No...the creatures in congress would not dare to put it to a vote of the people because they would lose.

Unless they could cheat on that TOO!

"The vision of the country is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; and no one seems to be following the law, the vision, the dream.
Put it to a vote of the states, they won't and haven't because they know, it's a no go."
It it the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Are you saying people would not vote for them today?
I used to think those were the framework specifically designed not to be put to a vote. But now I think if most people don't believe in them, it can never work because a piece of paper isn't powerful enough to make people stay within certain limits.

Maybe I missed it but what of the response to an imminent threat of physical force, ie, intending to kill you, injure you, rob you? You are the victim of intended bodily harm or physical force to separate you from you're hard earned creation of value...and...is it not the same thing when it comes to planned physical harm via a vaccine, medicine, poison food,air,water etc, perhaps to reduce the population or just to rid you and others like you because you threaten their power over you, threaten their ill gotten gains, stolen from you're creation of value?

Agreed that context is important along with proof of such intents, imminent or long term intents.

I don't like to lose members, but I don't agree with this one's condemnation of Galt's Gulch Online

"You cannot justify your call for the initiation of force by simply saying that someone else did it first."

If someone initiates force against you, you can not initiate it in return. Because the force initiation has already happened. In that case you are responding to force with force - not initiating it.

This applies to "calls" for it as well. Indeed, the shift to "calls" rather than action is a slippery one because while force initiation is pretty clear, one man's "call for force" is another's basic expression of thought. Think that sounds crazy? "Silence is violence" is out there. Cries of someone talking somewhere with a different viewpoint is routinely referred to as violence. "Misgendering" by not capitulating to someone's narcissistic insistence on artificial "pronouns" is routinely proclaimed to be violence.

Now I would, and do, argue against each of those. But that doesn't detract from the fact that by shifting from actual initiation of force to generic 'calls' for it you go from solid ground to shaky ground at best. Further, consider the executioner fulfilling a death sentence. They are initiating force against someone specifically due to the condemned initiating force on others, and this is an act that Rand, and Objectivism, does consider moral. More stringent rules or barriers to expressing it than in perpetrating it are non-sensical. Thus, at a minimum, all that is "allowed" in the case of actual physical force are allowed in literary or verbal expression. But more on that later.

Now as to figure of speech, you're incorrect on that. Objectively so.
"That comedian was killing on stage last night"
"You're killin' me Smalls"
"Break a leg!" - a whole different meaning based purely on context. Say it to a performer and it is a figure of speech wishing them well. Say to a skateboarder and it could be you're wanting them to actually break a leg. Say it to a fighter and you're calling for physical harm on someone else.
"You're comparing apples and oranges"

A categorical rejection of "figure of speech" is absurd and demonstrates either an unwillingness to think beyond the literal surface, or a lack of capacity for it. Such a categorical rejection is not worthy of someone who envisions themselves as an Objectivist. After all, it is exceedingly rare that someone is literally objecting to someone comparing apples to oranges, and nearly always it is used to assert someone is attempting to compare incomparably different things in an unreasonable manner.

But "Apples and oranges" or "you're comparing apples and oranges" is more concise and, as a figure of speech, easily understood. Speaking of apples and oranges ...

Rand defined it as physical force, not words. Therefore your tirade about "calls for violent action" is both incorrect in the sense of Rand's discussion on physical force initiation, and another broad categorical rejection.

The broad categorical rejection is demonstrative of a lack of understanding the importance of context. As my examples of figures of speech above demonstrate, context matters. In many cases it is what matters most. It was a"figure of speech" for Rand to write "There are only the Rights of Man — rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals." (The Virtue of Selfishness) and not be claiming that women lack these rights.

As you apparently refuse to discuss specific cases in their context, your broad categorical rejection of context - including figures of speech - is a rejection of Objectivist practice.

As Rand herself wrote: "The difference between an exchange of ideas and an exchange of blows is self-evident. The line of demarcation between freedom of speech and freedom of action is established by the ban on the initiation of physical force." - Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand.

