're saying is that big gov't is good in instances where you see fit, but bad in instances where you don't"
What I am saying is that the government has the right to get involved when a person's rights are being infringed on by another. That is called law.
The big government i am talking about is the nanny state and the micromanagement of every person.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
"The big government that i am talking about"
Yep, just as I suspected. You want to talk about some types of big government but not others. Your arguments in favor of big-government legislation of morality are based on unfounded fear-mongering tactics drafted up by the likes of Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson. As for the 'nanny state', I can't think of a better example of 'nanny politics' than censoring the Web just because some parents are too lazy to keep an eye on their kids.
JBeatty17 2 years ago
objectivism is not a rand cult. heck, it's amazing the number of objectiviists I see/hear that openly criticise Rand herself, but hold that her philosophy is valid
SadisticMonkey336 2 years ago
where is ron paul?
amindbody 2 years ago
Government is a tool we once needed long ago, but is less needed now. Kind of like religion. When humans didn't know better, they had to invent religion to explain how the sun crossed the sky and how people got sick. We still need it today because we don't know how life began or what happens when we die. It's the same w/ government. You think you need it to protect from foreign invaders,but what powerful army defended colonies against the greatest military in the world during the revolution?
thanosied 2 years ago
I don't know much about Ayn Rand or her following. I read the book and gleaned out of it what I agreed with and threw away what I disagreed with according to my personal principle of the nonaggression axiom and my own personal ethics. Anyone who would blindly follow another person based on a book is pretty mindless and would exhibit cult-type tendencies. Just like xians and the bible. Use common sense and you'll like the book for what it has to offer - individual responsibility vs. group think.
thanosied 2 years ago
I don't know anybody who follows Rand. We objectivists follow the principles of objectivism, which are essentially that morality is a province of reason not faith or force and that individual freedom is more important than collective ambitions. Well there's much more than that but those are essential things
I disagree with Rand in a few areas myself even though I concider her books to be the best novels i've ever read
I recomend you check out "The Fouintainhead" it's better in some ways
Sam26100 2 years ago
He nailed it (selfishness)at the end.
joshd321 2 years ago
"the whole notion of a cult when you talk about individualists is absurd"
well that's what I've gotten out of reading objectivist articles or speaking to some online, lol. They seem very culty. You can't even question Rand's stances on anything. Maybe this has changed a little(i certainly hope so, or else they're just gonna keep on getting labeled as a cult....rightfully so if they act like that)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
i have noticed cult like tendencies, but on the whole remembering that Rand's maxim: "the greatest sin is not thinking"— if you do develop a set of principles, can logically defend them, then the error is someone else's; when encountered with someone who is oblivious of logic and observations, then they are defeating the whole point, which is consistency and verifiable conclusions.
you can question Rand's stances.. be prepared to do justify your own, and find ppl who are willing to learn w/ U
irvnz 2 years ago
"but on the whole remembering that Rand's maxim..."
in that case, I don't think some objectivists keep that in mind. Plus, a lot of them seem like old cranks. Again, that's just the basic gist I get from seein them post online and such. I've only met one objectivist in person and he seems pretty cool. He's one of the officers in a club I'm in for libertarians.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
I agree with Ayn Rand in her fundamental ideas, but I don't think she was infallible.
How does that make me a cultist, becaue I agree?
I don't worship her, or any mortal being. I worship reality. In what way am I a cultist? (Im an objectivist)
Sam26100 2 years ago 2
The left is out in left field.
If you understand anything, Rand is the normal one.Personally I have a problem with John Lennon's fan base, they seem a lot cultish to me. At least Rand's "cult" is full of sober, sane intellectuals.
The whole scapegoating of a fanbase is just politics and politics is worthless.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
/nod @ therealcaptobvious
who was it that said that cults are not cults if they grow? I forget the exact quote, but the point is that ideas are never called cults if they become popular, even if they're completely insane.
Sam26100 2 years ago
No, that's perfectly fine. But some people i've seen post online DO sound like they worship her, lol. Some of them don't even seem all that objective about things.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
I'd need some examples then, I haven't encountered that myself
It's interesting
Sam26100 2 years ago
I did as a teenager first exposed to being either a "hippie" because I had long hair, or reading "For the New Intellectual", keeping my hair long and mouthing some of the essentials in "The Unknown Ideal"— having a good logical bent saw me thru some weird times— one cannot just spout "A is A" without exposure to axiomatic systems, but there were those who did, and didn't know what the contra-positive is.
Now not much has changed, except I am happier having a logical basis on my views,
irvnz 2 years ago
lol, i don't keep track of ppl's usernames. It's not like it happens to me all the time. I've only come across a few objectivists online. I generally don't see that many make posts where I go so there's no reason for me to keep tabs on it or anything. I generally visit libertarian kinda sites to post on.
:-)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Oh my god and you think those elites in DC who think you dont have a brain and are almost giddy with power to control your life are not selfish?? What does the American dream mean to you?
itaxit1 2 years ago 2
"selfishness" said by Adam Smith is translated to "self esteem" in today's modern language. If that coined phrase exists anymore.
Man, the only reason why Rand fans come across as a "cult" is because the media went so far left it fell off of a map.
"selfish". Self love is the base for a healthy society. Even the Bible says "love your neighbor as much AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF".
Suck it up liberals.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
Great explanation of selfishness by Yaron Brook.
rational1776 2 years ago 3