17

Cruz's Road To Hell Paved With The Bad Intentions

Posted by khalling 4 years, 7 months ago to Politics
79 comments | Share | Flag

"Who should win? Anyone who favors individual rights across the board, and on principle, because of the natural and objective human requirement to think and be free. In other words, rights come neither from God nor the government. Rights are a basic requirement of a human being. Without rights, there is no economic growth, no survival, no self-responsibility, no freedom to rise or fall as one’s own person in life.
When I think of freedom and rights, I think of skyscrapers, computer technology, life-saving medicine, the joy to read and think as you please, to be spiritual (religious or not) as you define it without any threat of force from others, and all the pleasure and comforts brought about by the intellectual and personal freedom permitted to exist, in those exceedingly rare periods of human history where human beings are left largely free."
SOURCE URL: https://drhurd.com/ted-cruzs-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-wrong-intentions/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 12
    Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 7 months ago
    From the article "The basic premise of religious conservatism is that freedom is a gift from God."

    While I understand the opposition to such a notion here on this website and in the overall Objectivist philosophy, I cannot understand the repulsion toward it.

    I'll try to explain, even though I'm certain the rational thinking would already see what I'm about to say: The idea that individual rights (the freedom mentioned the in the quite) originate from God was a brilliant. Placing rights above the manifestation/implementation of human beings means that human being have NO AUTHORITY to adjust/hinder/ restrict said rights. Essentially, provided people maintain respect for the possibility that there may indeed be more to life than what we see-hear-touch-smell, it declaws the despot and tyrant by removing the bulk of his/her authority despite those who may have elected him.

    I would think those here, even if God were a fallacy, would see the necessity to place our rights beyond the reach of tyrants and the overzealous.

    As a Conservative, Cruz is on my watch list, as is Allen West, and Ben Carson.

    My 2 bits.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 11
      Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 7 months ago
      AJ, it's not necessarily opposition or repulsion--Its simply A=A. All humans, whether they are trained to believe as you do, by all logic and reasoning have just as much right to life, liberty, and property as any other.

      Throwing your or anyone else's god into the mix changes the equation from the individual to the belief. I am alive. I'm facing the exact same reality that you are. The choices I make affect what interactions I have with that reality. I insist that my rational reasoning mind using the senses I'm born with can make as good as or better than logical decisions and choices as some group of theologians wanting control from some 1700 years ago. My life is my life, not some supernatural being's.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 7 months ago
        I really do understand. However, the numbers are stacked against you. I'm not remotely the most devout person (ask my wife) - I know what I know and I'm content with that. I wouldn't remotely support a theocracy, or a religious values candidate and would vehemently oppose anyone trying to favor one set of beliefs/laws/rule/rights over another (except islam). Even so, knowing that the large number of people have some degree of belief/faith in someone/something supernatural would provide a degree of assurance that the rights specified by the Framers remain off limits. A struggle to remove that belief/faith is forming a hangman's noose around society by making everything relative and removing the authority from only neutral object (inalienable rights) that everyone in this country can count on to combat tyranny.

        I truly do understand your position and even agree with it to a degree, particularly the social binding of a people when civilization needed commonality to form.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 4 years, 7 months ago
          Religion does not put rejection of our rights "off limits". It makes rights impossible to defend. Anyone can have faith in anything he wants if that is the way he thinks. And they do, from the Catholic left's liberation theology to the Islamo Fascists, with all factions hysterically fighting each other for millennia of mutual religious persecution.

          Faith doesn't defend rights on some absolute terms, it doesn't intellectually defend anything. It leaves everything up for grabs with no intellectual standards to decide, only perpetual force as each faction loudly pronounces its own faith as beyond challenge and beyond discussion as it tries to assert its own beliefs into an impregnable position supposedly intrinsic under its supernaturalism. It pronounces supposedly intrinsic values as an excuse to forcibly impose them, with no argument necessary or possible. That is how faith inevitably leads to force and the wholesale violation of rights, and is why religious faith is not and cannot be a defense of the rights of the individual.