Notice the phrase she used was "initiation of physical force." Nor was this a one-time usage. In concluding I offer the following to go with the above emphasis (it is but a few examples - not an exhaustive list):

"A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent — his right has been violated.

"Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division — not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man." - Textbook of Americanism.

"A crime is a violation of the rights of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others--i.e., the recourse to violence--that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime--and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime." - The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

Whether you like it or not, someone wishing you dead is expressing an idea, not an initiation of physical force. Even claiming someone should kill you is an expression, not an act. And before you go saying that someone reading that and doing it makes it real, you must concede that they acted of their own free will and as an objective standard bears the sole responsibility for their act. You'd have to, at best, prove they were coerced into doing it by the author in order to objectively tie them together in guilt.

I like the common sense thinking on this site. Even Objectivists disagree at times, but looking closely at more than one side is a learning experience.I recently played an auido of Rand talking about Fascism and consensus from 1964, It is so very relevant at this time in politics! This site deeps up returning to the words of Rand, and remembering what we had learned but put aside.

If you came to this forum as a place to talk about Rand, there is none better IMHO. That being said, to expect everyone here to upvote you for every comment you make is to misunderstand the voting system entirely. Votes are marks of value (+1) or of contradiction to value (-1). You are certainly welcome to cite your opinions, but understand that you are encouraged to cite principles and examples - especially from acknowledged philosophers like Rand - which comport with Reality. Statements which support or encourage viewpoints which have a history of disagreeing with Reality will get downvoted.

To address several of your concerns, please consider the following.

"I know from experience that as soon as I say that someone will respond demanding that I cite examples."

That is the standard of everyone here in the Gulch. Speculation and hypothesis may be interesting, but not valuable. The expectation is to take that hypothesis to the next level and do something. Invent something. Flesh out your ideas by seeing if they comport with someone else's. Anyone can dream. (Leftists are prodigious at it.) We're interested in that dream's intersection with Reality.
I should also mention that I'm a State Debate Judge. The simplest way to win points in a debate is to call out statements an opponent made but failed to support with a source. An unsupported argument is a failed argument.

“Death to traitors” where the word traitor seems to be defined as “anyone who disagrees with my vision of this country” rather than as someone who has actually been found guilty of betraying this country."

I ask you to consider this in terms of whether or not those very politicians hold views antithetical to those of "Liberty Justice for all." Remember that every national politician swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. If by their actions they forswear that allegiance, they are de facto guilty of treason. I agree with you that the formality of such a proclamation should be present prior to sentence being carried out and that hyperbole should be constrained until such a verdict is rendered.

"To come to a site that is supposed to value rational thought and reason and see calls for violent action is disturbing. Rand herself was adamantly opposed to the initiation of force except in self-defense. True self-defense. You cannot justify your call for the initiation of force by simply saying that someone else did it first."

Here I will point out that the entirety of self-defense relies upon the other party being the first to infringe upon one's rights. As soon as one acknowledges that first offense, however, the response then becomes de facto self-defense. One can argue the relative extent of the retaliation and its appropriateness, but one can not do that without acknowledging the original breach and its consequences.
As a second note, I would similarly point out that where such breaches are initiated by public actors (such as politicians) and have the effect to stifle creativity, one must similarly recognize that any such are anathema and most heinous to those who above all other things value the products of the mind. In very fact, to appear to justify such public breaches on this board is to call into question one's own Objectivist bona fides in a most direct manner.

"And so, I will be seeking another forum on which to truly have rational discussions."

If you wish to leave, that is your choice. But to imply or accuse those of us on this forum of not being rational is to expose the weakness in your own arguments' inability to stand up to questioning. In concordance with the Laws of Scientific Inquiry, ideas do not become theories until tested and re-tested against Reality. One should not shy away from such critique, but revel in the fact that it indicates a thorough vetting by intelligent minds eager to seek out the truth independent of agenda.

One point, Captin, Although "Humans-presumably, Conscious ones" can get caught up in the "power" thing; when referring to nature, I think it more accurate to use the term: Humanoids, to describe offenders of liberty, morals and ethics, for to offend, steal, connive and lie is in fact, Their nature.

