The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on March 05, 2009, 09:18:30 AM
-
http://washingtonindependent.com/32415/congressman-were-living-in-atlas-shrugged
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), who gives his departing interns copies of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged,” told me today that the response to President Obama’s economic policies reminded him of what happened in the 51-year-old novel.
“People are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’” said Campbell. “The achievers, the people who create all the things that benefit rest of us, are going on strike. I’m seeing, at a small level, a kind of protest from the people who create jobs, the people who create wealth, who are pulling back from their ambitions because they see how they’ll be punished for them.”
In Rand’s novel, creative people (the “Atlases” of the title) are hounded and punished for their labor by an oppressive, socialistic state. In response, they retreat from society to a hidden enclave where they watch civilization’s slow collapse.
How far, I asked Campbell, are we from the final chapters of the novel? “We’re still a ways away,” he said. “That will happen when people expect that there ought to be a recovery going on, and it isn’t going on.”
-
I'll have to read that.
-
Who is John Galt? ;D
-
Who is John Galt? ;D
Name rings a bell, is he the "hero"/main protagonist ?
-
According to information from the Ayn Rand Institute, _Atlas Shrugged_ sold 200,000 copies in 2008. So far, in 2009, sales are ahead of what they were at this time last year. The novel was published in 1957 and has been a bestseller since that time. The recent increase in sales is due, I suspect, to Internet discussion of the possibility of Rand's dystopia for capitalists is comng true with the new Administration. The new President and his people are sounding a lot like Rand's malefactors when they talk about raising taxes only on the top income earners and expanding greatly the role of government in our lives. Readers of Rand are wise to this trick and see it for the destruction of prosperity that it is.
Yet, it is one thing to see Rand's point of view and another thing to follow it. Conservatives may like her ideas about separating government and economics, but they are put off by her militant atheism and defense of a woman's right to seek a safe and legal abortion. Her philosophy, which she boldly calls Objectivism, is no easy path to follow with its rigorous rejection of most of what passes for ideas from the left or the right in the past 200 years. William F. Buckley said in the 1960s Objectivism was stillborn. Here we are, 45 years later, and Rand continues to find an audience. The question remains though: Can you rise to the challenge that Rand offers? To understand this challenge without enduring the 1129 pages of _Atlas Shrugged_ (including John Galt's legendary 60 page speech), read a little book called _The Virtue of Selfishness_, which nicely encapsulates Rand's philosophy. If you like what you see, you then can tackle _Atlas Shrugged_ and join the converted.
-
The Virtue of selfishness, Who is the author ?
-
Yet, it is one thing to see Rand's point of view and another thing to follow it. Conservatives may like her ideas about separating government and economics, but they are put off by her militant atheism and defense of a woman's right to seek a safe and legal abortion. Her philosophy, which she boldly calls Objectivism, is no easy path to follow with its rigorous rejection of most of what passes for ideas from the left or the right in the past 200 years. William F. Buckley said in the 1960s Objectivism was stillborn. Here we are, 45 years later, and Rand continues to find an audience. The question remains though: Can you rise to the challenge that Rand offers? To understand this challenge without enduring the 1129 pages of _Atlas Shrugged_ (including John Galt's legendary 60 page speech), read a little book called _The Virtue of Selfishness_, which nicely encapsulates Rand's philosophy. If you like what you see, you then can tackle _Atlas Shrugged_ and join the converted.
I have been having a conversation about this in another format (Facebook) with the founder of The Free Capitalist Project http://www.freecapitalist.com (http://www.freecapitalist.com) in particular about atheism. I am pasting some of this discussion below. First the general atheist part (this is with another person from FCP:
Good Question. Easy Answer. I am glad that you are familiar with Ayn Rand and have read some of her material. She is certainly one of my own heroes!
In your question you are referencing the FreeCapitalist Pledge which includes the statement, “We who are not about to die, we who love our lives, and who freely choose to acknowledge that “God governs in the affairs of men’, stand forth and individually pledge… ”
Ayn Rand understood and articulated freedom and liberty in a way that I’d never comprehended myself. However, she bases her definition of "faith" upon what she calls the "witch-doctors", religionists who manipulate and deceive their followers through tools such as unearned guilt and collective ignorance, thus destroying an individual’s free and creative mind; becoming followers who are blindly led by someone without the propensity to check their own premise and choose for themselves. This is obviously against everything she believes, and I of course agree. (Sidenote: One of my favorite books that illustrate this is in her book, "For the New Intellectual" Excellent read!)