          But the religious conservatives do further damage. As they invoke religious faith as the alleged defense of arbitrary assertions of rights with no definition and no explanation beyond mystic pronouncements, they loudly exclude and denounce a rational defense of rights objectively identified as abstract moral principles based on our requirements to live on earth.

          This anti-intellectual battle between the left and the religious right is the false alternative of the openly subjective versus the mystically intrinsic. Those on one side demand government can do anything they feel like to coercively grant "rights" as entitlements on behalf of the collective, based on faith in altruistic sacrifice as the standard of morality. The other side rejects government and any role for man and his intellect in identifying and logically establishing what rights are and where they come from, denouncing what it calls "relativism" (while ignoring that it's own duty ethics of altruistic sacrifice contradicts the right to life, liberty and pursuit of one's happiness, as well as the rights of the individual).

          Omitted is the objective identification of natural rights as abstract principles based on the nature of man and his requirements to live as a rational being as the source of properly formulated civil rights codified and enforced by government.

          Or to put it more philosophically as a central principle: we are given the false alternative of the "intrinsic" versus the "subjective" with no regard for what Ayn Rand identified as the "objective-subjective-instrinsic trichotomy" -- in this case pertaining to abstract principles in our conceptual means of knowing based on the facts of reality. Knowledge, including abstract principles of moral values, is a relation between both reality and consciousness, as a grasp of reality by a conceptual consciousness. It is neither "intrinsic" apart from man's means of knowledge as in the Plato-Augustine axis, nor subjective apart from the facts of reality. Ayn Rand rejected both.

          Rights, like all knowledge, must be initiated, formulated and defended by man, based on the facts of reality, i.e., man's nature and requirements to live. There is no abstract knowledge or principles inherent in reality, only the facts themselves, which we observe through our senses and employ as a perceptual base for conceptual abstractions as our form of comprehending.

          This false alternative as formulated by religious conservatives was illustrated again last month by one of the religious right's most prominent spokesmen today, Mark Levin, in discussing the recent controversy between CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo and Alabama Judge Roy Moore (widely known for his unsuccessful attempt to prominently display the ten commandments in a court house several years ago).

          Moore stated: "Our rights, contained in the bill of rights, do not come from the Constitution they come from God".

          Cuomo: "Our laws do not come from God, your honor, and you know that, they come from man... Our rights do not come from God. That's your faith, that's my faith, but that's not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise."

          So you see both the intrinsic and the subjective asserted in the false alternative.

          In his February 12, 2015 radio show Mark Levin left no room for doubt on the conservatives' anti-reason position in explicitly philosophical terms:

          "Where do these unalienable rights come from? These inviolable rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? They don't come from man, they don't come from the collection of men we call government. These are rights, you're born with these rights. They don't come from reason. They don't come from logic. They are. Period."

          With the religious conservatives intellectually dominating the supposed defense of individual rights as based on faith in the "intrinsic" and an attempt to rely on "the large number of people [who] have some degree of belief/faith in someone/something supernatural", while rejecting reason and logic in the identification, formulation and codification of rights as "relativist", it should be no surprise why the country is helplessly sinking before the collectivists' onslaught ranging from rabid Islam to Obama's "fundamental change".

          This is why Ayn Rand repeatedly stated that this is primarily an intellectual battle.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 4 years, 7 months ago
            how'd you pick up that Mark Levin gem? whoa. baldly asserted. gah.
            well done comment, sir
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 4 years, 7 months ago
              It was at the beginning of the 2/12/15 podcast of his show at http://feeds.feedburner.com/marklevinsho...

              He is often very good when explaining constitutional law and history or current political shenanigans in Washington, has a good sense of where the country is headed and who is doing it (from both Democrats and establishment Republicans), and he seems to have a good sense of life personally -- when he isn't yelling or bullying callers.

              But when he tries to rationalize his positions with philosophical arguments he frequently flounders with naive and sophomoric platitudes without being remotely aware of how far off he is with his lack of philosophical knowledge and a reliance on simplistic fallacies, usually based on religious slogans and refuted long ago. (Yet he constantly refers to what he thinks is his great philosophical knowledge in his books.) It's no accident that he's a big fan of the condescending William Buckley.

