tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post1846801077479480520..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Rand's Ethics, Part 11Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-61198717524264906702008-03-19T10:56:00.000-07:002008-03-19T10:56:00.000-07:00Merjet:>Her posturing you allude to is your "readi...Merjet:<BR/>>Her posturing you allude to is your "reading into it", not explicitly given.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it's not explicitly given because it is designed to create a false impression: that Objectivism doesn't compromise, not-like-other-philosophies, and Rand herself never compromised, not-like-other-philosophers etc. When this posturing is challenged we get the retreat to the it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-compromise-we-Objectivists-have-a-special-meaning etc etc position.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-56791221856509305702008-03-19T10:39:00.000-07:002008-03-19T10:39:00.000-07:00Daniel,I grant that it may have been helpful for R...Daniel,<BR/><BR/>I grant that it may have been helpful for Rand to have addressed the more common meaning of "compromise". However, if you read enough of her remarks on compromise, the less common meaning each time was pretty evident. Her posturing you allude to is your "reading into it", not explicitly given.<BR/><BR/>You can charge her with ignoring the more common meaning, but that is neither making a straw man nor equivocation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47213168288625369282008-03-19T10:05:00.000-07:002008-03-19T10:05:00.000-07:00Merjet:>No, this is Anon's word game, not Rand'sI ...Merjet:<BR/>>No, this is Anon's word game, not Rand's<BR/><BR/>I admit there are so many it gets hard to tell...;-)<BR/><BR/>>A problem Daniel has is his selfish view of definitions. He holds that the meanings of words are based on consensus, except when he disagrees with the consensus, like this less common meaning of "compromise." Rather Randian, don't you think? :-)<BR/><BR/>You need to read more carefully, merjet. I didn't disagree with Rand's definition. I just said she attacked one narrow meaning of the word, and then postured as if you should never - and that she would never - compromise in the general sense. This is what is called a straw man, I believe. Or an equivocation. And yes it is rather Randian...;-)Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-41044437487846181572008-03-19T05:55:00.000-07:002008-03-19T05:55:00.000-07:00Daniel Barnes: This is to me yet another Randian w...<I>Daniel Barnes: This is to me yet another Randian word-game. Since when does a "compromise" only mean someone offers nothing in exchange for something??? That's a very narrow interpretation, suggesting Rand's just inventing a strawman.</I><BR/><BR/>No, this is Anon's word game, not Rand's. Most dictionaries include a meaning of "compromise" like this: to weaken or give up one's principles for reasons of expediency. This is what Rand usually meant when she attacked the idea of compromise.<BR/><BR/>A problem Daniel has is his selfish view of definitions. He holds that the meanings of words are based on consensus, except when he disagrees with the consensus, like this less common meaning of "compromise." Rather Randian, don't you think? :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-58436323215742663402008-03-19T02:54:00.000-07:002008-03-19T02:54:00.000-07:00____________________________I'm going to sign off ...____________________________<BR/><BR/>I'm going to sign off of this thread now because we're starting to split hairs on one hand and go in circles on the other. - anon<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>That's a quitter's point of view. - anon<BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>The last word is yours if you wish to take it. It doesn't mean I concede though. - anon<BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>That's a quitter's point of view. - anon<BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>I still think this is where you're imprecise because someone saying, "give me 50% of your money or I'll take it from you by force" should not be met in the middle,... - anon<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>My view is different. It is to advocate for what is right and,if necessary, fight for it. - anon<BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>Neither Rand herself nor the most objectivists actually.... evade taxes... - anon<BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>That's quitter's point of view. - anon<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>Indeed.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Dear Greg,<BR/><BR/>I am still amazed at your patience in dealing with this fella, who repeatedly has demonstrated not only lack of understanding of the most basic economic/political realities, but also repeatedly contradicted himself, and shown ignorance of what Ayn Rand actually had said.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-77044831455875578582008-03-19T02:49:00.000-07:002008-03-19T02:49:00.000-07:00Anon:>(Rand) attacked compromise between someone o...Anon:<BR/>>(Rand) attacked compromise between someone offering nothing in exchange for something, rather than two parties mutually agreeing to give something for something. <BR/><BR/>This is to me yet another Randian word-game. Since when does a "compromise" only mean someone offers nothing in exchange for something??? That's a very narrow interpretation, suggesting Rand's just inventing a strawman. A compromise usually means when you don't get everything you want, but it's enough to accept the deal anyway. In most deals <I>neither</I> party gets exactly what they want, but they hammer out a middle position that's as good as they can mutually manage.