|
| Does being a libertarian mean anything to anyone anymore?
Do I think that Michael Badnarik’s completely insane? Maybe. Do I think that he’s wrong about the war on Islamic Radicalism and the motives of our enemies? Yes. Do I think that he’s strange, bizarre, and more than a little “out there”? Yes.
But I am voting for him anyway.
Look, the pacifists may have gotten a hold of the Libertarian Party, but reading the Issues and the Platform, including the pledge that all LP members are to uphold, I can’t help but know that the LP was formed on the philosophical revelations of one person:
Ayn Rand.
The gold standard? Rand. The idea that no one can initiate force to achieve political goals? Rand. The belief that the LP stands for “personal responsibility and individual rights”…that there are natural consequences to doing the wrong thing and we do not need government to punish us for actions that we will metaphysically pay for…the idea that government should be constitutionally limited and do nothing more than protect our rights….RAND..RAND and more RAND!!!
I acquiesce that the LP is wrong about many things…but, why are so many Objectivists still voting Republican? Leonard Peikoff left, although with a highly unprincipled and strange abandonment of thought to Kerry.
I understand that the war is important, but I am no more convinced that Bush will do any better of a job (Iraq was the wrong target, period) than any one else. Please, Readers, if you are small government, why are you continuing to support Bush? His Nixonian “talk the talk” of small government and then completely go against all of his promises is disgusting and distorts the idea of small government. So, please, tell me, why NOT vote for one candidate you may nominally disagree with (Badnarik) in favor of religious-right-crazy, statist Bush, who’s only plus is that he “talks tough” on terror? | | |
| What do Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il and Leonard Peikoff all have in common?
Answer: they would all love to see John Kerry as President.
Peikoff strikes again! A few weeks ago, that wonder of Objectivist embarrassment, Leonard Peikoff, decided that President Bush’s ties to the religious right would prevent him from properly waging the war against Islamic fundamentalists. So, naturally, despite Kerry’s disgusting attempts to play the religion card (including claiming himself as Jewish), Peikoff concludes the mostly secular Kerry would be a better choice than Bush.
Let’s review what Bush has in common with the average Objectivist:
- An aggressive war against state-sponsored terrorism. Peikoff should appreciate the Bush administration’s eye toward Iran, since Peikoff advocated for the conversion of Iran from sand to glass shortly after 9-11.
- A serious slowing in the rate of regulation and government growth.
- Aggressive advocacy here and abroad for free trade
- Liberalization of our borders, thereby granting more immigrants the chance to enrich America as a whole
- Cut the marginal rate of taxes, thereby stunting the post 9-11 slump.
Now, for Kerry
- Isn’t religious
- Believes in the right to an abortion (which is NOT, as some may note, necessarily the viewpoint of every Objectivist)
Woah, Peikoff, you’re blowing me away here! Peikoff, could of course state the at least Kerry’s metaphysics are in order, except for that Kerry at least believes in God too. Let’s review the Objectivist principles really quick:
Metaphysics: Neither Kerry nor Bush check out here
Epistemology: Unknown
Ethics: With Kerry’s collectivism and Bush’s mysticism, neither really goes over well here either
Politics: Who is clearly more individuality-oriented? It’s clear. President Bush should, by all purposes and evaluative criteria, check out with Peikoff.
That wooshing sound? It’s Ayn Rand spinning in her grave.
| | |
| NEW SITE
Don’t worry, Ayn_Randian Fans (all ten of you!), I will still publish here, but I felt the almost-grave nature of my writing would prevent me from doing more humorous commentary on culture and news that I wanted to do. You can see my first attempts at
Objectively_Bad
All that’s bad in culture and news
http://www.xanga.com/Objectively_Bad | | |
|
The Ayn Rand Institute is wrong about abortion
(And makes me sick in the process)
Steven Druckenmiller
The Ayn Rand Institute, a dogmatic and foolish “Objectivist think-tank” run by second-rate intellectual Leonard Peikoff has demonstrated it serious lack of intelligent debate within its ranks by posting an Editorial About Partial Birth Abortion that convolutes the discussion of individual rights by arbitrary placing a fetus as a “biological parasite”. First of all, a more nuanced (and more intelligent) theory has been put forth by The Objectivist Center that states that humans are humans because of our ability to conceptualize, and therefore, when a fetus begins to receive biofeedback in the form of sense evidence, that is when we are to draw the line between legitimate termination of “a clump of cells” (as pro-abortion activists and, shamefully, the Ayn Rand Institute, are fond of calling future life) and a the life of a human being: the most moral, wonderful and incredible creature to walk the earth.
