Subject: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:10 am
Quote :
Israel 3 part plan
Submitted by Kasper on Sat, 2012-11-17 00:08.
I think Israel should bomb the shit out of the gaza strip. Then turn onto Egypt. If Egypt gets in on it then wipe out major infrastructure - govt, roads, military bases etc. Part three, turn the guns on Iran. Make an explicit and clear threat of an all blood bath if they so much as even fuckin flinch. Schools, kids, their army, govt - the lot. It's time to deal with these islamists properly. I reckon it could be done in a week.
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:12 am
Quote :
Gaza and the West Bank
Submitted by Doug Bandler on Sat, 2012-11-17 00:53.
The Israelis should take back the Gaza strip and relocate all those "Palestinians". They should also take the West Bank. They should also expand into parts of Syria to give their nation size.
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:36 am
Quote :
Submitted by Michael Moeller on Thu, 2012-11-15 20:14.
Part of my beef with Ron Paul and the Tinfoil Hatters I do not want them to claim the mantel of capitalism. In fact, I consider them part of the Swamp Dwellers.
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:57 am
Quote :
Submitted by Michael Moeller on Sat, 2012-11-17 19:05.
I have no desire to relitigate Ron Paul, as he is gone and I'm glad of it. I've already spent too much time on about 5 threads arguing why Ron Paul is a menace.
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:16 am
Quote :
Submitted by gregster on Fri, 2012-11-16 09:42.
...they are shooting themselves in the feet about the most illiberal, primitive threat we all face. This includes the Biddle, Schwartz, Binswanger 'open' immigration stances, and the libertarian view.
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:50 am
Quote :
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2008-03-23 20:43
In its most blatant, obnoxious and honest form—rap—this depravity doesn’t conceal its life- and man-hatred, replete as it is with murderous agendas and gratuitous profanity. If there were a Satan, rap would offend even him. If there were a Hell, it wouldn’t compete with rap for awfulness.
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:02 am
Quote :
Submitted by Ross Elliot on Mon, 2012-09-10 09:10
An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be seen as an act of war, and Iran would retaliate. So why not knock out their power grid which would cause more disruption and be perhaps more effective.
Naturally enough, when fatz makes such statements, none of them at NOLO (Nonsense of Life Objectivists) bat an eye, but if Ron Paul expresses a similar sentiment, they're all over him like the Ebola virus.
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:29 am
Quote :
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2007-11-30 09:02.
Rand made the idiotic statement that absolutely every is implies an ought. Which is clearly bullshit. Peikoff twisted himself into an Italian sausage mix trying to justify it. Doesn't alter the fact that "ought" can only be derived from "is," which is Rand's great insight, and what she should have confined herself to saying.
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:28 am
Gun Control: Controlling the Government’s Guns
Quote :
Submitted by George Reisman on Mon, 2012-08-27 21:27 Moreover, the threat of deadly force is implicitly present in every law, regulation, ruling, or decree that emanates from any government office, at any level. The threat of such force is what compels obedience on the part of the citizens. Even such an innocuous offense as a parking violation is capable of resulting in death if a person persists in not paying the fine imposed and, when ultimately confronted with arrest, resists by physically defending himself.
Literally everything the government does is ultimately a threat to point a gun at someone and use it if necessary. If this were not the case, the law, regulation, ruling, or whatever, would be without force or effect. People would be free to ignore it if they wished. Because of the government’s implicit threat to use deadly force to uphold its decisions, any meaningful program of gun control must above all focus on strictly controlling and regulating the activities of the government.
Yet he still wants a government!!!
Quote :
Our entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are essential measures of gun control—this time, gun control directed against the government. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the government from using its guns to abridge the freedoms of speech or press. The Second Amendment prohibits the government from using its guns to abridge the freedom of the citizen to keep and bear arms.
Indirectly, the Second Amendment also operates to limit the government’s use of its guns to abridge freedom in general. This is because, in our system of checks and balances, an armed citizenry constitutes a check on the possibility of the government becoming tyrannical and attempting to use its power to threaten the citizens’ lives and property. It should be understood as protecting a balance between the power remaining in the hands of the people and the power they have delegated to their government. Indeed, the language of the Second Amendment¬—“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—should be understood in this way.
And just look how well that turned out... yet he still wants a government!!!
Quote :
The number of murders attributable to governments around the world in the 20th Century, including those resulting from government-caused famines in places such as the Ukraine and Communist China, is estimated to exceed 260 million. Of this total, Communist China is responsible for more than 76 million, the Soviet Union for almost 62 million, and Nazi Germany for almost 21 million. (R. J. Rummel, Death By Government [New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers, 1994], n. 1.) Of particular note, approximately 2 million of the murders committed by Nazi Germany were in the form of mass shootings, similar in nature to those in Aurora and Oak Creek, but performed on a scale commensurate with the size of military units.