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80358923192146358622008-03-19T01:14:00.000-07:002008-03-19T01:14:00.000-07:00Greg,Thanks for the back and forth. I'm going to ...Greg,<BR/>Thanks for the back and forth. <BR/>I'm going to sign off of this thread now because we're starting to split hairs on the one hand and go in circles on the other. <BR/>I thought you were basing your article on compromise as a critique of Rand's short and excellent essay on compromise from Virtue of Selfishness, in which she attacked compromise between someone offering nothing in exchange for something, rather than two parties mutually agreeing to give something for something. <BR/>I still think this is where you're imprecise, because someone saying "give me 50% of your money or I'll take it from you by force" should not be met in the middle, nor does the political process of majority rule guarantee that they will meet you in the middle. However, I don't think we can get much further because I don't know you well enough to know your age, experience and personal circumstance to take this argument further with you and you don't know me well enough to do the same. I'll just summarize that in my experience, the kind of compromise Rand was talking about exists not only in the political sphere, but in every aspect of dealing with others. There are those who want you to compromise by giving them something for nothing, and any dealings on those terms start badly and get worse. Neither Rand herself, nor most objectivists actually do opt out of society, the political process or evade taxes, but instead they lobby against high taxes by making arguments for their position, so characterizing objectivism as opting out of the process of dialog is an overstatement to say the least. <BR/>The last word is yours if you wish to take it. It doesn't mean I concede though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80919444126211039762008-03-18T20:54:00.000-07:002008-03-18T20:54:00.000-07:00____________________________And I agree with Ayn R...____________________________<BR/><BR/>And I agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy that no man should initiate force against another man, sacrifise another man, nor be sacrifised by another man. - anon<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>Did the U.S. initiate force in attempting to take by force what was not hers during the Manifest Destiny? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>Yes. - anon<BR/><BR/>Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent. - Ayn Rand at Westpoint, 1974<BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>And I agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy that no man should initiate force against another man, sacrifise another man, nor be sacrifised by another man. - anon<BR/>____________________________Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-33487312358619763382008-03-18T20:36:00.000-07:002008-03-18T20:36:00.000-07:00____________________________The difference is that...____________________________<BR/><BR/>The difference is that you say majority rules, even if the majority seeks the unjust, wheras I say you need protections of individual rights to prevent the majority from ruling. - anon<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/>Is it possible to have individual rights in a democracy without the consent of the constitutionally (or otherwise) defined majority or the biggest minority if no majority present and/or their[the majority] constitutional (or otherwise) representatives?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-90698519764106519812008-03-18T19:46:00.000-07:002008-03-18T19:46:00.000-07:00Anon: "According to you, giving in is not giving u...Anon: "According to you, giving in is not giving up, and not giving in is giving up"<BR/><BR/>I don't know where you get this from. How does using the democratic process to reach a compromise position with a majority left-wing party constitute giving up? The left-wingers were going to tax us 50%; but by using the democratic process to force a compromise on the majority party, we get it down to 25%. Isn't 25% better than 50%? Keep in mind, when you compromise, it's not just you that have given up something; the other side has given up something as well. Sure, I would prefer 0%; but that's not a viable option. I'm in the minority. My antagonists have the stronger position. I'm lucky to get the 25%. So I take the deal and wait for the day when I my political party gets back into the majority and I can reduce that tax rate further. That's the way politics works in a democracy. <BR/><BR/>Anon: "If the publisher said you should compromise on some of the sensible points for popularity and increased sales, would you?"<BR/><BR/>That's not a valid analogy, because I'm in the position to say, "No, I'm not going to publish with you." In the political process, you can't just say, "No, I don't want to be taxed 50%." Your going to get taxed 50% whether you like it or not—<EM>unless</EM> you can use the political process to force a compromise position. <BR/><BR/>Anon: "The difference is that you say majority rules, even if the majority seeks the unjust, whereas I say you need protections of individual rights to prevent the majority from ruling."