              One of his favorite comparisons is to demean the substance and influence of philosophical thought in another false alternative as he denounces all leftist political philosophy as nothing but "utopian ideology" while wrapping himself in a self-caricature of cracker barrel anti-intellectual conservatism, eg:

              "Conservatism isn't ideological. It's a way of life. It's based on experience and faith and family." (11/3/14)

              Then there was this exchange with a caller on 12/5/13 in which he completely missed the point:

              Caller: "I think that's what's missing, it's like there aren't any advocates for the moral principle of individual rights."

              Levin: "Oh yes there is, there's millions of us, and --"

              Caller: "I don't hear it advocated."

              Levin: "Well we need more people, we need a lot more people who will advocate it, because if we lose our moral underpinning then we're going to lose the country. It's that simple because then anything goes. And I'm not saying that as a prude. I'm not saying that everyone has to agree with me but we're talking about basic morality."

              Caller: "Oh I totally agree with you. I think the problem is that it's, we're in a competition between individual rights as a moral principle and altruism as a moral principle, and altruism always seems to win."

              Levin: "Yea, all right my friend. You take care. Altruism _is_ part of our moral principles, isn't it Mr. Producer? I think it is, in the right context."

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by scojohnson 4 years, 7 months ago
          I understand all positions as well. Personally, I have always lived my life being "good" and I'm not a zealot, but I'm a semi-practicing Catholic (more than Easter & Christmas). I did have a near-death experience once though, and my experience frames my thinking in the belief that I'm not on the wrong track. Assuming many of the rest of the belief system are somewhat accurate, the alternative is pretty horrific.

          That being said, my belief is also that similar non-obsessed Christian/Jewish religious people like myself do not take advantage of others, respect others, respect and embrace the freedoms our nation and culture are founded on, and do not try to change the lives or beliefs of others.

          Simply put, I believe the rights of someone else end where they infringe on mine. We have a dope here in my adopted hometown (Sacramento) living in Elk Grove, CA that likes to sue everyone and everything for having the word "God" on it, tried suing the school to stop his daughter from saying the pledge of the allegiance (and stopping it altogether for everyone) and even that stopped because she didn't mind saying it and regularly went to church & Sunday School with her mom (dad is no longer in the picture) and the Supreme Court ruled that he "had no standing to object".

          The framers intended our rights and liberties to be granted from above, so they could not be revoked by any 'man'. Unfortunately, we have ceded much of that ourselves, and its my belief that we need to retake those liberties.

          Before I draw any flaming remarks from anti-Catholics... I'll also add that my belief is in the higher power, and the teachings of Jesus (which do not in any way conflict with American beliefs, values and the American experience). I do not necessarily value or place a higher moral authority on any institution created by humans and managed by humans. (I believe many church organizations themselves are somewhat corrupt to varying degrees). All people are fallible.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 7 months ago
            I was raised strict Catholic. Eight years of Dominican nuns in grade school, 4 years of Basilian Fathers in high school. This was in the 50's and 60's, and I wouldn't trade that education for anything. IMCO, it was the closest thing to a "classical" education available in the USA.

            But the one thing they did teach, perhaps too well, was logic and reason. I read Atlas shortly after high school, and then many other related works, both Rand and non-Rand. It took 2 years, but at the end I had made many choices. Some were minor: I went from my dad's pro-union Democrat politics to free-market, anti-union, independent. But more importantly, I went from Catholic to committed atheist, and pro-choice. All my emotions fought those choices, but I was taught reason, and in the end reason prevailed.

            I still abolutely believe in a higher power, above myself, and that's called Reality. And by my nature, I can only comprehend Reality through Reason. In essence, I traded God and Faith for Reality and Reason. As such, I do believe that our rights do not come from a man or men, nor God or The State, but from our nature.

            So I disagree that we have ceded rights granted by God to men, We have ceded our rights granted by our nature to other men who do not respect or recognize those rights.