Just to be a little bit more precise...wink wink, nudge nudge.

CM, as someone who has thrown out some harsh rhetoric, like 10,000 Patriots, or a Benevolent DICTATOR to RULE over the rulers...

I am not sure if you are including me or not. But allow me to comment... My posts were SUPPOSED to be thought provoking. A few steps BEYOND "the proverbial line"...

While it might be UNFAIR(maybe even "wrong") to kill a politician and eliminate his downline DNA and his spouse (those who benefited, for sure) for his wrong doing...

I love the back and forth. And one reason to plant these seeds is simple...
WHEN (and not IF) we get the chance to redo a constitution, it should be spelled out that for the same reasons that "Internal Affairs" exists to keep Cops honest... Something like that is needed, with punishments SO EXTREME as to "Scare Straight" any person who seeks power/office.

You can disagree. But human nature is what it is. There should be MASSIVE punishment for ALL of the crimes committed by our government Overlords and the Fauci types who LIED (and somehow redact their emails. So, we can see TRUMPS documents (an ex president), but we cannot see if Fauci was committing Fraud on the America People covering up the LAB origins of the Virus, and seeking to have people punished for bringing it up). And it deeply saddens me... That one set of protestors die in jail, and another set caused BILLIONS in damages, caused at least 5 deaths, broke SERIOUS laws, strong armed stores for donations to avoid getting looted... And we only here about Jan 6! Nobody looking into those other crimes.

I choose to be hear, to keep a pulse on the MORE REASONABLE Crowd.
I know what the crazy people think. It's everywhere.
at least here... We get memes, and FOOD FOR THOUGHT. Sometimes the kind that challenges us.

I've learned more about the efficiency differences between EVs and ICEs here than ALL other sources combined! Crazy! (And I still say we are 100yrs away from going to all EVs, and that's if we start install nuclear, and upgrading our grid). Good luck!

Regardless... A thought provoking post!

Right. The group was desperate for another group to blame, rather than looking in the mirror. So much easier if your problems were all caused by others.

She' has no idea what she is for or against, she's strictly a politician, has a need have the power and to be in control of everything. Perhaps she should set an example, strip her security detail of all their guns. An how can there be a gun pandemic in New York, yet she claims to have the lowest number of gun killings per capita. Who did those shootings, was it licensed permit holders?

I believe the George Floyd incident was planned as perhaps something just went wrong. I mean look at all the video. And look at all the video of the January 6th "insurrection", it looked as though professional cameramen set it all up and were doing a documentary, and acting was atrocious. Not to change the subject, but back to the set up of Jan 6th again, https://www.bitchute.com/video/DYlb92...

I'm with you...

Just prior to retiring, I went on an email rant (to a small group at work) over what I thought was favoritism for school teachers, in Washington state. Apparently, if I take early retirement (as a radio tech), I can't go back to work until I turn 65, or risk losing my pension. However, if a teacher takes early retirement, they are wholly exempt from that restriction and can work an additional 3 years, with pay.

I aired my feelings of being a second class employee and shortly thereafter, our group lead called me to chastise me. While his argument that the venue for my rant was probably improper, he justified his comments by remarking on the fact that the spouses of some of my colleagues were school teachers.

My thought was WTF difference does THAT make? So, somebody might be offended...I was being offended and that doesn't count?

Anyway, as difficult as it is, we've just got to try to let these things roll off our backs. Like I constantly told my wife, while we were raising our kids "Pick your battles" and "Be the parent".

Remember that while some may vehemently disagree with you, there are many more who agree and would miss your wisdom on GG.

Thank you FFA -- I appreciate your going back to the source, AR, which is what fuels our dialogs here.

Thanks D -- you saved me a bit of typing right there.

I am on the same page regarding GF. As it played out, he was just a tool used to get the fires roaring -- and it sure didn't require much tinder to move things along.