<BR/><BR/>No, the difference is that my view of politics is realistic and yours is based on wishful thinking. It's all very fine and good to say we need protection of individual rights to prevent depredations from socialistic majorities; but where are these protections going to come from? We have some protections already in place (due process, for example); but that''s not going to stop a leftist majority from slapping a 50% tax rate on capital gains, or a taxing income over a certain figure at a 90% rate (which at one time happened in this country). The Constitution gives the government the right to tax incomes. Where, then, is your protection? The armed forces? The armed forces take an oath to uphold the constitution: no protectiong there, either! In the end, you've got to accept the fact that there are things in the political world that are beyond your control, such as the degree of protection for property. You can only control how you act within the political system, following its rules. And I say that it's just plain stupid to remove ourselves from the political process because we don't want to compromise, or because we have too much integrity to compromise. Wisdom counsels that we seek, not the best position <EM>imaginable</EM>, but the best position <EM>possible</EM>. If we let our imaginations run wild, we can come up with all kinds of great solutions to political problems and the protections of rights. But there's this thing out there called reality that has to be reckoned with, whether we like it or not; and the reality is that we live in a social order with people who have different sentiments and interests than we do, and, on the basis of those sentiments and interests, reach different notions of rights. <EM>That</EM> is the reality we must reckon with!gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19286534826670276792008-03-18T15:39:00.000-07:002008-03-18T15:39:00.000-07:00So Greg, According to you, giving in is not giving...So Greg, <BR/>According to you, giving in is not giving up, and not giving in is giving up. Or to phrase it as Rand would put it, A is not A, and not A is A. <BR/><BR/>Tell me, you've written a book, that I have not read, which purportedly makes sense. If the publisher said you should compromise on some of the sensible points for popularity and increased sales, would you?<BR/><BR/>Also, let's say the majority wants me to pay 50% taxes and I refuse, is it not the army you've raised in option 2 that enforces their claim. We're both talking about political participation and we're both talking about enforcing the laws passed. The difference is that you say majority rules, even if the majority seeks the unjust, whereas I say you need protections of individual rights to prevent the majority from ruling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52361419781918842002008-03-18T13:01:00.000-07:002008-03-18T13:01:00.000-07:00Anon: "That's a quitter's point of view. Reading c...Anon: "That's a quitter's point of view. Reading carefully, you don't actually ever say you're opposed to, for example, property rights, you just don't think they can be legislated or enforced if the majority doesn't share that view. "<BR/><BR/>No, it's not a quitter's view. As a matter of fact, Rand's view is closer to the quitter's view, because she and her orthodox followers don't want to be part of the political process. They instead want to change the political process by arguing about abstruse points in philosophy hardly anybody understands or cares about (see the Objectivist Philosophy of History). Since Rand's belief that she can use rational argumentation to persuade people to adopt her political ideals is a complete fantasy, adopting her method is, in effect, like quitting. In a representative democracy, you have to work within the system to fight for your political ideals. But this means that you're going to have to compromise, that you're not going to get everything you want. If your political opponents want to pass a 50% tax on capital gains (economically speaking, not a good idea) and you're in the minority, what are you going to do about it? The best thing you can do is to play whatever political cards are at your disposal. Perhaps your opponents are having difficulty passing some fatuous midnight basketball bill. You agree to help them pass the fatuous bill and in return they drop the capital gains rate to 25%. It's not a complete victory, but you are better off than you were before. That's how democratic politics works. <BR/><BR/>This doesn't mean you give up trying to persuade people of your positions. You just have to be realistic that persuasion isn't going to accomplish that much. The reasons why the enforcement of property rights, as encaspulated in the common law and American constitutional traditions, is a desirable outcome for both society and the individuals making up society are far too complicated for most people to understand. What passes for political opinion is largely the rationalization of sentiments and interests. In such an environment, persuasion through "reason" isn't going to get you very far. You have to play the cards reality deals to you; and in a democratic society that means fighting for your goals within the political system. But that means allying yourself with individuals you don't entirely agree with (i.e., with a <EM>viable</EM> political party) and being involved in compromises with your political opponents.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-79351611131728750062008-03-18T06:42:00.000-07:002008-03-18T06:42:00.000-07:00Greg,The whole essence of your argument is that it...Greg,<BR/>The whole essence of your argument is that it's impractical to try to do what's right over doing what's popular because it's difficult (or in your view impossible) to overcome the majority.<BR/><BR/>That's a quitter's point of view. Reading carefully, you don't actually ever say you're opposed to, for example, property rights, you just don't think they can be legislated or enforced if the majority doesn't share that view. <BR/><BR/>My view is different. It is to advocate for what is right and, if necessary, fight for it. And I agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy that no man should initiate force against another man, sacrifice another man, nor be sacrificed by another man. That is worth advocating for and worth fighting for even if it's not popular.<BR/><BR/>The views of the majority though are influenced by a lot of factors, not the least of which is philosophy and philosophers. Rand says to influence people through reason to the view that you should not sacrifice other people or yourself. You say "why bother."