Ayn Rand claimed to be an atheist, but in an interview on the Phil Donahue Show in the early 80”s she said, “My husband was more of an atheist than I am.” Interesting claim. (You can find this on YouTube. Awesome interview!) In her books she is found to quote the Founders and believes them to be “men of reason”, yet they believed in a God, or Creator. She is found to reference God several times in her teachings. I personally do not believe that Ayn Rand was an atheist, perhaps more of an agnostic. I believe she hadn’t found a “religion” that taught reason above mysticism. If she understood that “God” is really exalted man, perhaps she might have been more willing to consider religion and faith. (Especially if she had read Joseph Smiths definition of Faith in his writings, The Lectures of Faith. No mysticism there!)
The sentence "God governs in the affairs of man" is based upon a statement made by Benjamin Franklin. (A Founding Father whom Ayn Rand considered “reasonable”) He said, "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs the affairs of man.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787
The FreeCapitalist Project is designed for individuals who believe in and love God. However, there are many people in the world who love freedom and liberty who have chosen to define God as “the Universe”, “Nature”’, “the Creator”, “Inner-Conscience,” etc… The principles still apply.
then Rick Korber got tagged into the discussion in response to my follow-up questions, his comments are the *** parts.
Thomas Murphy Response:
I think this is a fair point but I believe that unless you start with a foundation based on a Faith in God that it is too easy to step into laws must only be in place which are scientifically based
*** I agree, but suggest that not everyone means what they say when they make this statement. God is a being who supports and upholds absolute laws. It is not just faith in God but faith that he upholds laws - or in other words, in his character and attributes that is our beginning point.
and thus why can't two men be married, it is just a "legal contract afterall".
***Your point is well taken. However, in a broader context the issue is much more poignant. You will not find in the US Constitution a single mention of families or family contracts - such as marriage. Yet, God says he established this as being for all men—and that whatever is more or less of it is evil. Now, I'm not suggesting we can never modify the constitution but what principle is it that gives government (the delegated use of force) the right to interfere with private contracts. You see, it is politically easy to discuss "gay marriage" as you do - but to look at the issue substantively is a much greater work. For example, the first question is not "should people of the same sex be allowed to marry" but first and foremost what is marriage? In our society this term has become redefined. Marriage, scripturally, does not get its authority from the government. Why our government is involved in marriage, in any way is a mystery to me. It has traditionally been wrong - over and over again in its attempt to regulate the form of men's relations. It is true, in God's law, that marriage is between a man and a woman and therefore true that a government who uses force to break God's law (such as granting sanction to same sex marriage) is immoral and wrong. However, what is even more clear as a matter of principle is that it is not within the scope of the proper role of government to sanction any private relationships.
A great talk is the New BYU Speeches podcast from 11/2/08 "On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government" by Robert P. George.
***Okay, good let's find it.
The challenge is that we are all inside a big university, trying to find our way and the world itself is fallen.
***No, this is not the problem as I see it. The problem is that we are placed here with our moral agency and we are tempted by good and evil and Lucifer who advocates for evil is the "father of all lies." The greatest mortal threat is deception. The greatest precursor to deception is abandoning one's God given ability to think, and to discern.
Thus bad things happen to good people and we will continue to be tried.
***Bad things happen to good people for two reasons. First, our perspective on "what is bad" is usually inaccurate. Difficult and "bad" are not the same thing. Secondly, God respects men's agency. When someone breaks the law, the consequences are often felt by more than the one who broke the law. Similarly, when patriots, who are also Saints, make the mistake of abandoning their minds - thinking that Satan's lies are correct, that FAITH and REASON are mutually exclusive - much evil is done in the name of good by "sleeping virgins."
When you mix together religion and a rationalist often they will come to be at odds with each other
***This is irrelevant. Men of faith often disagree with each other. Men without faith disagree with each other. It is a false dichotomy to put faith on one side of the equation and reason on the other. The Lord says, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Notice by divine announcement we are certain our minds can know the truth. He also says, I am the way, the truth and the life. Notice that Jesus doesn't say I am "a" way, or "a" truth - to be the ONE truth implies that we will have to discern between CHRIST and ANTI-CHRIST and the Lord expects us to be discerning/reasoning - with faith.
mixing the statements of Rand in general kind of a I can't believe what I can't a) see and b) prove can lead to (while diametrically opposed in government philosophy) the Marx statement of "Religion is the opiate of the masses".
