Monday, November 03, 2008

Election 08: Who would Rand vote for?

Since Rand is no longer with us, we can only guess what she might have done. Here I offer merely two possible conjectures: (1) Either she would not have voted for either candidate; or (2) She would have voted for McCain. Let's examine both possibilities.

(1) The evidence supporting the conjecture that she would have refused to vote for either candidate comes largely from her refusal to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the fact that her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, has stated quite clearly he believes that the Republican Party should either be wiped out or "severly punished." Peikoff's reason are stated in a recent podcast:



Peikoff's views are clearly influenced by Rand's disgust at Reagan's alliance with the religious right. The fact that the Reagan needed this alliance in order to have a chance at winning is of no concern either to Rand or Peikoff. In Peikoff's case, this militant animus against religion is taken to the length of insane paranoia. Peikoff mocks Palin for some of her odd religious beliefs, yet he fails to cite any instance in which her personal religious convictions have affected her political decisions as governor of Alaska. Yet Peikoff's paranoid horror of religion has its source in Rand, so it is quite possible that Rand would agreed with Peikoff and would therefore sit out the '08 election.

2. The evidence suggesting the possibility that Rand might have voted for McCain largely comes from her fear of George McGovern in 1972. Obama is the most left-wing candidate since McGovern: indeed, he might even be further to the left. Like McGovern, Obama is an anti-war leftist who supports a very strong redistributionist agenda, including giving so-called "tax credits" to people who don't pay any federal income tax. Would Obama scare Rand enough to make her vote for McCain? After all, even Peikoff admits that Obama is the first major Presidential candidate to have anti-American views. If McGovern was scary enough to cause Rand to vote for a President who extended the Great Society and implemented price controls, why wouldn't Obama be scary enough to convince her to vote for McCain?


50 comments:

Damien said...

Greg,

An interesting point to make might be that given the complexity of the world, even Peikoff could find a single instance where she claimed her religious beliefs influenced her actions as governess of Alaska, it might be a rare instance where he would actually agree with what she didn't despite her motives. Also in order to at least try to be fair to Palin, Peikoff would have to find her specifically saying that her religion motivated her to do things he didn't like. Plus just because something stereotypical of religious people, doesn't mean its exclusive to religious people.

Here's a particular website that I've personally enjoyed, that would probably shock Peikoff out of his mind.

HerbSewell said...

Greg,

It's not paranoia to fear religion in Peikoff's case. Clearly, ruling with intellectual impunity, the theocrats have possibly been the biggest threat to individual rights in world history. Aside from racism, religion is the most collectivist form of idolatry there is, in which millions of citizens vote for a particular candidate solely because of their shared religions beliefs, not regarding whether these beliefs are moral or immoral, rational or irrational. It's by this collectivist nature that allows the theocrats to this day to preach things such as, "It's against God's will," or "This is a Christian nation."
Besides the collectivist nature of the theocrats, fundamentally a more serious problem is their agenda to literally sacrifice the welfare of this nation to some preposterously rediculous and mystical ideal, demanding that the American people to throw themselves on swords for the will of God.

Neil Parille said...

In '82 Peikoff was claiming that there were ominous parallels with the Nazis. Recently he has been screaming about the religious right. Yet Obama -- who attended for 20 years a far left church which advocate black liberation theology -- may win easily.

JayCross said...

Of course, Obama threw that church (which he did attend for 20 years, get married in and baptize his kids in) under the bus as soon it became clear that it might cost him votes. IMO, that and many similar actions make Obama a sociopath. McCain arguably is a sociopath too, and probably all top-level politicians.

Think about it: who else but a sociopath would get into a career where the only ways to succeed are:

1) Ass kissing
2) Cutting shady deals with other corrupt people
3) Currying favor based on expediency
4) Pretending to support things you don't support
5) Telling blatant lies to crowds of people, that you know are lies, so they will vote for you. (Such as Obama's NAFTA-bashing in states that lost manufacturing jobs, after which he assured Canadians that it was just a standard campaign lie.)

Not only must you do these things, you generally must do them for 5, 10, even 20 years or more to get high office. If you don't do them, someone else will, and 9 times out of 10 that person will get the high office you couldn't get by being honest. That's why I wont vote for any of these people. Rand may have agreed or disagreed.

Damien said...

Peikoff, might want to rethink what he said for another reason.
At the risk of being accused of being a bigot, I have to point out that not all religions are the same. In this blog post Citizen Warrior (who has commented on this website, a couple times) explains why he is far more worried about Islam than Christianity. Off course not all Muslims are hate filled fanatics, but they can easily find justification in their holy text if they want it.

gregnyquist said...

herbsewell: "Aside from racism, religion is the most collectivist form of idolatry there is, in which millions of citizens vote for a particular candidate solely because of their shared religions beliefs."