These were the dreaded SS Einsatzgruppen, sent into Soviet Russia behind the advancing German armies for the express purpose of murdering as many Jews as they could find. Organized into units ranging in size from platoons to battalions, approximately 3,000 government-employed psychopathic killers were set to work in a program of systematic mass murder. Unlike the recent horrors committed by the two American psychopaths, the horrors committed by these government-employed psychopaths were not limited to one time in just one day before they came to an end. No. They were repeated many times in a day, day after day, for months on end.
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:23 am
Quote :
Submitted by Michael Moeller on Thu, 2012-11-29 17:30.
I hope to write a treatise on constitutional interpretation...
LOL! He then spends the rest of the post, talking about how Obama is 'overturning law via Executive fiat' and how that is 'blatantly unconstitutional.' So by his own words, we have the president acting illegally in front of the whole country, yet there's not a fucking thing anyone can do about it!
Quote :
This is pretty basic separation of powers stuff, and is more fundamental than any particular policy. The next president could simply rewrite the law again, or any other Congressional law for that matter, by simply issuing an Executive Order. This is why Executive Orders are only constitutional for the purpose of executing Congressional legislation, and only apply to the administration of the Executive branch. It is blatantly unconstitutional to use Executive Orders to overturn existing law.
Obama has used Executive Orders repeatedly to overturn existing law and circumvent Congress, and has explicitly stated his intention to do it even more in his second term should Congress continue to be a barrier to his policies. Peikoff, I assume, was simply using common sense and noting how dangerous this is and how it represents an unconstitutional power-grab of legislative functions. And Diana simply cannot fathom why Peikoff would be against said rule by Executive fiat because Obama is, after all, overturning an existing law that she doesn't like.
Perhaps because Executive usurpation of legislative power, which paves the way for the rule of men, is not such a grand idea?
Michael
Written constitutions and laws do not stop evildoers... and he should know that by now, given that he's one of the statists himself and a lawyer as well. Only open season on the bad guys keeps them in line... but hey, he's off to 'write a treatise on constitutional interpretation.' Yeah, the country REALLY needs that... LIKE A HOLE IN THE HEAD!
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:32 am
Morality of working for the government
Quote :
Posted 12 January 2011 - 04:13 PM You don't have to leave a "government job" because you're an Objectivist. Government jobs come in all shapes and sizes, with varying degrees of legitimacy. It is unclear if yours is truly something you ought to leave on principle. Suppose your current job was a totally legitimate government job -- say in the courts or the Army -- with all the security of tenure that implies...
So if you're a statist trained murderer, ie. a soldier, it's quite a legitimate occupation according to this clueless wonder... until perhaps one day, one of those points a gun at him... then he might reconsider... though it could be too late...
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:44 pm
Compulsory jury duty
Quote :
Peikoff was asked whether he thought compulsory jury duty was appropriate and he replied that, provided the right to a jury was a necessary component of a proper government (something he said he was not deciding in his answer), then he did not have a problem with compulsory jury duty, that he thought it was something you agree to when you agree to live under the government.
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:06 pm
“The Moral Case for Supporting Israel” Reviewed
“The Moral Case for Supporting Israel” by Yaron Brook.
Since the 9-11 attack Yaron Brook, director of ARI, has given the above lecture many times across America. Here we review what he said during an interview after the April 17, 2002 lecture at the University of California at Los Angeles.
The interview was conducted by a reporter from The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles and his account, “Israel Morals Match Rand Ideology,” appeared in the May 10 issue. ARI’s website links to it approvingly.
Mr. Brook, in his lecture, compares the country Israel with the character Howard Roark in Ayn Rand’s novel The Fountainhead. The reporter begins his article:
“Israel and Howard Roark ... may have a lot in common. Sound far-fetched? Not according to the Ayn Rand Institute, which ever since Sept. 11 has undertaken significant efforts to morally defend Israel.”
Set aside for a moment what Howard Roark might have in common with Israel. Focus on this part: The U.S. gets attacked and ARI’s response is to defend ... Israel ? There is a gap between the event and the response, and it needs filling in.
The reporter quotes Mr. Brook directly:
“Israel represents the core values that the Institute is fighting for – freedom and individual rights. We believe that you have to care about Israel if you care about Western values.”
Certainly freedom, individual rights and Western values in your own country are worth your fighting for. And they are worth your rooting for, perhaps even supporting, in a foreign country. But Israel does not “represent” freedom and individual rights. In fact Israel is far more statist than the U.S., indeed more statist than any country in Europe.
That some aspects of Israel are better compared with the countries immediately surrounding it no more makes it represent freedom than black by contrast turns gray into white. And Israel is a very dark gray, which we discuss in a future article. If Israel represents the core values ARI is fighting for, one should think twice about supporting ARI.