***But religion is the opiate of the masses. The majority did not follow Christ yet they claimed to be religious. The majority of the Church will not inherit the Celestial glory - even 1/2 of the virgins are not prepared - yet all claim to be religious. The opiate - is a synonym for being asleep - religion is the masses excuse for being asleep. While I am certainly no Marx fan, the statement is correct. It is worthwhile, btw - to research where he likely came across that statement first, which he is now so famous for having repeated. The religious world is generally at war with man's mind but the Prophet taught that, "Thy mind, O man! If thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity --thou must commune with God." The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth.
The reference talk is here http://ldsfiles.com/newforums/ldsfiles-com-talk-repository/13321-byu-devotional-moral-purposes-law-government.html (http://ldsfiles.com/newforums/ldsfiles-com-talk-repository/13321-byu-devotional-moral-purposes-law-government.html)
-
A book defining today's events written in 1987.
The Ropespinner Conspiracy by Michael M. Thomas.
-
Strangely enough, Ayn Rand gave me one of the most important pieces of advice I've ever been given, a piece of advice that quite literally changed my life. I was a hot-shot rock and roll journalist in New York City when one of my editors took a job at a weekly newspaper magazine in Texas. He hired me to interview "some old philosophy broad, Ann Rand" at a conference. I'd read ATLAS SHRUGGED, so I told him having me interview one of the great philosophers of the 20th Century was...a reach. "It's all rock and roll," the editor said. "Take the money."
So she's perched on a high stool, and I'm sitting on this low folding chair looking up. I ask my first question, and she says, "That's not good enough, young man. Try again." I'm sure she must have thought she was being interviewed by a hamster. She put up with me for a long time, then got off her stool and headed out the door. She took a couple of steps, stopped and came back.
"Young man," she said, "you have one thing to do with your life, and one thing only. See clearly. Just that...see clearly. Goodbye." And she walked away without another word.
Old story, but true. If I have a philosophy, it's all wrapped up in those two words — see clearly.
Michael B
-
How many can even grasp that concept ? No one who voted for B Ho. Seems like most of the deepest thoughts in Philosophy are like that, very simple on the surface but with many layers of increasing complexity between "hearing" and "understanding".
-
How many can even grasp that concept ? No one who voted for B Ho. Seems like most of the deepest thoughts in Philosophy are like that, very simple on the surface but with many layers of increasing complexity between "hearing" and "understanding".
Uh...beg to differ. But you can blame 8 years of of policy failure (leaving ideolgy aside, just look at the execution), a bungled war, Rumsfeld, a tanking economy, Caribou Barbie, James Dobson and McCain version 2.0 (and I really, really liked the original 2000 model)
I am something of a recovering Objectivist. But never an apologetic one. I've become a Christian (Epicopalian if that counts) and discovered Burke, Hayek, Mill and Locke along with post-modernism , which for all its sillyness ,does teach a lesson about how much we are unconsciousley shaped/formed by the culture around us. I do, and always will, have soft spot for the woman, because as Michael said she challenged to try to see clearly, and that is a lfe long project. In terms of seeing clearly, remember politics, particularly the presidency can't be boiled down to a single issue. If you do this you are being as selfish as those who put forth lavish earmarks for their districts out of your pocket. Ask yourself this. If after 8 years of Bush (are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?) would you seriousley rehire team GOP if they were a contacter working on your house? They need some time to think things over. This proably an over long post but at least it didn't take 60 pages :)
fightingquaker13
-
Uh...beg to differ. But you can blame 8 years of of policy failure (leaving ideolgy aside, just look at the execution), a bungled war, Rumsfeld, a tanking economy, Caribou Barbie, James Dobson and McCain version 2.0 (and I really, really liked the original 2000 model)
I am something of a recovering Objectivist. But never an apologetic one. I've become a Christian (Epicopalian if that counts) and discovered Burke, Hayek, Mill and Locke along with post-modernism , which for all its sillyness ,does teach a lesson about how much we are unconsciousley shaped/formed by the culture around us. I do, and always will, have soft spot for the woman, because as Michael said she challenged to try to see clearly, and that is a lfe long project. In terms of seeing clearly, remember politics, particularly the presidency can't be boiled down to a single issue. If you do this you are being as selfish as those who put forth lavish earmarks for their districts out of your pocket. Ask yourself this. If after 8 years of Bush (are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?) would you seriousley rehire team GOP if they were a contacter working on your house? They need some time to think things over. This proably an over long post but at least it didn't take 60 pages :)
fightingquaker13
Your statements offer no "change". Either the old and unacceptable or the new and even less acceptable. This is the box of hopelessness that both the parties seem to desire to put free men in. Are you comfortable in one camp or the other? Heck..are you even comfortable being free and do you desire for "big brother" to make things safe and provide security for you in exchange for some of that freedom that was bought with a price.