            I absolutely respect your right to choose the Catholic religion. But I strongly disagree that some Catholic beliefs do not conflict with individual rights and American values. The rest of my family are still practicing Catholics, and to my knowledge it is still a "sin" to vote for a pro-choice candidate. I realize that there are many "progressive" priests who will tell you that is not so, but if they do then they are in conflict with the Church "above" them. I was taught that very well, too, and unless Catholic teachings have changed radically, the hierarchy still is intact.

            I hope that wasn't flaming, nor considered anti-Catholic. Just respect my right to say keep your religious beliefs away from my rights.



            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by scojohnson 4 years, 7 months ago
              No, not at all. Good post.

              I have a lot of respect for people that consider all the information they have and make their own conclusions.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 7 months ago
                Thank you, that is appreciated. I've only been in the Gulch a brief time, but I've found it to be, as I expected based on its stated premises, that it would be a place of lively and wide ranging discussion, with a maximum of mutual respect and a minimum of the ad hominem rancor found in other "discussion" sites.

                Ow! (Sound of slapping ruler in background.) Sorry, Sister Mary. That was clearly a run-on sentence. My punishment will be to diagram it. ;-)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by scojohnson 4 years, 7 months ago
              The saddest part is that we all know that we as a people have given up a lot of rights & liberties that we had, in the name of some vague notion of 'security', and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

              It's also sad that our political system, being as corrupt and resource-intensive as it is, no longer really affords the citizen-leader-soldier to take a shift in the legislature, and return to being a farmer or whatever as the framers intended. We are left with career politicians that for some reason that is foreign to the rest of us, feel themselves elevated above others (in their own eyes) for having some kind of rights to rule over other men.

              Even more evil is the lawyers that crave power through a judgeship and 'legislate, pontificate, and pass judgment on others from the bench'.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by xthinker88 4 years, 7 months ago
        Yes. You're ultimately right. But this was truly an ingenious and hugely helpful idea in its time - that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. The idea that there is a law to which even the king was subject to is an idea that evolved through European history and culminated in our Declaration of Independence. Before that, no culture or civilization that I know of, anywhere, espoused the idea that the "strong man" ruling the country could not do whatever he wanted.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 7 months ago
      yea, I like Cruz. My issue is if something can be above me-then why not a government? lots of History to prove this so. I need him to combine all of us. focus on the economics, the freedom grabs. don't be in my face from Jerry Falwell's origins. gah. that is completely off putting to so many people who would be listening and testing him as a candidate. when we all otherwise might agree on so much.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 7 months ago
        I will, provisionally, retract my earlier ruling out of Cruz for now. If he is the candidate who best focuses on the critical non-religious issues like economics, individual rights, limited government, The Constitution and stays away from the social conservative issues like abortion, gay marriage etc., he may be the man. I hear he is a great speaker, very intelligent, argued (and won) several cases before the Supreme Court. I have no litmus test on abortion, even though I am absolutely pro-choice. Since I have voted for Republicans for President in the past, by definition I've voted for someone who was personally anti-choice. But they did not make that (or other social issues) prominent issues in their campaign. If Cruz does so during his pursuit of the nomination, I will switch to someone better as the nominee, because pushing those conservative social issues is morally wrong, divisive, and will hand the election to the D's.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 6 months ago
          Minor, I won't say something stupid like "I defy you to show me one.." but I will say that I've been looking for an example of a candidate who supports economic freedom WITHOUT opposing 'personal freedoms' that fall under the umbrella of gay/abortion/religious non-intervention by governments.

          Haven't seen anyone who comes close. The ones who have focused on economic freedom have been silent on personal 'freedoms' .... until they're elected.

          Please... help me find one!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  winterwind 4 years, 6 months ago
            as long as you look only at "the BIG two" parties, that's all you're going to find. Restrictive on social issues and responsible on fiscal ones IS a Republican. The opposite IS a Democrat. That's how they can get you coming and going, because neither major party is for ALL freedoms.
            Who was it who said "If voting could change anything, it would be illegal"? I heard it from Neal Smith, but he said it wasn't original.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 6 months ago
              Have you seen this article?

              http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/26/ge...

              I am catching up on some previous issues of Reason and this article hit the nail on the head...

              example (paraphrased) "so, you're a Millennial and you've grown up with a plethora of electronic gizmos to choose from and a hundred or two cable channels... and Two Political Parties."