The sort of people who would actually do such a thing (and it's not just shared religious beliefs that inspire such behavior) are the very sort of people who aren't capable of thinking for themselves anyway. So what would you have them do? Vote because they like the hair style of the candidate? In democracies, people on the left side of the intelligence bell curve are allowed to vote, so it's futile to be indignant about it.

herbsewell: "Besides the collectivist nature of the theocrats, fundamentally a more serious problem is their agenda to literally sacrifice the welfare of this nation to some preposterously rediculous and mystical ideal"

In the first place, the implication that Republicans are theocrats because they try get votes from evangelical Christians is preposterous. But if so, what specific policies supported by mainstream Republicans are in any sense theocratic? Because they oppose gay marriage or abortion? So did most of the West before 1970? Was America and Western Europe a theocracy before 1970?

Words like theocracy and fascism are thrown around far too lightly by people who never experienced real theocracy or real fascism.

JayCross said...

people on the left side of the intelligence bell curve are allowed to vote, so it's futile to be indignant about it.

True, but we also have a separation of church and state, and if nothing else, the spirit of that law frowns on voting for people solely on religiosity.

I think most people who complain about religious voters are frustrated that we are choosing leaders on the basis of Bronze Age myths and fables. Why is it futile to complain about it? Maybe you can't stop everyone from voting that way, but what if far fewer people did? I think that would be a good thing.

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...

Greg

You said,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Words like theocracy and fascism are thrown around far too lightly by people who never experienced real theocracy or real fascism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't agree more. One of my pet peeves is people who go around comparing people they don't like to Hitler for no good reason. Second of all, yes, America never was a theocracy. If you want to hear about what a real theocracy is like, read about Medieval Europe or if want to find out first hand, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Also you said,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first place, the implication that Republicans are theocrats because they try get votes from evangelical Christians is preposterous. But if so, what specific policies supported by mainstream Republicans are in any sense theocratic? Because they oppose gay marriage or abortion? So did most of the West before 1970? Was America and Western Europe a theocracy before 1970
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's something else, what about the Atheist who happen to hold a few stereotypical Christian Fundamentalist beliefs? Are you a theocrat if you say oppose abortion, but don't believe in a deity, like the people who run "Atheists and Agnostics for Life?" (They're the group I linked to in my first comment on this subject.) Are they religious fundamentalist? Are they out to impose their religious views on you? How can they, if they don't have a religion in the first place?

gregnyquist said...

Jay "make Obama a sociopath. McCain arguably is a sociopath too, and probably all top-level politicians."

If this is meant literally, rather than just as a figure of speech, it is clearly false. Politicians may on occasion be corrupt and dishonest, but they really are not much more dishonest than most people. The biggest problem with American politicians is not their dishonesty, but their ignorance—an ignorance stemming an ignorance of humane knowledge and economics. McCain, far from being a sociopath (trying selling that one to those who served with him in Vietnam), knows very little outside of military tactics and strategy.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

After all, even Peikoff admits that Obama is the first major Presidential candidate to have anti-American views. - Greg
___________________________________




Who decides what is "anti-American" views?



You,...Peikoff?




___________________________________

...in which millions of citizens vote for a particular candidate solely because of their shared religions beliefs, not regarding whether these beliefs are moral or immoral, rational or irrational. - Herbsewell
___________________________________




Who decides what is "moral" or "immoral"?



___________________________________

Think about it: who else but a sociopath would get into a career where the only ways to succeed are:

1) Ass kissing - Jay
___________________________________




I prefer the term, "Ass Licking".



___________________________________

2) Cutting shady deals with other corrupt people
3) Currying favor based on expediency
4) Pretending to support things you don't support
5) Telling blatant lies to crowds of people, that you know are lies, so they will vote for you. (Such as Obama's NAFTA-bashing in states that lost manufacturing jobs, after which he assured Canadians that it was just a standard campaign lie.)

Not only must you do these things, you generally must do them for 5, 10, even 20 years or more to get high office. If you don't do them, someone else will, and 9 times out of 10 that person will get the high office you couldn't get by being honest. That's why I wont vote for any of these people. Rand may have agreed or disagreed. - jay
___________________________________





Brilliant! Jay, you are getting wiser everyday.



___________________________________


Off course not all Muslims are hate filled fanatics, but they can easily find justification in their holy text if they want it. - Damien
___________________________________




So which muslims are the real muslims?


Aren't Christians supposed to love their enemies?


People who call themselves "Christians" but do not practice what Jesus preached,

do they qualify as Charlatans?



___________________________________


Because they oppose gay marriage or abortion? So did most of the West before 1970? Was America and Western Europe a theocracy before 1970? - Greg
___________________________________



Com blocks had opposed gay marriage even after 70's.

Stalin was against abortion and homosexuality. Did this make him "Pro-Life" conservative?


___________________________________

Words like theocracy and fascism are thrown around far too lightly by people who never experienced real theocracy or real fascism. - Greg
-----------------------------------

After all, even Peikoff admits that Obama is the first major Presidential candidate to have anti-American views. - Greg
___________________________________



Have you experienced "anti-American" views?

If so, then what is it? and who decides it as such?