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-51389121673771435402008-03-17T23:02:00.000-07:002008-03-17T23:02:00.000-07:00____________________________If you try to achieve ...____________________________<BR/><BR/>If you try to achieve your political goals through force, you will need an army (and good generals). - Greg Nyquist to anon<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>I might add also, an efficient secret police force with extensive network of informers to create a fear of omnipotence of the New Objectivst Wave of the Future (Big Brother is Watching You!) and Psychiatric Institution (ala Soviet style) pulling a double duty as a Re-Education Camp for those pesky irrational individuals(You Will Be Assimiliated!)Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5120603734189305512008-03-17T14:26:00.000-07:002008-03-17T14:26:00.000-07:00gregnyquist wrote:"The point is that integrity is ...gregnyquist wrote:<BR/>"The point is that integrity is often a vice rather than a virtue, and would've been nice if Rand explicitly pointed this out." <BR/><BR/>Between the lines of my response is an answer which I'll spell out: that Rand would just rationalize at need the presence or absence of integrity, which for her is always a virtue and never a vice, just as she did with Hickman. <BR/><BR/>But I'm sure she would also criticize your critique for taking the Objectivist virtue of integrity out of its full philosophical context. Here's why:<BR/><BR/>Integrity "is the policy of acting in accordance with one's values." (VOS, 52-53) But values, for Rand, are always in line with reason (or what she considered reason).<BR/><BR/>Recall that values, according to Rand, don't exist until the choice to live one's life qua man, qua rational being, has been made.<BR/><BR/>Nazis were not, in her view, pursuing values, but destroying them, therefore Nazis had no integrity no matter how strictly and efficiently they practiced their life- and reason-hating ideology.<BR/><BR/>Now you may argue that Rand's idea is absurd or contradictory, but I'm not posting on this blog to defend Rand's ideology, or to add any theory of my own, I just want to clarify some points here and there.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-21685470512674584352008-03-17T12:03:00.000-07:002008-03-17T12:03:00.000-07:00Anon: "History has not shown that option 2 is the ...Anon: "History has not shown that option 2 is the least worst. Sharing the property a country with the majority of the population based on the majority's desire for it is what was behind every communist and socialist revolution"<BR/><BR/>I don't you have fully grasped what option 2 entails. Option 2 only exists under democratic conditions. Therefore, even under the worst case scenarios (i.e., Western Europe), you will not get full "revolutionary" socialism or communism: what you will get is a massive welfare state existing under a democracy. As long the democratic/representative system is not seriously threatened, advocates of a strict property rights system of political economy are in fact better off working within the system (which means compromising with the welfare statists and the zealously progressive taxers). Violence under such conditions is very risky because if you lose, rather than reaching compromise position that's not as bad as otherwise would be the case, your antagonists will get carte blanche. <BR/><BR/>Anon: "The best option is in fact option 3, although there is no reason to characterize it principally as raising an army. The proper characterization is to legislate property rights and use force in retaliation against those who initiate force by attempting to take what is not theirs. At the same time, educate people about a proper philosophy of wealth..."<BR/><BR/>But this is just ignoring the basic assumptions of situation. How can you "legislate property rights" if the majority is against you? How can you "use force in retaliation" unless you have force at your disposal? All government is based on a mixture of consensus and force. If you try to achieve your political goals (i.e., pristine protection of property rights) through consensus, compromise will have to be part of your political toolbox, since you'll never reach your consensus entirely through persuasion. If you try to achieve your political goals through force, you will need an army (and good generals).gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80432985796524046102008-03-17T03:20:00.000-07:002008-03-17T03:20:00.000-07:00____________________________Remember no wealth exi...____________________________<BR/><BR/>Remember no wealth exists till produced. - anon<BR/><BR/>Does this mean then if I own a land that contains 1 billion barrels of crude reserves, then those 1 billion barrels of crude reserve doesn't count as wealth? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/><BR/>An excerpt:<BR/><BR/>Price for a barrel of crude reserve as of 03/14/08:<BR/><BR/>$110.21<BR/><BR/>http://www.wtrg.com/daily/crudeoilprice.htmlRed Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-51140297424786500272008-03-17T03:11:00.000-07:002008-03-17T03:11:00.000-07:00____________________________Remember no wealth exi...____________________________<BR/><BR/>Remember no wealth exists untill produced. - anon<BR/><BR/>So all that crude oil reserves in OPEC countries don't count as wealth till they get shipped to and come out of refineries? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/><BR/>An excerpt:<BR/><BR/>Crude oil prices behave much as any other commodity with wide, price swings in time of shortage or oversupply. <BR/><BR/>http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htmlRed Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-91443714762760086592008-03-17T02:48:00.000-07:002008-03-17T02:48:00.000-07:00____________________________The proper characteriz...