              Does that sound like a long-term winning plan for Dems and Reps? I think not. Especially as the Millennials move into their prime earning and voting age ranges. The polls said that Millennials sound very liberal about 'helping the needy' until you remind them that it'll cost them more in taxes to do so, at which point they seem to cross over to a more libertarian position.

              :)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 7 months ago
        No matter how we slice it a government will always be propped up above us as long as we continue to live in a society. Better to have every government aware of its place in the overall and unable to mess with at least the fundamental aspect of our existence.

        I agree on Cruz, I would prefer he stay to more wide reaching topics to garner his appeal Lord know there is plenty of legitimate topics to talk about without polarizing yourself and isolating others.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 6 months ago
          and AJ, as I've read many of the comments above here, I could not help but be reminded that the folks who object to 'putting the source above Man' so's to put it out of reach of our meddling with it... often talk about "Natural Rights" instead... as if The Source of Those Rights are also 'beyond our reach of meddling,' but somehow can't/don't specify Where They Came From Either!

          And they don't seem to see the contradiction in that. Very puzzling to me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Genez 4 years, 7 months ago
      You make a valid point. I think the author was pointing out that for those who do not hold a Christian worldview (an increasingly large percentage of our population), any argument involving God is spurious. For those of other beliefs or no belief, this puts him in the category of conservative Christian, that they may not want anything to do with.. Not ruling him out but if he tries to follow the "moral majority" type path I think in todays society, it will be his undoing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 7 months ago
        Maybe, I take the opposite tack...when too many have no belief in a higher authority, man will hold himself as the originator of law and the definer of rights. When that happens all rights/laws become pliable and subject to interpretation and perhaps mob rule.

        I find it bitterly amusing that the flower-children who wanted all the freedom the world had to offer for themselves are the wardens stripping away every freedom for their children and grandchildren.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 7 months ago
          well absolutely man defines his rights. He acknowledges yours.that is A is A. His Ethics are based in morality whether he believes in God or not. that' s major point of the article.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 7 months ago
            Morality is variable (relativism, multiculturalism), as we plainly see in society today, unless a person has a code by which he/she lives. A politician stating they have faith in a particular belief system essentially anchors their conduct and subjects him/herself to specific scrutiny. Its the fastest track to public hypocrisy and the quickest route to disqualification. I prefer a politician make such a statement, it helps thin the field as time goes on.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jdg 4 years, 7 months ago
          Morality *is* nothing more than taste -- each person defines his own. This doesn't mean no one should bother having one; it means we all should choose carefully, since your moral code determines how far (and by whom) you can be trusted -- and even if there is neither hell nor karma, there is reputation.

          The philosophy of liberty implies assuming that other people are adults, who know this and can each handle its consequences for themselves. Christianity (and other western faiths), while they superficially seem to support similar moral views, assumes that we are all not adults but sheep, who need a shepherd to lead us. I find that view absolutely abhorrent.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 7 months ago
    Excellent article.
    "If we are not sovereign over our own lives, there’s no basis for making the claim that we are free people. If we don’t own our own lives, it arguably makes more rational sense to hand over our freedom to technocrats in the government than to ministers at the church. Religious conservatives like Ted Cruz, the late Jerry Falwell and many others insist, “You don’t own your life. Your life belongs to God. Therefore, we should get rid of Obama and all the progressives because they defy God, particularly with their homosexuals and abortions, and that’s the reason to be against Obama.”
    The road to hell, it’s often claimed, is paved with good intentions. Actually, that’s not it. The road to hell is paved with wrong intentions."

    Cruz is not an Objectivist in even the slightest meaning of the word. I still think he's playing rabbit for someone yet to announce in return for something to come.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 7 months ago
      maybe. I think he is just misguided. but I'm pretty pissed with Rand for the Bill about life is conception
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 7 months ago
        Politicians at that level aren't just misguided. I agree about Rand's pandering to the 'life at conception', but remember where his base is. Rand above all else is a pragmatist. He's looking to change the Republican image and control with a new support base of the millennials and the generation coming right behind them.