___________________________________

McCain, far from being a sociopath (trying selling that one to those who served with him in Vietnam), knows very little outside of military tactics and strategy. - Greg
___________________________________



I am intrigued, how do you know McCain knows about military tactics and strategy?

Just because he was a fighter pilot, doesn't necessarily mean he knows something about military strategy.

Just look at Herman Guering, who was one of the top ace fighter pilots during WW1, yet he turned out to know very little about sound air tactics and strategy during WW2.

HerbSewell said...

"The sort of people who would actually do such a thing (and it's not just shared religious beliefs that inspire such behavior) are the very sort of people who aren't capable of thinking for themselves anyway. So what would you have them do? Vote because they like the hair style of the candidate? In democracies, people on the left side of the intelligence bell curve are allowed to vote, so it's futile to be indignant about it."

It's not futile. The difference between religion mixed into politics and simple ignorance about whom one is voting for is that religion is a collectivized form of irrationality, with millions of people voting for an irrational candidate on the rationalization of collectivism united by faith, based on mysticism. Every man should be allowed to vote as every man should be allowed to run for office, but no man should mix the dictation of a religion and the dictation of a proper civilization, the very founding principle of any moral government. When governmental leaders use faith instead of reason to justify their actions they are contradicting the very purpose of creating a government that establishes a civilization, claiming that the justifications for the actions of the government cannot be proved by logic and can not be proven to be morally correct by applying the process of logic to the potential actions of the government.

"In the first place, the implication that Republicans are theocrats because they try get votes from evangelical Christians is preposterous. But if so, what specific policies supported by mainstream Republicans are in any sense theocratic? Because they oppose gay marriage or abortion? So did most of the West before 1970? Was America and Western Europe a theocracy before 1970?"

Don't put words into my mouth. Saying I implied something is essentially trying to attribute something to my form of communication that I did not directly communicate, in which I would have had to have purposely not have clearly stated I was referring to Republicans. I actually was not implying that the Republicans do this as a whole. Democrats also justify some of their governmental actions on faith.
Essentially, the state officials that still to this day are against gay marriage and abortion still have to rely on collectivist views of the government, (religious or otherwise.) Nazi Germany, despite it's rejection of forms of theism for its actual doctrine, (in which I note there was still a lack of separation between church and state), still practiced forms of discrimination, race, sexual orientation or otherwise, on collectivist justifications. I said religion was the worst form of collectivism when applied to political matters, conceding that the collectivist doctrine preached by Nazi Germany, racism, is significantly more deadly to society.

Speaking to Red Grant...

As to exactly who decides what is immoral and what is anti-American, the only rational way to understand such potentially non-contradictory statements of reality is the application of the faculty of reason. Truth, being a non-contradictory identification of reality, can only be obtained after one recognizes the primacy of existence, realizing that only by the process of logic, or the art of non-contradictory identification, can one form concepts based on percepts, gaining knowledge through this integration. If one is to actually have knowledge, essentially, one must think. There are objective reasons why Dr. Peikoff believes Barack Obama is anti-American, due to him saying a statement about reality and not what is created by his consciousness devoid of reality. I can't necessarily know what definition, which I'm quite sure is for the most part valid, that Dr. Peikoff is using. Essentially, Dr. Peikoff has in some way seen that Obama is against America in "possibly" a fundamental way, based on the evidence given to him by his senses, (hearing him speak, reading the opinions of commentators, etc.,) in his mind automatically integrates these sensations into particulars. After seeing fundamental similarities with certain particulars about Obama's platform and other particulars about anti-American views, he can integrate Obama's platform into the concept of being anti-American.

"Who decides what is "moral" or "immoral"?"

Clearly, since "moral" and "immoral" are concepts, based integration of two or more particulars, which are fundamentally based the automatic integration of sensory stimuli, in order to correctly form concepts based on the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence, one must apply his own faculty of reason and recognize it as the single standard of truth.

JayCross said...

Greg,

Like most things, sociopathy exists on a continuum. McCain (if he is one) may be less of a sociopath than say, the ex-husband of my best friend's psychology professor, who pretended to be an esteemed doctor with a Yale degree (only to later have his lies unraveled.) McCain isn't that blatant.

I agree that he does not know much outside of military strategy. However, this actually strengthens my point. What business does McCain have promising to rescue the economy when he has precisely zero business experience and probably very little understanding of economics/markets? Same can be said of Obama.

Neither candidate has the relevant knowledge or experience to deliver on those promises, but are totally fine with making those promises. Why? To get votes. To me, that seems like a sociopathic behavior.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Speaking to Red Grant...

As to exactly who decides what is immoral and what is anti-American, the only rational way to understand such

potentially non-contradictory statements... - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
Truth, being a non-contradictory identification of reality,... - Herbswell
___________________________________



Does this mean then you believe that Truth could be that what is immoral and what is anti-American are potentially contradictory?