____________________________<BR/><BR/>The proper characterization is to legislate property rights... - anon<BR/><BR/>Weren't the slaves the properties of their masters?<BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/><BR/>Then why was the slavery legal till it was abolished?<BR/><BR/>How could the U.S. have freed the slaves without violating the property rights of their masters? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>Because people aren't property. - anon<BR/><BR/>But they[many people of African descent] were properties beloning to their masters legally till it was abolished.<BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe the property rights of the slave owners should have been protected? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/><BR/>When the property rights are protected rather than compromised, people dedicate their efforts to producing instead of begging for or demanding that which others have produced. - anonRed Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-26346970204216566642008-03-17T02:09:00.000-07:002008-03-17T02:09:00.000-07:00____________________________Because people aren't ...____________________________<BR/><BR/>Because people aren't property. - anon<BR/><BR/>Youtube file[AynRandInstitute] you provided earlier to represent your view earlier<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1jMD3bFJdI&feature=related<BR/><BR/>That file claims Greek elements (Aristotle, etc) represent pro-reason elements of the Western Civilization.<BR/><BR/>and here's what Aristotle had to say about slavery from Book I, chapters iii through vii of the Politics, and Book VII of Nicomachean Ethics.<BR/><BR/>Aristotle: But is there anyone intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?<BR/><BR/>Aristotle: There is no difficulty in answering this question on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient: from the hour of their birth, Some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.<BR/><BR/>http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/las_casas/Aristotle-slavery.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>You can recognize it as true or evade it. - anon<BR/><BR/>Are you recognizing what Ayn Rand said regarding the property rights of the Natives of this continent?<BR/><BR/>or <BR/><BR/>Are you going to evade it? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>The proper characterization is to legislate property rights and use force in retaliation against those who initiate force by attempting to take what is not theirs. - anon<BR/><BR/>Did the U.S. intiate force in attempting to take by force what was not hers during the Manifest Destiny? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>Yes - anon<BR/><BR/>Didn't Ayn Rand approve of taking the land belonging to the Natives of this continent? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand at Westpoint 1974: Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.<BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe the property rights of the Natives of this continent should have been protected? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>Yes. - anon<BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand at Westpoint, 1974: They[the Natives] didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights they had not conceived and were not using...<BR/><BR/>Didn't Ayn Rand say, the Natives of this continent should not have been granted the property rights in the first place? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand at Westpoint, 1974: ...and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they[the Natives] had not conceived and were not using....<BR/><BR/>...and that violating their property rights (even once granted) was within the "rights of white men"? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand at Westpoint, 1974: Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.<BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>Truth is truth. - anon<BR/><BR/>Is it true that Ayn Rand advocated it was within the "rights of white men" to take by force what had belonged to the Natives of this continent? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/><BR/>Is it true that Ayn Rand didn't believe in property rights for the Natives of this continent for the land they had had before the Manifest Destiny? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand at Westpoint, 1974:<BR/>They[the Natives] didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... <BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>But, to quote rand, "you cannot evade the consequence of evading the truth." - anon<BR/>____________________________Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65112960172771939402008-03-17T00:36:00.000-07:002008-03-17T00:36:00.000-07:00____________________________Because people aren't ...____________________________<BR/><BR/>Because people aren't property. - anon<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/>Following is the link you provided to represent your view.<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1jMD3bFJdI&feature=related<BR/><BR/>Doesn't that youtube file you provided claim Greek elements of Western Civilization represent reason?<BR/><BR/>Did the Greeks believe in slavery?<BR/><BR/>Did the Greeks believe in oracles, praying and sacrifising to the altar of the gods of Olympus?<BR/><BR/>Did the Greeks believe in slavery, oracles, and praying and sacrifising to the altar of the gods of Olympus because they believed in reason?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>Surely nobody with an ounce of intelligence believes that political leanings are present from birth? - anon<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>How do you know political leanings are not present from birth?