        Is he right/wrong, I don't know. But the Republican party has to make a major change or be buried this next election. The good old boys and the born agains have lost the rest of the population.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 years, 7 months ago
        "Pissed" is an understatement. The bill is so wacky that it's stunning. He's a "constitutionalist" who wants to rewrite the constitution to give "rights" to genetically human cells under an ideology that had nothing to do with the founding of the country or constitutional system of government, and which even the mystics in the Catholic Church didn't promote until the 19th century.

        He wants to overthrow Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, and more with legislation that redefines the established use of words throughout legal history. http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S... This he calls "Congress' power to make necessary and proper laws" because in an acrobatic stunt of logical circularity the bill says so.

        The subjectivism in the whole approach is so tyrannical and mind-boggling that you have to wonder what is wrong with his thinking processes to take it seriously. Such thinking is only "misguided"?

        Could the Constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude be wiped out with a bill that redefines "voluntary" henceforth and in the past -- including when the amendment was written to mean what it means -- to be synonymous with 'do what you're told by anyone claiming to be your master'? Is that a procedural precedent he wants to feed to the avowed statists as a way to amend the Constitutional by arbitrary Congressional re-definition? And you're only "pissed"?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 100inputs 4 years, 7 months ago
    Religion, in basic terms, wants equal footing with reason. Reason tells you rights are inalienable. Religion wishes to tell you rights are a gift from God. As if the two premises are the same, equivalent. As if both Reason and God are absolutes. But only reason is compatible with the mind of man, is absolute. Because man thinks/reasons while God commands. And a mind cannot function via commands. Thinking stops where a command begins. Just as thinking stops where force begins. Mind and Force are opposites and so too Mind and God are opposites. God is implied Force and is therefore Force. God is delayed Force. Accept God and you have subverted/destroyed your mind, at root. And what is a man without his mind- a slave ready for a master. Because talk of God is talk of Masters and slaves and the speaker intends to be the master. As Ayn Rand put it so aptly. And rule will be by force. God is force over the mind of man.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by LaMuse 4 years, 6 months ago
      When you talk of God in terms of master and slave, those are ideas that originate in religion. All religion is man made, not God made. Belief in an intelligent creator is inherent in our DNA, due to the fact that we desire to be immortal. There is no logic or reason that can explain the beginning of existence, so at some point we have to either have faith or not think about it. Whichever we choose, nothing changes the fact that we have human unalienable rights.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 100inputs 4 years, 6 months ago
        God commands and you obey. God is that "Master"; with his TEN COMMANDMENTS, of which I speak. Every religion has such a "Master" and their COMMANDMENTS. A commandment is a thing obeyed. The person who obeys a command is a slave. Thinking stops where a command begins, as I said-just obey- unthinking obedience. Hence, "Masters and Slaves". So, the person who talks of God, intends to be God's proxy on earth, will have you believe that God's word has been imparted to him. Hence, talk of God is talk of "Masters and Slaves". And it means that the person doing the talking intends to be that Master, on earth, by proxy. Next, in reason, the universe is eternal. If the creator created the universe ... who created the creator?? Creation has to stop somewhere, something has to be eternal. Something always was, is, and always will be. "Existence exists", is an axiom. It is the starting point of any inquiry. The existence of existence is not open to inquiry. But you gotta have a creator of said existence/universe. The question for you then is, who created the creator, which for you is not open to inquiry- You stop at one creator and one creation. Bottom line ... the universe is eternal or its endless creation. I stop at the universe, at what I have knowledge of, AMEN. Next, "Immortality" and "Life" are incompatible views of existence. Life is a value only because the living are mortal. Next, "Inalienable" means that you cannot give your life away to another. Another cannot take it from you and live two life spans. You cannot buy or sell 'life'. All that you can do with your life is to live it and die naturally, or end it. Another can only end your life, they cannot live your life and their life together. To say "inalienable" is the recognition of the above facts. An animal too has the same inalienable life. Life is inalienable to each and every living entity. Next, "Rights" is conceptual knowledge, reached by reason, through the application of logic, to the facts of reality. Rights are reason based and not faith based. Not a gift from God- neither "Life" nor "Rights". "Rights" is the answer to the question of what does it take to sustain your inalienable life. And so a man knows his life is "inalienable" and he knows the actions needed to sustain it are his "inalienable rights". An animal does not know that its rights are inalienable though it acts on the premise implicitly, in defending its life. And because an animal "does not know" it therefore does not have "rights". Neither do trees. "Rights" are an expression, of man's moral code; how he intends to live and treat others. He knows that the "rights" he wishes to secure for himself are the same for all. We all have equal rights; equality before the law. Before Government is instituted. Government is instituted to protect rights and not to dispense rights. Its proper function is to protect that which, by rights, you already have or have gained by your own effort. In case you missed it, Rights are Property Rights. The right to property includes your physical body. Regrettably, all of the above, is but scratching the surface, and will probably fly over your head at supersonic speed. Because it is all highly condensed and requires volumes of reading, comprehension, reason and logic. All of which you have for the most part discounted and have replaced it with FAITH. None the less you have before you some starting points of inquiry if you so choose. Read an Ayn Rand book or two.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 7 months ago
    Human rights seem always to be spoken of as intangibles that need to be acquired or granted. The very words "human rights" Makes that idea wrong. Human rights are a necessity inherent in homo sapiens. They are no less needed than hands and feet. Yes, you can live without them -- so you can live without hands or feet, but who would want to? Taking away a human right is exactly akin to taking off a limb, or some other body part.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  ObjectiveAnalyst 4 years, 7 months ago
    If one is a champion of the Constitution and restricting the government from interfering in anything not enumerated, I like it. If one does this and champions individual rights from either a personal belief in a higher being as source, or natural rights, so long as they do not force me into their church or beliefs, or base laws upon religious doctrine it does me no harm. The impact upon me is the same. For one seeking office in a land of majority believers it may even be requisite to espouse belief in order to win office. This is unfortunate, because it should be unnecessary. One should be able to gain support of all by basing the application of law, of policy, on natural rights alone and leave religion out of it. Natural rights as Rand supported and described them do not deny one the ability to worship "God" the supernatural, or the "Creator", which could be nature itself, or Pink Cadillacs. Though it be true she would probably not personally endorse Cadillac worship... :) What logic, reason and empirical evidence demonstrates to each is mute under such a circumstance.
    I think it was rather clever and essential for the founders to use the term "Creator', considering the atmosphere they lived in. Then, like today, no matter one's beliefs, practicality enters the political equation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 7 months ago
    If every Democratic voter places their vote for the mainstream liberal candidate with whom they 'generally agree' and every conservative voter places their vote for 'the unelectable factional candidate of their particular interpretation of philosophical purity' then we will loose and continue to loose. The US will loose. Freedom will loose. We will have socialist president following socialist president for the rest of our lives.