I would say if after a month or two of BHO, is it really incompetence or is he intentionally trashing the economy? Can anyone really be so bereft of intelligence...probably not....but then again, ponder his appointments, their (the appointments) lack of respect for the law (paying taxes) as it does not apply to them but must be applied, in fairness, and under threat to the simpleton peasant citizens who obviously in a collective sense fail to recognize their right (the leaderships' right) to have ascended to be our guardians of thought and conscience.
-
Ask yourself this. If after 8 years of Bush (are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?) would you seriously rehire team GOP if they were a contacter working on your house?
After 8 years if you mean am I financially better off since for some reason that is how we measure the president, I am still financially better off at this point. I was much better off a year ago but I am still better off. And you are seriously mistaken if you would lay the financial blame at Bushes feet. However, as for being better off, which I take personal responsibility for, I know a lot more, I am better prepared. I am a little older and creakier but hopefully better off.
Think how different we are now, the then http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/sock.htm (http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/sock.htm)
-
Uh...beg to differ. But you can blame 8 years of of policy failure (leaving ideolgy aside, just look at the execution), a bungled war, Rumsfeld, a tanking economy, Caribou Barbie, James Dobson and McCain version 2.0 (and I really, really liked the original 2000 model)
I am something of a recovering Objectivist. But never an apologetic one. I've become a Christian (Epicopalian if that counts) and discovered Burke, Hayek, Mill and Locke along with post-modernism , which for all its sillyness ,does teach a lesson about how much we are unconsciousley shaped/formed by the culture around us. I do, and always will, have a soft spot for the woman, because as Michael said she challenged us to try to see clearly, and that is a lfe long project. In terms of seeing clearly, remember politics, particularly the presidency can't be boiled down to a single issue. If you do this you are being as selfish as those who put forth lavish earmarks for their districts out of your pocket. Ask yourself this. If after 8 years of Bush (are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?) would you seriously rehire team GOP if they were a contactor working on your house? They need some time to think things over. This is proably an over long post but at least it didn't take 60 pages :)
fightingquaker13
I just wanted to post this before the flames start coming about how I betrayed a God given right. I was going to have to do so either way I voted. I believe that we have as much (more actually) right to control our own bodies as we do to defend them. This means that I am as serious about pro-choice issues as I am about second amendment ones, which is to say, damn serious. Vote for a (mostly) pro-gun candidate who tries to limit political speech and makes that his signature issue and is anti-choice; or a pro-choice candidate who is anti-gun, but has never run on it or made it a priority, and will be severly hobbled by a Democratic Senate that needs its pro-gun blue dogs? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and (as I am sure the comments will prove) damned by all and sundry either way. Such is the fate of a Libertarian. Oh well, we knew the job was dangerous when we took it.
fightingquaker13
-
Your statements offer no "change". Either the old and unacceptable or the new and even less acceptable. This is the box of hopelessness that both the parties seem to desire to put free men in. Are you comfortable in one camp or the other? Heck..are you even comfortable being free and do you desire for "big brother" to make things safe and provide security for you in exchange for some of that freedom that was bought with a price.
I'm a pro-choice, pro-gun conservationist (remember those?) Libertarian. I haven't been comfortable in either camp since before I could vote. Its always, every election I've voted in, been about choosing the lesser of two weevils. (And yet somehow I teach politics for a living. Don't even ask, cause damned if I know).
fightingquaker13
PS Big brothers been here for a long time, or are you forgetting the Patriot Act, warrantless wire tapping, extraordinary rendition, firing US Attorneys based ideology and the rest of it. D/R its all the same, you just choose the leser weevil.
-
The Virtue of selfishness, Who is the author ?
Ayn Rand is the author of most of the short essays in the book. Additional essays are written by Nathaniel Branden. The essays date from the early to mid 1960s when Rand was promoting Objectivism as a coherent system of ethics. It is a good book to sample Rand and her ideas. She is a forceful writer. Branden's contributions are not of the same caliber, but they do help tease out some of Rand's notions. For instance, his ideas about what makes for effective individualism have merit. As an aside, remember that Rand came to the United States from Soviet Russia when she was 21 years old. She spoke no English when she arrived. Her determination to master the English language impresses me. It is hard to believe, when reading her writing, she is working in an adopted language, not a native one. The fact that she became a bestselling author in her own time, and that her writing still generates controversy 27 years after her death is a tribute to her fierce intelligence and character. It is also a tribute to America as a society that it would find virtue in her virtues of selfishness. Yet, she knew this reality to be so when she embarked on her career as a writer. In other words, only in America. The book retails for less than $10 and can be had at any decent bookstore.