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Was the Manifest Destiny based on desires for the property belonging to the Natives of this continent by the majority population of the U.S.? - Red Grant<BR/><BR/><BR/>No. - anon<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>Then what was the Manifest Destiny based upon?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-76463086318985413962008-03-16T23:59:00.000-07:002008-03-16T23:59:00.000-07:00To Jonathan:First of all,Do you believe in living ...To Jonathan:<BR/><BR/>First of all,<BR/><BR/>Do you believe in living by your reason and morality or by the reason and morality set by others?<BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>By yours. I was asking YOU. Do you, Red, according to your notions of reason and morality, think that it would be an act of reason and morality to destroy property that you don't own because its owners or managers didn't abide by a contract they didn't have with you? - Jonathan<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>Thank you for clarifying. As you may know, there are too many philosophically retarded intellectual charlatans running around, throwing words like "morality", "reason" in order to intimidiate others into meekly accepting their version of "morality". (and here at this moment, I'm not talking about you.)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Condition 1)<BR/><BR/>If they[the owners/managers of the property in question] either have intentionally (as far as I am aware of it) destroyed or planned to destroy (with premeditation, as far as I am aware of it) my property (that I value at least as much as they value theirs as I see it) without what I consider to be a valid reason, and destroying their property would not harm my overall interest(as far as I am aware of) to the extent that I would consider sufficient enough to deter my action[destroying their property] then yes.<BR/><BR/>Condition 2) If they[the owner(s)/manager(s) in question] either have intentionally (as far as I am aware of) destroyed or planned to destroy with premeditation (as far as I am aware of) the property of others close to me personally(as far as I am aware of) without what I or others would consider to be a valid reason, the property others close to me personally (as far as I am aware of) value(as far as I am aware of) at least as much they[owners/managers in question] value (as far as I am aware of) theirs, and destroying their[the owners/managers in question] property would harm neither my overall interest to the extent sufficient enough (as far as I am aware of) to deter my action[destroying their property] nor the others' overall interest(as far as I am aware of) sufficient enough to cause more suffering than they can bear (as far I am aware of), then yes.<BR/><BR/>Condition 3) If it is matter of vital interest (as far as I am aware of) to me, and others close to me personally(as far as I am aware of) and I do not have sufficient (as far as I am aware of) information about them[the owners/managers in question] that they would do any different if they[the owners/managers in question] were in my place, then yes.<BR/><BR/>Condition 4) If it is a matter of major but not vital (as far as I am aware of) interest to me and others close to me personally and destroying their property would do only minor damage (as far as I am aware of) to them, and I can compensate their damage (as far as I am aware of) fully and they would do the same[destroying either my property and/or the property beloning to others close to me personally] to me if they were in my place (as far as I am aware of), then yes.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45615327985626752592008-03-16T21:38:00.000-07:002008-03-16T21:38:00.000-07:00Red asked,"Does this mean then, by the Objectivst ...Red asked,<BR/>"Does this mean then, by the Objectivst reason and morality (but not your reason and morality), not only Howard Roark (who obviously personified the Objectivst reason and morality) was allowed to do what he did, but he should have done what he did?"<BR/><BR/>It means that I think that Roark's destruction of the housing project was neither reasonable nor moral according to my own views and according to Objectivist philosophy.<BR/><BR/>I asked,<BR/>"Do you think it's an act of reason and morality to destroy property you don't own because its owners or managers didn't abide by a contract that they didn't have with you?"<BR/><BR/>Red replied,<BR/>"Again, by whose reason and whose morality?"<BR/><BR/>By yours. I was asking YOU. Do you, Red, according to your notions of reason and morality, think that it would be an act of reason and morality to destroy property that you don't own because its owners or managers didn't abide by a contract that they didn't have with you?<BR/><BR/>JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-31710859642479046662008-03-16T18:10:00.000-07:002008-03-16T18:10:00.000-07:00Red GrantNoNoNoYesNoNoBecause people aren't proper...Red Grant<BR/>No<BR/>No<BR/>No<BR/>Yes<BR/>No<BR/>No<BR/>Because people aren't property<BR/>No<BR/>Yes<BR/>No<BR/>No<BR/>No<BR/>Yes<BR/>N/A<BR/>No<BR/>No<BR/>No<BR/>No<BR/>No<BR/>No<BR/><BR/>Try actually forming an argument and connecting two thoughts instead of just asking accusatory questions filled with ambiguity and repeatedly using the phrase "Manifest Destiny".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-84656600897409045862008-03-16T14:54:00.000-07:002008-03-16T14:54:00.000-07:00...Ayn Rand's refusal to accept that the Natives o......Ayn Rand's refusal to accept that the Natives of this continent had had no property rights?<BR/><BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>Edit:<BR/><BR/>Should have said, "...Ayn Rand's refusal to accept that the Natives of this continent had had property rights?"Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.com