Long winded self righteous rubbish and word games will not be missed. I've never seen any call for violence on this site, it's that simple.
Cute, your gonna shrug,

50,000,000+ UNBORN CHILDREN WERE MURDER IN THE UNITED STATES

murdered by abortion
almost ALL were elective

per the US Constitution, there is a Right to Life, 5th Amendment
an unborn Child is ALIVE
it feels pain (after a certain point)
it has its own DNA


get a damn clue

I can't say what mhubb meant but here are some statistics.
(I make no claim to their veracity.)

Fox News claims 63+ million abortions since 1973 according to NRLC.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abor...

TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
63,459,781

Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2020, with 3 percent added for GI estimated possible 3-5 percent undercount for 1973-2014. Another 12,000 per year added for 2015-2020 for abortions from “providers” GI says it may have missed in 2015-2017 counts.
https://christianliferesources.com/20...

I like Trump's name-calling. It's funny.

While I agree with all the comments posted, as well as most of what you (mhubb) indicate, to assume that 50M unborn were murdered is a bridge too far on this site. Not that you don't have a right to your opinion or that it's not welcome, but I do think the Objectivists would disagree. A topic for another discussion.

Except in illustration or obvious humorous sarcasm I can go along with you on direct personal insults and name calling. However, on the “or demand further answers from me” part I take exception. If you or anyone else on this board makes a statement the author should be responsible and able to back it up or explain it or back down from the position. Using Ayn Rand’s words to circumvent that responsibility is disgusting at best. You want us to believe you are an Objectivist. No real Objectivist would do that, IMHO.

They have no legal right to "Act on their vision of this country".
The vision of the country is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; and no one seems to be following the law, the vision, the dream.

Put it to a vote of the states, they won't and haven't because they know, it's a no go.

We the people have been called stupid names, those of us that want liberty.
We call it as we observe it, we'd have a discussion but they won't participate in kind.

It's not a simple as you think and I am sure Rand would agree...I like her "Name calling" better, it was more accurate and to the point.

I am laughing and shaking my head with your commentary. Yes, one has the right to be happy within their own stupidity, "exist" as you state, but the moment one adversely affects another, causing harm to that persons happiness, well being; imposing financial burdens because the offender doesn't want to create their own value. That is a whole another story...it's more than a simple disagreement.

Have you not observed Rand constantly calling out usurpers of value, creatures that live off others while assuming rule over them?
Was she simply disagreeing with them or was she chastising them for imposing their own "irrational self interest" upon others!

Have you not observed that those assuming rule over us are not like us in the slightest? Having no conscience, no mindfulness (Introspection) and have Never created value in their own lives. Literally sucking the value created out of everything else?

This goes way beyond a simple disagreement, way beyond live and let live.
THIS is a Fight for Conscious Human life...only the conscious, fully integrated and introspective can create true value in one's own rational Celf interest. No, I didn't misspell that, Every Cell in the body is responsible for it's own survival, once those needs are met, the value is naturally passed on. Like an invention that makes life better, more enjoyable, safer, healthier.

The Paradigm is upside down: We The People are the Elite on the Street,..unfortunately, ruled by the Great Unwashed, the Global DELETE, Parasitical Humanoids, usurpers and destroyers of value "in their own self interests"...that is Evil incarnate and you know it.

Yes, they have the right to exist...in the bottomless pit.
They are the sorts that try men's souls, this is a fight for survival for they threaten every part of our lives.

"OUR RIGHT TO EXIST" has been infringed.

I simply disagree with your entire premise.
It has been weighed, measured and found wanting...

This place has gotten a little rougher. So, I appreciate this post. That said...I've seen other Objectivist boards get MUCH more offensive. Everybody struggles with their own philosophy. So, some patience is required in a forum like this. I recently had a nice ignore stint when comments toward me seemed like petty sniping - not adding to the discussion nor constituting an argument to evaluate. So be it. Everybody has a bad day....That's something I've been saying a lot lately with the shit I'm seeing...Haha!

If that is a question, I would say you came here to project the false narrative that Patriots are the extremists and a threat to Democracy. You ignore the violence perpetrated by the Marxists , your leader’s policy at the border. That open border policy results in 10’s of thousands of deaths every year from Fentynal as well as the rape of the majority of women trying to get to America.