-
Ayn Rand is the author of most of the short essays in the book. Additional essays are written by Nathaniel Branden. The essays date from the early to mid 1960s when Rand was promoting Objectivism as a coherent system of ethics. It is a good book to sample Rand and her ideas. She is a forceful writer. Branden's contributions are not of the same caliber, but they do help tease out some of Rand's notions. For instance, his ideas about what makes for effective individualism have merit. As an aside, remember that Rand came to the United States from Soviet Russia when she was 21 years old. She spoke no English when she arrived. Her determination to master the English language impresses me. It is hard to believe, when reading her writing, she is working in an adopted language, not a native one. The fact that she became a bestselling author in her own time, and that her writing still generates controversy 27 years after her death is a tribute to her fierce intelligence and character. It is also a tribute to America as a society that it would find virtue in her virtues of selfishness. Yet, she knew this reality to be so when she embarked on her career as a writer. In other words, only in America. The book retails for less than $10 and can be had at any decent bookstore.
All true Trevor. However, the reader does need to know that when reading a book, any book (Bible included), you need to understand that just as the author writes the words on a page, so too have their life experiences been written on the author. I am no Objectivist (anymore) but I still admire Rand and think there is a lot to be learned from her (see my earlier posts). Just understand that a lot of her aversion to collective action is as much a result of the horrors she saw during the purges of the Soviet revolution as anything else. Her biggest flaw was that she liked to think that the human mind could achieve a Vulcan like quality based on pure logic, utterly removed from context. She never got that we are shaped by events. None of us are perfect, and I would still reccomend the book. Just know that asking Rand to even consider a welfare policy would be like inviting a concentration camp survivor out for a ride in your BMW to listen to a recording of Wagner. Don't expect a a response based on pure "objective logic".
fighingquaker13
-
Uh...beg to differ. But you can blame 8 years of of policy failure (leaving ideolgy aside, just look at the execution), a bungled war, Rumsfeld, a tanking economy, Caribou Barbie, James Dobson and McCain version 2.0 (and I really, really liked the original 2000 model)
Are you on crack ?
1) The post you quote is referring to the depth of philosophical insight that can been expressed in extremely simple terms,such as Jesus' comment "blessed be nothing".
2) In case you missed it, because the MSM is being loudly silent about it, we've WON the war in Iraq, now we are just trying show the Iraqi's how to govern. The only reasons we are still in Afghanistan is that the gutless Europeans who "replaced" us 2 YEARS ago won't come out of their compounds.
3)The historical record BLATANTLY shows (even to a hobbiest like me ) That the "tanking economy" is a direct result of the asinine policies forced through by muddle headed Dems, For example, Johnson stole Social Security to fund his "great Society", (Jimmy Hoffa went to prison for doing that with the Teamsters Pension fund and HE made a PROFIT by funding Vegas) It was the Dems (under Clinton) who decided to give SS bennies to ILLEGAL aliens (Al "I invented the internet" Gore cast the deciding vote) The "housing crunch" is a direct result of Dems,also under Clinton, FORCING banks to give loans to people who could not afford them, Maxine Waters said that verifying credit information was "discrimination against poor people", while Barney Frank was literally in bed with the head of Freddie Mac, at the same time he was on the Committee responsible for it's oversight, (I'll OK that legislation if you let ME be on top tonight) When B Ho was nominated the stock market was at 11,000, it's now below 7,000 and every time he opens his mouth it drops 100's of more points, how do you blame that on Bush ?
4) Sarah Palin was what finally got me to vote for that RINO McCain, She's strongly pro gun, during the campaign her son WAS SERVING IN IRAQ, she was the ONLY Governor to visit her States NG troops overseas. The only truthful bad thing the Dems could find to say about her was that, A: she didn't kill her handicapped baby, B: her unmarried daughter was pregnant ( Which I find REALLY ironic because Obama's mother was underage, not married when she got pregnant, and in 1960 the only white girls who slept with black men were whores)
5) Everyone who voted for Obama because of his speeches is a shallow lazy idiot, "I support the 2nd A" but he ALWAYS voted against, including against the right to self defense IN YOUR OWN HOME, "He's such a wonderful speaker" till the tele prompter goes out then he's a babbling a$$hole, "A LEADER for a new age, but he never led, ran or actually accomplished anything accept hooking up with radical communists domestic terrorists and anti American hate mongers, Not to mention that any one who expects to get an HONEST politician out of the Chicago Dem machine is a effen moron, Buy the way, were did that $360+ MILLION come from anyway, Barry ain't saying. It's really no wonder he won, He spent more than all 4 candidates in the last 2 elections combined.