___________________________________

Truth, being a non-contradictory identification of reality, can only be obtained after one recognizes the primacy of existence, realizing that only by the process of

logic, ... - Herbswell
___________________________________





By logic, do you mean Aristotelian logic?



___________________________________

There are objective reasons why Dr. Peikoff believes Barack Obama is anti-American,


due to him saying a statement about reality... - Herbswell
___________________________________





I am intrigued. Please show me the quotes.




___________________________________

There are objective reasons why Dr. Peikoff believes Barack Obama is anti-American, due to him saying a statement about reality and not what is created by his consciousness devoid of reality.


I can't necessarily know what definition, which I'm quite sure is for the most part valid, that Dr. Peikoff is using. - Herbswell
___________________________________



If you can't necessarily know what definition that Dr. Peikoff is using for believing Barack Obama is anti-American, then

how can you be quite sure is for the most part valid?



___________________________________

Essentially, Dr. Peikoff has in some way seen that Obama is against America in "possibly" a fundamental way, based on the evidence given to him by his senses, (hearing him speak, reading the opinions of commentators, etc.,) in his mind automatically integrates these sensations into particulars.

After seeing fundamental similarities with certain particulars about Obama's platform and other particulars about anti-American views, he can integrate Obama's platform into the concept of being anti-American. - Herbswell
___________________________________




So does this mean then you believe that Dr. Peikoff decides who and what is anti-American?



___________________________________

After seeing fundamental similarities with certain particulars about Obama's platform and other particulars about anti-American views, he can integrate Obama's platform into the concept of being anti-American. - Herbswell
___________________________________





Please show me the certain particulars about Obama's platform and other particulars about anti-American views(as perceived by Dr. Peikoff)that Dr. Peikoff sees in fundamental similarities with that he (Dr. Peikoff) integrates into the concept of being anti-American (as Dr. Peikoff perceives as such).

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Clearly, since "moral" and "immoral" are concepts, based integration of two or more particulars, which are fundamentally based the automatic integration of sensory stimuli, in order to correctly form concepts based on the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence,


one must apply his own faculty of reason and recognize it as the single standard of truth. - Herbswell
___________________________________



Does this mean then you believe that "morality" is relative to each individual?

HerbSewell said...

"Does this mean then you believe that Truth could be that what is immoral and what is anti-American are potentially contradictory?"

It depends one one's morality, but yes. In truth, one can have a morality that shows a dislike for an aspect of America.

"By logic, do you mean Aristotelian logic?"

I speak simply of removing or preventing contradictions in one's thoughts or ideas by conforming them to the Law of Identity. Any contradictions made by Aristotle on this process he intellectually founded I do not share.

"I am intrigued. Please show me the quotes."

It's all in the video. When he called Obama anti-American, he was making a statement about reality. The soundness of that statement is dependent on the soundness of his premises and the validity of his reason.

"If you can't necessarily know what definition that Dr. Peikoff is using for believing Barack Obama is anti-American, then

how can you be quite sure is for the most part valid?"

Let me correct myself. I suppose I cannot be sure whether or not Leonard Peikoff's own argument for Obama's identity of being anti-American is not known to me. However, the implication that Obama is indeed anti-American seems very plausible, something I would probably agree with if I cared one way or the other. I'm not defending Peikoff's view, I'm only defending Peikoff's ability to formulate a sound opinion.

"So does this mean then you believe that Dr. Peikoff decides who and what is anti-American?"

If it's a statement about existence then it is objective. His conclusion could be invalid and his premises could be wrong, but he can decide what is or is not anti-American. People may just disagree with it. It depends solely on his reason and the shared premises.

"Please show me the certain particulars about Obama's platform and other particulars about anti-American views(as perceived by Dr. Peikoff)that Dr. Peikoff sees in fundamental similarities with that he (Dr. Peikoff) integrates into the concept of being anti-American (as Dr. Peikoff perceives as such)."

I really have no care or valid idea as to what premises Dr. Peikoff based his arguments on. I knew he was emphatically against Obama, due to certain ideas espoused by Obama that Dr. Peikoff finds immoral. Read virtually every piece of wiring on politics by Dr. Peikoff, (or even Ayn Rand for that matter), and you'll clearly see why Dr. Peikoff believes Obama is anti-American.

"Does this mean then you believe that "morality" is relative to each individual?"

Of course it's relative. By definition, because morality defines how man should live his life its principally based on the ability of free will as it is formed in the ego, not the super-ego or the id. An objective morality, however, like truth is relative, but based on a proper standard of evaluation, holding the Law of Identity as absolute.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

There are objective reasons why Dr. Peikoff believes Barack Obama is anti-American,


due to him saying a statement about reality... - Herbswell

"I am intrigued. Please show me the quotes." - Red Grant

It's all in the video. When he called Obama anti-American, he was making a statement about reality. The soundness of that statement is dependent on the soundness of his premises and the validity of his reason. - Herbswell
___________________________________



I am asking you to provide the quotes where there are objective reasons for Dr. Peikoff believing Barack Obama is anti-American.