The reporter again:
“Through lectures at university campuses across the United States, television and radio interviews, editorials and now a newsletter on their Web site, the Ayn Rand Institute seeks to influence public opinion, and particularly American policy, toward unequivocally siding with Israel.”
Unequivocally is the right word. ARI, though originally set up to promote Ayn Rand’s philosophy, after 9-11 began publishing article after article in support of Israel. Here is a sample from dozens of titles:
We Are All Israelis Now Allowing Israel to Destroy the PLO Helps Defend the U.S. We Are Either With Israel, Or We Are With the Terrorists Israel’s Enemies Are America’s Enemies Why Israel Must Not Withdraw The Palestinian Victims? Israel Has a Moral Right to Its Life
But all is not well in Israel. The reporter continues:
“The Institute views Israel as a battleground of ideas, where the battle is between two value systems: reason, individualism and self-interest versus mysticism, collectivism and self-sacrifice, respectively. This is not unlike the battle illustrated by the story of Roark, who was constantly [in the story] denounced by contemporary intellectuals, the media and other architects for acting in his own self-interest and according to his independent reasoning.”
Mr. Brook began the interview by comparing Israel to Roark. Now he compares Israel to the entire Fountainhead novel, with all its characters and their clashing values. Only the better part of Israel is Roark.
Mr. Brook explains (his grammar leaks a bit): “Average Israeli citizens are much less morally assured as they were years ago, because what they’re being taught in schools is post-modern, post-Zionist revisionist.” What that agglomeration of words means the article does not say. But knowing that ARI generally supports the Likud party, elected by Israelis year after year, helps make his point clear. The militant aspect of then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the earlier Binyamin Netanyahu is Mr. Brook’s idea of “reason, individualism and self-interest.” Anything opposing it is “mysticism, collectivism and self-sacrifice.”
Ayn Rand’s words turned into cant.
Mr. Brook believes the Likudniks are, generally speaking, the better part of Israel, the Roark part, and all of Israel ought to be that way.
“What Israel needs to be is Howard Roark. Roark did what he needed to do to preserve his self-integrity.”
Mr. Brook’s comparison of Israel with Howard Roark is an outrage. Roark dealt with people productively and honestly, Israel is an ungrateful and deceitful mendicant. And though I’m no defender of the worst aspects of Palestinian culture, Israel treats Palestinians horribly. Challenged about this treatment during the question period of another talk concerning the Middle East (“The World in Crisis” at UCLA May 13, 2002, broadcast on C-Span), Mr. Brook’s only response was to shout: “Propaganda! Propaganda!”
Earlier in the article we read:
Mr. Brook “believes that the anti-Israel sentiment across the world” stems from “the ideas espoused by modern intelligentsia, who embrace, what Rand liked to call, the ethical code of ‘altruism.’ ”
Now quoting Mr.. Brook:
“... the biggest sin of altruism is acting in self-interest. The weak and suffering, who must not have acted out of self-interest, are virtuous. Israel, by being strong and successful, must be the villain.”
In fact Israel is neither strong nor successful, it too must be counted among the weak, the weak who sacrifice others to themselves. Israel appears strong only because an unacknowledged crutch props it up: billions of dollars each year furnished to it by the United States, now totaling well over four times the cost of the Apollo space program. Nor does Israel act in its self-interest, not in Ayn Rand’s sense of the term, rather it sacrifices the U.S. to itself.
Furthermore, Israel can be criticized, not for being good, or even relatively good compared to some low standard of the area, but because Israel behaves badly by Western standards. That Israel is in any way better than the countries around it doesn’t make it better than it is. (Again, we discuss how bad it gets in a future article.)
Mr. Brook’s April 17, 2002 talk was a sly attempt to press Ayn Rand’s legendary arch-individualist into the service of a foreign country almost his opposite.
A month later ARI, the C-Span television network, and AT&T hosted a five-day event dedicated to Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead. Yet what ought to have been a celebration of Ayn Rand ARI at times turned into a forum for praising Israel.
During a panel discussion, broadcast on television, Harry Binswanger said bluntly:
“Israel is Howard Roark!”
and looked at the audience as if thinking he had made a profound observation. On hearing about this a witty acquaintance said: I’ve met Roark, and Israel is no Roark.
The people at ARI steal an authentic value created by Ayn Rand and twist it into supporting an agenda of their own.
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:31 am
[quote]Submitted by Leonid on Sun, 2012-12-02 08:13.
"Indeed, but to do that people would have to adopt an objectivist/libertarian viewpoint."
Separation of Quebec will not contribute to it. It will only endorse Canadian tribalism. On this ground Canadian Muslims, Jews , Inuit , Indians, Chinese etc...also could demand separate states. What would left out of Canada then?[/quote]
Subject: Ayn Rand's Statist, Randroid Idiots: Out of the mouths of 'Objectivists' 
Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:10 am