I am something of a recovering Objectivist. But never an apologetic one. I've become a Christian (Epicopalian if that counts) and discovered Burke, Hayek, Mill and Locke along with post-modernism , which for all its sillyness ,does teach a lesson about how much we are unconsciousley shaped/formed by the culture around us. I do, and always will, have soft spot for the woman, because as Michael said she challenged to try to see clearly, and that is a lfe long project. In terms of seeing clearly, remember politics, particularly the presidency can't be boiled down to a single issue. If you do this you are being as selfish as those who put forth lavish earmarks for their districts out of your pocket. Ask yourself this. If after 8 years of Bush (are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?) would you seriousley rehire team GOP if they were a contacter working on your house? They need some time to think things over. This proably an over long post but at least it didn't take 60 pages Smiley
6) How can you call your self a Christian and at the same time be an apologist for a party that advocates killing babies but abhors executing murderers and rapists ?
7) Am I better off Now ? NO! I had a JOB under Bush, Through it all, 9-11, the High tech bubble, the war. If I lost one job there was another one to go to, under Bush the unemployment rate was under 5% in less than 45 days in office Barry has it over 8%.
Don't sound very "Objective" to me sounds like you are sipping the cup of intellectual dishonesty.
-
Uh...beg to differ. But you can blame 8 years of of policy failure (leaving ideolgy aside, just look at the execution), a bungled war, Rumsfeld, a tanking economy, Caribou Barbie, James Dobson and McCain version 2.0 (and I really, really liked the original 2000 model)
Are you on crack ?
Tom
I thought this would get you attention ;)
I'm sending this to you via email and on the forum, because the board's gotten a bit crowded. Read my subsequent posts and you'll get an idea of why I voted the way I did. Understand this though, I am NOT a conservative, particularly a social conservative. I am a Libertarian. This means an economically conservative fiscal policy (though God knows what means these days because if you have a formula for recovery you're ahead me and every one else) a foriegn policy that is based on realism and a predilection for non-interventionism unless there is little choice, and a fundamental respect for civil liberties; which include frees speech or expression, respect for property, the right to keep and bear arms, reproductive rights, religious liberty and the right to partner with who we will, etc. I, and my party espouse an essentially Jeffersonian view. I am not James Dobson's or Sarah Palin's friend, because I believe in lassiez faire whole cloth and with no apologies to the fundies or the politically correct set when it comes to defending essential individual lliberties. Screw 'em both as far as I'm concerned. An authoritarian is an authoritarian I don't care what color their uniform is. If you think I believe Obama shares my goals, it is you, my friend who is on crack. I just think that after eight years of GOP led disaster, that unless they get a "time out", otherwise known as an ass whoop'n when I was a child, that they will never learn the lessons that are pretty obvious to all of us. As far as D/R,I don't have dog in the fight
I'm putting this post on the board, but including another I hope you'll at least read and consider.
With respect,
fightingquaker13
-
As an aside, remember that Rand came to the United States from Soviet Russia when she was 21 years old. She spoke no English when she arrived. Her determination to master the English language impresses me. It is hard to believe, when reading her writing, she is working in an adopted language,
That explains the 1100+ pages and the 60 page speech. The only Russian author I could stand was Solzhenitsyn, I waded ALL THE WAY through Gulag Archipelago, The only Russian book I ever ENJOYED was his "One Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich" It covers one January day in the life of a political prisoner in Siberia, and it STILL takes 203 pages it works out to about 11 pages per hour.I tried Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and came to the conclusion that they are to fond of putting ink on paper, I'll probably skip Ayn Rand.
Reply to Fightingquaker,
I'm not conservative on social matters, I think abortion is a medical procedure, if you NEED one you need it just like a bypass.On defense and the economy I am VERY conservative, as to your comment "though God knows what means these days because if you have a formula for recovery you're ahead me and every one else" It's really pretty simple.
1) Quit the UN abrogate all treaties we have with them and kick them out of America.