Please provide those objective reasons.



___________________________________

However, the implication that Obama is indeed

anti-American

seems very plausible, something I would probably agree with if I cared one way or the other. - Herbswell
___________________________________





What is anti-American objectively

Who decides who and what is anti-American objectively?

What makes it plausible to you that the implication that Obama is indeed anti-American?



___________________________________

There are objective reasons why Dr. Peikoff believes Barack Obama is anti-American,... - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
I'm not defending Peikoff's view [that Barack Obama is anti-American]... - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
However, the implication[by Dr. Peikoff] that Obama is indeed anti-American seems very plausible,

something I would probably agree with if I cared one way or the other. - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
Truth, being a non-contradictory identification of reality,... - Herbswell
___________________________________



Are you being truthful?


___________________________________

If it's a statement about existence then it is objective.

His[Dr. Peikoff] conclusion could be invalid and his[Dr. Peikoff] premises could be wrong,... - Herbswell
___________________________________



Does this mean then you believe an objective statement can based on wrong premise and have invalid conclusions?


___________________________________

There are objective reasons why Dr. Peikoff believes Barack Obama is anti-American,... - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
His[Dr. Peikoff's] conclusion could be invalid and his premises could be wrong, but he[Dr. Peikoff] can decide what is or is not anti-American. - Herbswell
___________________________________



Does this mean then you believe that Dr. Peikoff's conclusion could be invalid and his premises could be wrong, but he can still decide what is or is not anti-American objectively?



___________________________________

...I'm only defending Peikoff's ability to formulate a sound opinion. - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
His[Dr. Peikoff's] conclusion could be invalid and his premises could be wrong,... - Herbswell
___________________________________




When Dr. Peikoff's conclucion could be invalid and his premise could be wrong, then how could his opinion be sound?



___________________________________

I knew he was emphatically against Obama, due to certain ideas espoused by Obama that Dr. Peikoff finds immoral. - Herbswell
___________________________________



What are those certain ideas?



___________________________________

An objective morality, however, like truth is relative, but based on a proper standard of evaluation,... - Herbswell
___________________________________




What is that proper standard of evaluation?

and who decides it as such?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Aristotle is the father of logic and the champion of reason as man’s only means of knowledge. Knowledge, he holds, must be based on and derived from the data of sense experience; it must be formulated in terms of objectively defined concepts; it must be validated by a process of logic.

Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parrell
-----------------------------------
...I'm only defending Peikoff's ability to formulate a sound opinion. - Herbswell
___________________________________




Do you agree with Dr. Peikoff's assessment of Aristotle above?

HerbSewell said...

"I am asking you to provide the quotes where there are objective reasons for Dr. Peikoff believing Barack Obama is anti-American.

Please provide those objective reasons."

I never said I knew them.

"What is anti-American objectively

Who decides who and what is anti-American objectively?

What makes it plausible to you that the implication that Obama is indeed anti-American?"

1. Identities that are "Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States."

2. I've already answered this several times. Individuals decide what is true and what is false. Their evaluation might be contradictory.

3. That's completely irrelevant. This is about Dr. Peikoff, not me.

"Are you being truthful?"

I'm being honest if that's what you're asking, and I believe my statements are not contradictory identifications of reality.

"Does this mean then you believe an objective statement can based on wrong premise and have invalid conclusions?"

Objective is anything that can be proven to be true or false, meaning it's validity is dependent on reality, as opposed to subjective that is based on one views of reality, or statements about reality that is based on faith.

"What are those certain ideas?"

Good lord... there are some things Dr. Peikoff would for the most part agree with Obama on, (namely his views on abortion), but just take about every stance Obama has and Dr. Peikoff will disagree with it.

"Does this mean then you believe that Dr. Peikoff's conclusion could be invalid and his premises could be wrong, but he can still decide what is or is not anti-American objectively?"

As any statement can be proven false, unless to prove it false you would have to assume it to be true in the first place.

"Plato was from Mars" is an objective statement that can be proven to be incorrect.

"When Dr. Peikoff's conclucion could be invalid and his premise could be wrong, then how could his opinion be sound?"

Because Dr. Peikoff's conclucion and his premises can be valid and can be sound.

"What is that proper standard of evaluation?

and who decides it as such?"

Logic, and reality decides it as such. If you're going to make a statement that is non-contradictory, you had better apply a process of non-contradiction to your premises.

"Do you agree with Dr. Peikoff's assessment of Aristotle above? "

I do, but I concede and agree with Ayn Rand's disagreement with Aristotle's philosophy.

"Aristotle regarded “essence” as metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological."

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

There are objective reasons why Dr. Peikoff believes Barack Obama is anti-American,


due to him saying a statement about reality... - Herbswell


I am asking you to provide the quotes where there are objective reasons for Dr. Peikoff believing Barack Obama is anti-American.

Please provide those objective reasons. - Red Grant


I never said I knew them. - Herbswell
___________________________________




Does this mean then you don't know those objective reasons why Dr. Peikoff believes Barack Obama is anti-American?