Peikoff’s cronies and their rantings fail to answer two important questions: first of all, if not during the pregnancy, then when does a fetus claim responsibility and rights for its own life? If ARI is arguing that dependency means a lack of rights as humans, then I know some 10-, 12- and even 30- and 40-year-olds who are due for termination! When, Leonard, is a fetus a legitimate human life? If it’s at birth, why? Seemingly, Peikoff would argue that the point a fetus is cut from the umbilical cord is the time, but why? He almost seems to place a mystical attachment to that moment, rather than objectively discovering when a fetus becomes a life. Instead of relying on science, Peikoff has pick his poison in spouting off dogma and expecting the rest of Objectivism to “fall in line”. Secondly, doesn’t claiming a fetus as a parasite suggest that it came to the host body by its own evolutionarily developed survival instinct? But it did not. 99% of the time, it came to the host (the mother) by choice, either overt choice to want to get pregnant, or complicit choice by failing to adequately cover risk and accepting even those risks it is impossible to cover. Most of the time, yes, it is the mother’s fault she ends up pregnant, and she should have no right to terminate a life for her own convenience. Ayn Rand wrote “Do not sacrifice yourself for others, and, likewise, do not sacrifice others for yourself!”
I encourage readers of this blog to post their thoughts.
| | |
|  
Preserving Civilian Life in Times of Warfare Not Moral
By: Steven Druckenmiller
Recently, critics of the United States and, of course, Israel, have complained once again that these two morally upright nations do not take civilians enough into account when defending themselves. Israel is routinely criticized for killing harmless Palestinian “civilians” (editor’s note: just because someone is old and in a wheelchair does not make him innocent) when attempting to justifiably killing those who advocate and bankroll the destruction of their country. Furthermore, the United States is always criticized for failure to control civilian deaths.
Just like the myth of Iraq’s Sovereignty (and Iran’s, North Korea’s, ad infinitum), so goes the myth of “innocent civilian”. Objectivism states that the citizen is a moral agent and involved in the running of his country. Therefore, those civilians who fail to make a stand for a moral and free government and join an insurgency are complicit in their government’s actions!. If we were to take the “holiness” of the “innocent civilian” to an absolute, (reductio ad absurdum), then the United States and Israel could never attack targets with any kind of risk of civilian deaths. Furthermore, a tinpot dictator with one dilapidated tank could defeat the United States Military if that one tank had a baby strapped to it. Is this philosophical viewpoint (One I deem “The Sanctity of the Civilian”) one that the United States, Israel or other moral nations can afford to adopt? The answer is a resounding “no!”
Conservatives are starting to sound like sniveling cowards in the face of the Abu Gharib prison “scandal” (it is a so-called scandal because it is one in which the media have manufactured it as such…was it a scandal when Saddam was disassembling his populace fleshpiece by fleshpiece? The larger scandal is the United States’ lack of moral resolve to finish civilizing this backward and dangerous country). The conservatives claim that they have always been against “empire” and advocate an immediate withdrawal. Naturally, once things start to become uncomfortable, the talking-head worms want to retreat to the comfort of not caring about United States Civilians at all. Non-intervention and support of immoral dictators is what caused 9-11 to occur. Continuing to pursue a failed policy in the name of the “republic” will cause the republic to truly fail. It is time the United States said “We are staying the course, no matter what public opinion may be.” The moral is not always, in actuality, it is almost never, the popular. | | |
|
![[ It's Rational! ]](http://www.saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com/images/ayn_seal_of_approval_button.jpg)