2)Get rid of ALL illegal aliens Give them 30 days to leave on their own with their stuff if they register on their way out they get on a fast track to come back LEGALLY (with all the paperwork, medical checks etc. ) After 30 days they get chucked across the border with what they are wearing, everything else is forfeited to compensate for the expense they have cost. This does not violate any amendments as they were proceeds of crime.Sanctuary cities lose all federal funding until they comply with federal law, State and local politicians who implemented them are charged with Federal Conspiracy violations. ( USC Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 4:To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;)
3) Legalize Pot, Heroin and Cocaine, and tax them just like cigarettes and booze. The war on drugs has been a money pit since it's beginning, it was never anything more than a jobs program for Prohibition agents and the drug problem that did not exist BEFORE criminalization only gets worse. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Prohibition led to a huge rise in alcoholism, and made several gangsters very rich, like Joe Kennedy, and Al Capone, it created an entirely new type of criminal in the bootlegger and caused an explosion of violent crime, even the Govt had to admit it was a flop. So then they did the EXACT SAME THING with drugs. Tax income, No DEA fewer judges and police, fewer lawsuits for raiding the wrong place, less incentive for corruption.
4) Do away with "income Tax, and the Fed, National sales tax, those who SPEND more PAY more. If the fed is running the economy what the hell is the Treasury Dept. doing ? Treasury is supposed to be the nations finance Dept, making the collections and payments.
5) Bring home ALL ARMY troops not engaged in active operations and put them on the borders, cut the size of that force by 50%, The job of the Army is DEFENDING our borders, not spending $ in Korea and Germany, If we need to project force, that is what the Navy and Marine Corps were started for, now the Air Force joins them.
6) Cut Senate and Congressional pay by 25% staff by 75% limit of 2 terms, no pensions, no senate bank or health care, They need to live the same as the rest of us. (And ENFORCE the damn ETHICS rules)
7) Eliminate Govt. agencies and Departments, the Constitutions first article clearly defines the authority and responsibilities of Govt. no other agencies are needed or legal.
8)Tariffs on imported goods, +10% if made overseas by an American owned Company, No charge for Foreign owned companies manufacturing HERE.
9) No more Foreign aid.
10) No vote for welfare recipients, They do not contribute to prosperity they deserve no say in how it is managed. THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO RETIREE'S or those drawing pensions or unemployment, those are earned benefits not charity. Social Security would be placed back in a trust fund as intended financed in part by a fine levied on the Democratic party,Any future politician who attempted to remove it would be guilty of theft and removed from office with prejudice.
11) Charity returned to the community where it belongs, people who have hard times get help, dead beat leeches can starve.
I can come up with more but it's 5:30 am. Harsh ? Probably. Will people get hurt that don't deserve to ? Some. But it will hurt far less people than if the economy melts down and it is sustainable if severe enough penalties are put in place so the do gooder a$$holes can't screw it up again.
-
Reply to Fightingquaker,
I'm not conservative on social matters, I think abortion is a medical procedure, if you NEED one you need it just like a bypass.On defense and the economy I am VERY conservative, as to your comment "though God knows what means these days because if you have a formula for recovery you're ahead me and every one else" It's really pretty simple.
.
.
.
.
Now, THAT is libertarian. Excellent summation, and a set of policies I could get behind. You did forget backing currency with some sort of valuable, like gold again.
The main problem I see is a lot of us here are "older", and the real crises won't hit for some time, 10 years or more as stockpiles of food and whatnot run out. With bho and the commies in charge for most of that time (he'll steal the next election, although the way the Repubbies are acting under Steele's appalling lack of leadership, they may just give it to him) this country will be in dire shape, far worse (if you can even imagine it) than things are going now. I cannot imagine being in my seventies and living in a country run by the like of bho and whoever follows him - assuming he leaves after 2 terms. Nothing like a good crisis to repeal that pesky amendment limiting the Pres to 2 terms. Four terms were good enough for a socialist like FDR, 4 or more will be just the ticket for a commie like bho. President for life, ala Chanvez? And Stalin? And Mao? And...and...and...
Sad times, but, God willing, one last chance to turn this country back around when people's eyes are finally opened. Let's hope it's not too late.
-
I'm with you Pathfinder. And Tom I appreciate how you remember things when my focus is on something else...yes we are here because of the late 90's rush to relax credit. Eric Raines (remember that name lately) said it was a great thing to relax the credit...he was head of Fannie Mae at the time, steered into nothingness and now sits at the right hand of BHO the coming failure. Tom, ever our historian of recent events...very good...and to add to that it was the Democrats who pushed for the changes to relax credit because of racially predatory lending practices...started coming up at the end of the Clinton era, Bush let it sail right through. This economic failure was called, people said the one's with perception were wrong; it was predicted that we would see government bail out those people with the workers money...they were called silly and foolish; now the chickens have come to roost and the prophecies fulfilled.