___________________________________

"What is anti-American objectively - Red Grant

1. Identities that are "Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States." - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
However, the implication that Obama is indeed

anti-American

seems very plausible, something I would probably agree with if I cared one way or the other. - Herbswell
___________________________________




What has Barack Obama done to make it plausible to you that he is indeed anti-American?




___________________________________

Who decides who and what is anti-American

objectively? - Red Grant

2. I've already answered this several times.

Individuals decide what is true and what is false.

Their evaluation might be contradictory. - Herbswell
___________________________________




Can objective statements be contradictory?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

What makes it plausible to you that the implication that Obama is indeed anti-American?" - Red Grant
-----------------------------------

3. That's completely irrelevant. This is about Dr. Peikoff, not me. - Herbswell
___________________________________



Does this mean then you do not know what makes it plausible to you that Barack Obama is indeed anti-American?



___________________________________

There are objective reasons why Dr. Peikoff believes Barack Obama is anti-American,... - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
I never said I knew them[objective reasons why Dr. Peikoff believes Barack Obama is anti-American]. - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
His[Dr. Peikoff's] conclusion could be invalid and his premises could be wrong,... - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
I really have no care or valid idea as to what premises Dr. Peikoff based his arguments on[objective reasons why Barack Obama is anti-American]. - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
However, the implication[by Dr. Peikoff] that Obama is indeed anti-American seems very plausible,

something I would probably agree with if I cared one way or the other. - Herbswell
-----------------------------------I suppose I cannot be sure whether or not Leonard Peikoff's own argument for Obama's identity of being anti-American is not known to me. - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
I can't necessarily know what definition, which I'm quite sure is for the most part valid, that Dr. Peikoff is using[on the objective reasons for believing Barack Obama is anti-American]. - Herbswell
-----------------------------------

... but he[Dr. Peikoff] can decide what is or is not anti-American. - Herbswell
___________________________________



___________________________________

I'm not defending Peikoff's view [that Barack Obama is anti-American]... - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
However, the implication[by Dr. Peikoff] that Obama is indeed anti-American seems very plausible,

something I would probably agree with if I cared one way or the other. - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
Truth, being a non-contradictory identification of reality,... - Herbswell
-----------------------------------
"Are you being truthful?" - Red Grant
-----------------------------------

I'm being honest if that's what you're asking, and I believe my statements are not contradictory identifications of reality. - Herbswell
___________________________________

Damien said...

Red Grant,

You said,
-----------------------------------------------------
___________________________________


Off course not all Muslims are hate filled fanatics, but they can easily find justification in their holy text if they want it. - Damien
___________________________________




So which muslims are the real muslims?


Aren't Christians supposed to love their enemies?


People who call themselves "Christians" but do not practice what Jesus preached,

do they qualify as Charlatans?
-----------------------------------------------------

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is their personal savior, while a Muslim is someone who believes Mohammad was a prophet. It doesn't really matter if they live according to their religion. Not all Christians love their neighbor and not all Muslims support Jihad or Sharia.


___________________________________

Damien said...

Red Grant,

Please look over Citizen Warrior's second comment here, if you haven't already.

You may have to go down a ways.

And while you are at it, you might want to check out, the Infidel_Bloggers_Alliance, Jihad_Watch, Religion_Of_Peace, and Citizen_Warrior's own blog.

Anonymous said...

What I can't understand is the fuss over who wins the election. Regardless of the result, capitalism runs itself. Nobody runs it, the system doesnt care who wins. Democrat or Republican will make no difference. As the old saying goes, you don't subvert the system is subverts you. In this country Harold Wilson found out in 1964 when the Labour Party one the election. Despite having a mandate from the electroate, the govenor of the Bank of England told him he wold have to adopt Conservative economic policy. If he didnt, the banks and financiers would invest overseas and there would be a run on the pound. So, Wilson and the govenor of the bank reached the conclusion, that what every party won the election on what ever programme they would have to follow certain policies to keep the confidence of the bankers and finanicers. Woe betide those that don't.

So, that is why elections are irrelevant. Sure, let's so how much of of what Obama says he is going to do will actually happen.

Anonymous said...

But I see that this topic is who would Rand have voted for and not will voting make a difference.

Well, as she died in 1982 who give a flying one.

As for Peikoff why would anything listen to what that half wit says?

Have you read his book the Ominous parallels? Omg, what was he smoking back then! It is written in the style of those loony-left wing papers collegs kids try to sell you! IT IS EXTREMELY ANGRY AND SHOUTS IT'S MESSAGE. First book where I've actually looked for a volume control.

Still, in the UK we have Ian Paisley and over there you have Peikoff. I think those in the US have the better deal adn Peikoff is amusing, but nobody gets hurt as noboy takes him seriously.

I just can't understand this topic though, why would any one care which way a dead lady would vote in a pointless (IMO) election?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Objective is anything that can be proven to be true or false, meaning it's validity is dependent on reality,

as opposed to subjective that is based on one views of reality, or statements about reality that is based on faith. - Herbswell
-----------------------------------

Who decides who and what is anti-American objectively? - Red Grant


Individuals decide what is true and what is false. Their evaluation might be contradictory. - Herbswell

-----------------------------------
"Does this mean then you believe that "morality" is relative to each individual?" - Red Grant

Of course it's relative. - Herbswell
___________________________________




Does this mean then you believe that there is no such thing as objective morality?

or

Are you contradicting yourself?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is their personal savior,... - damien
___________________________________




I agree, but, what about someone who merely thinks he/she believes that Jesus is her/his personal savior, but

does not, in actuality, believe that Jesus is her/his personal savior?


___________________________________

...while a Muslim is someone who believes Mohammad was a prophet. - damien
___________________________________



What about someone who merely thinks he/she believes Mohammad was a prophet, but in actuality, does not believe that Mohammad was a prophet?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

It doesn't really matter if they live according to their religion.

Not all Christians love their neighbor... - damien
-----------------------------------

Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. - James 2:17

http://bible.cc/james/2-17.htm
___________________________________




People who call themselves Christians, but do not love their neighbor have no faith in Jesus as their personal saivor.

Another word, they are fraudulent imposters either posing and/or deluding themselves to be Christians.

Not Christians at all.



___________________________________

Red Grant,

Please look over Citizen Warrior's second comment here, if you haven't already.

You may have to go down a ways.

And while you are at it, you might want to check out, the Infidel_Bloggers_Alliance, Jihad_Watch, Religion_Of_Peace, and Citizen_Warrior's own blog. - Damien
___________________________________



Damien, if citizen warrior wants to come here for debate, I am all game.

But I already know enough about the Bible, better than most people I've come across. (At one time, I was going to enter the seminary to become a priest, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what it means to be a Christian.)

Or you can use what you've learned from those sites to discuss what means to be a Christian.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

As for Peikoff why would anything listen to what that half wit says? - anon
___________________________________




You would be surprised how many so-called "intellectuals" who fancy themselves to be libertarians still read Peikoff's works like a bible.



___________________________________

Have you read his book the Ominous parallels? - anon
___________________________________



I tried to read, and eventually skimmed through it. (Had to hold my nose, and avert my eyes, figuratively speaking.)


___________________________________

Omg, what was he smoking back then! It is written in the style of those loony-left wing papers collegs kids try to sell you! - anon
___________________________________




Indeed. But nowdays, some so-called right-wing intellectuals behave in similar ways as well.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Which is the true Muslim? They all are true Muslims, functioning in different circumstances. - Citizen Warrior
___________________________________




So, damien, what do you suggest we should do about all Muslims?

Damien said...

Red Grant,

There is no one thing we can do about all Muslims. Not all of them are going to think or behave the way their religion dictates.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Not all of them are going to think or behave the way their religion dictates. - damien
___________________________________



A muslim not behaving the way Islam dictates, ...


Isn't that a contradiction?



___________________________________

There is no one thing we can do about all Muslims. - damien
___________________________________



Cop out?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

The least we could do and should do is stand up for our values. - damien
___________________________________




Okay, so what is your value?

AndrewRyanWallace said...

Red Grant:

"What should we do about all Muslims?"
-----------------------------
A better question:

What should we do about all Christians?

Or for that matter.

What should do about religion?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red Grant:

"What should we do about all Muslims?"
-----------------------------
A better question:

What should we do about all Christians?

Or for that matter.

What should do about religion? - Andy
___________________________________




Andy, please take it easy.

My question to damien was more of a rhetorical question.

Damien said...

Red Grant,

"The least we could do and should do is stand up for our values. - damien"

The western values that are worth defending and worth dying for are freedom, tolerance, diversity, respect for human life, individual rights, human rights, women's rights, men's rights, equality before the law, religious liberty, freedom of conscious, humanity, human decency, our children, the well being of future generations, the right to question authority, etc...

AndrewRyanWallace said...

Sorry Red, misinterpreted.

HerbSewell said...

To Red:

I'm sorry, but I've lost interest in conversing with you. I'm not accomplishing anything by doing so, and it seems to be a waste of time. You seem to be asking the same questions again and again and I'm becoming tired of it.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

The western values that are worth defending and worth dying for are freedom, tolerance, diversity, respect for human life, individual rights, human rights, women's rights, men's rights, equality before the law, religious liberty, freedom of conscious, humanity, human decency, our children, the well being of future generations, the right to question authority, etc... - damien
___________________________________




Splendid! I have no problem with the values you've mentioned above.


So how do you explain, inquisition, Crusade, institutional racism, colonialism, anti-semitism, Manifest Destiny, race-based slavery?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Sorry Red, misinterpreted. - Andy
___________________________________



No problem, often times people confuse where I stand because I ask those with different views from mine rhetorical questions leading to the ultimate logical conclusion of their own views to clarify their views.