Abortion is a medical procedure, it kills a child.
-
"You did forget backing currency with some sort of valuable, like gold again."
Actually Path I HAVE been thinking about that, the problem is volume, Say we peg the dollar at its original value of one silver ounce, and allow each citizen to convert $1000. That would require a reserve of 300,000,000,000 ounces or 757580 TONS of silver. Where would we get that much silver, I don't know if the entire world output has totaled that much, and that does not allow for economic growth, just passing the same money around, I start to see why the decided to go with the funny money.
I'm not a doctor but I have heard Dr.'s say that sometimes an abortion, like any other medical procedure, is necessary.
As to the pro choice demand for so called "abortion on demand", well, replace the word "abortion" with the word "bypass" or "amputation" and the ludicrousness of the issue becomes clear. This is a smoke screen issue designed to distract your attention from the F$#@ing you are getting on some other issue.
-
I believe that we have as much (more actually) right to control our own bodies as we do to defend them. This means that I am as serious about pro-choice issues as I am about second amendment ones, which is to say, damn serious. Vote for a (mostly) pro-gun candidate who tries to limit political speech and makes that his signature issue and is anti-choice; or a pro-choice candidate who is anti-gun, but has never run on it or made it a priority, and will be severly hobbled by a Democratic Senate that needs its pro-gun blue dogs? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and (as I am sure the comments will prove) damned by all and sundry either way. Such is the fate of a Libertarian. Oh well, we knew the job was dangerous when we took it.
fightingquaker13
Yes, single issue voting creates a challenge when in reality there are many issues we care about and the majority of politicians blend a mixture of positions designed to help them capture enough votes. Part of that challenge is that government as a whole has stepped far over its boundaries to bring fairness and compliance to the world and beyond this "everyone likes a good deal".
I find your balance of pro-choice and 2nd amendment interesting. One is about an self evident right
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
My issue with pro-choice is you are taking away the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness from one. I realize that not all pregnancies are "elective" but it is the VAST majority with US study finding 1.5% of abortions due to rape or incest. I don't believe this is about choice. A choice has already been made and now we are unwilling to live with the consequence. In general we are unwilling in this era to live with the consequences of our choices. With freedom comes choice, with choice comes accountability.
-
Yes, single issue voting creates a challenge when in reality there are many issues we care about and the majority of politicians blend a mixture of positions designed to help them capture enough votes. Part of that challenge is that government as a whole has stepped far over its boundaries to bring fairness and compliance to the world and beyond this "everyone likes a good deal".
I find your balance of pro-choice and 2nd amendment interesting. One is about an self evident rightMy issue with pro-choice is you are taking away the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness from one. I realize that not all pregnancies are "elective" but it is the VAST majority with US study finding 1.5% of abortions due to rape or incest. I don't believe this is about choice. A choice has already been made and now we are unwilling to live with the consequence. In general we are unwilling in this era to live with the consequences of our choices. With freedom comes choice, with choice comes accountability.
That is one of the biggest problems in current society, and one that has escalated over the last few generations. Too many people don't think that they should be held accountable or have to pay the consequences for their own poor choices and bad decision making.
***EDIT: went back and added 'their own' for clarification.
PegLeg
-
That is one of the biggest problems in current society, and one that has escalated over the last few generations. Too many people don't think that they should be held accountable or have to pay the consequences for poor choices and bad decision making.
That's the root cause of my dispute with fightingquaker about "mandatory skill training" for CCW, Making yet another rule only addresses the symptom with out looking at the actual cause. 20,000 gun laws alone, and that's just one thing, the sheeple want a law so they don't have to think, It's not MY fault, it's our zero tolerance policy.
Driving with cell phones, basically states are having to pass "distracted driving" laws because " It's not MY fault I (ran the redlight, killed the pedestrian, rearended that car etc.) I was on the phone".
"Yes, single issue voting creates a challenge when in reality there are many issues we care about and the majority of politicians blend a mixture of positions designed to help them capture enough votes. "
This is another simple one, the only issue that matters is gun rights. If the candidate doesn't trust citizens with guns then he either has a guilty conscience or he doesn't trust you, either way you don't want to vote for him. And if they DO take our guns then all our other rights exist at the whim of the masses. Free speech ? Life and liberty ? It's all at the whim of the power.