___________________________________

To Red:

I'm sorry, but I've lost interest in conversing with you. I'm not accomplishing anything by doing so,... - Herbsewell
-----------------------------------

___________________________________

Objective is anything that can be proven to be true or false, meaning it's validity is dependent on reality,

as opposed to subjective that is based on one views of reality, or statements about reality that is based on faith. - Herbswell
-----------------------------------

Who decides who and what is anti-American objectively? - Red Grant


Individuals decide what is true and what is false. Their evaluation might be contradictory. - Herbswell

-----------------------------------
"Does this mean then you believe that "morality" is relative to each individual?" - Red Grant

Of course it's relative. - Herbswell
___________________________________




Does this mean then you believe that there is no such thing as objective morality?

or

Are you contradicting yourself?

11/08/2008 07:26:00 AM

Damien said...

Red Grant,

Western civilization has not been perfect. No society has ever been in the real world.

JayCross said...

Red,

Did you go to law school? Your style of questioning looks a lot like the Socratic method that is used heavily in law schools.

I like it.

SaraG said...

Herb,

In which geographic area of the country do you reside?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

The western values that are worth defending and worth dying for are freedom, tolerance, diversity, respect for human life, individual rights, human rights, women's rights, men's rights, equality before the law, religious liberty, freedom of conscious, humanity, human decency, our children, the well being of future generations, the right to question authority, etc... - damien
-----------------------------------

So how do you explain, inquisition, Crusade, institutional racism, colonialism, anti-semitism, Manifest Destiny, race-based slavery? - Red Grant
-----------------------------------

Red Grant,

Western civilization has not been perfect. No society has ever been in the real world. - Damien
___________________________________




My question was not about whether "Western" civilization has been perfect or not.

My question was:

"So how do you explain, inquisition, Crusade, institutional racism, colonialism, anti-semitism, Manifest Destiny, race-based slavery?"



___________________________________

Red,

Did you go to law school? Your style of questioning looks a lot like the Socratic method that is used heavily in law schools.

I like it. - Jay
___________________________________




No, but I thought about it, (eventually decided against it, glad that I did.)


One of my friends who did go to the Law School and became an attorney in Chicago, eventually quit after about 10 years.

He told me that beginning lawyers are more like glorified office clerks, doing a real grunt work, "research" punching as many hours they could to bill the clients as they could get away with it.

Then, only then, they might consider making you into a partner.

He drove a cab for a few years after quitting the law.

Now, he has moved to Nova Scotia to become a small businessman.


Another friend of my friend who went to Law School (Creighton no less), now works as a waitress in a French style bistro.

She's happier now.


Unless you enjoy being a professional sophist (or as I prefer to call, an intellectual prostitute), you might consider against it.

Just learned to become vigilant about accepting conventional wisdom after being burned too many times.

HerbSewell said...

Florida

Damien said...

Red Grant,

Many of the ideals of Western civilization are relatively modern, and for the most part people in the medieval and ancient west did not share them with us, but they are western values none the less. But even so, some of the ideas that over time led to our modern concept of liberty for example, can trace their roots well into the past. Have you heard of the Magna Carta?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red Grant,

Many of the ideals of Western civilization are relatively modern, and for the most part people in the medieval and ancient west did not share them with us,... - Damien
___________________________________



Indeed, they didn't. So were they "Western"?

or

something else?


___________________________________

....but they are western values none the less. - Damien
___________________________________



Were institutional racism, colonialism, anti-semitism, Manifest Destiny, race-based slavery part of "Western" values as well?

or

they were not "relatively modern"?


___________________________________

But even so, some of the ideas that over time led to our modern concept of liberty... - damien
___________________________________




On their own? or something else triggered it?


Did secularim have something to do with it?


___________________________________

.... for example, can trace their roots well into the past. Have you heard of the Magna Carta? - Damien
___________________________________




Of course.

So why the colonists declare independence from the British Crown despite Magna Carta?

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...

Red Grant,

The American Constitution is in many ways an improvement on the Magna Carta. Even if the ideas in the Magna Carta did not directly lead to the American revolution, some of those ideas were used to justify it.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red Grant,

Many of the ideals of Western civilization are relatively modern, and for the most part people in the medieval and ancient west did not share them with us,... - Damien
___________________________________



Indeed, they didn't. So were they "Western"?

or

something else?


___________________________________

....but they are western values none the less. - Damien
___________________________________



Were institutional racism, colonialism, anti-semitism, Manifest Destiny, race-based slavery part of "Western" values as well?

or

they were not "relatively modern"?


___________________________________

But even so, some of the ideas that over time led to our modern concept of liberty... - damien
___________________________________




On their own? or something else triggered it?


Did secularim have something to do with it?



___________________________________

Red Grant,

The American Constitution is in many ways

an improvement on the Magna Carta. - Damien
___________________________________




In what way?




___________________________________

Even if the ideas in the Magna Carta did not directly lead to the American revolution,

some of those ideas were used to justify it. - Damien
___________________________________



What were some of those ideas?