    Jan
    (Excellent post khalling. This type of discussion is what has hooked me to the Gulch list.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 4 years, 7 months ago
    Eh...I got half-way through it when spotting the poor logic. It's like saying, "You might as well lie down and let the government run every facet of your life because you've let them run a lot of it up until now." Whatever...

    Don't matter. Cruz will be defeated by Jeb in the primaries. Then, Jeb will be beaten by Hillary. Oh, I'm not saying Cruz will get fewer votes. That's different...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LaMuse 4 years, 6 months ago
      I'm afraid you're right. Big money backs Jeb, and the conservatives will stay home like they did during the last election. Obama only won because so many people stayed home and didn't vote for the republican. The RNC will never learn, they are a dying breed. And as time marches on and more people are riding in the wagon instead of pulling it, liberal policies will prevail and our country will collapse.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 7 months ago
    I agree this is an excellent article, well written and deserves a read. It addresses principles vs. specific positions excellently.

    But I think it applies to, as far as I know, all current possible Republican candidates for President, not just Cruz. None is even close to being an Objectivist (there is such a wide field that I admit to not having looked in depth at all possibles. If I'm wrong on that, let me know.)

    After Cruz announced I did a quick surf and sure enough, "pro-life". Also true of Walker and a couple of others I knew were possible candidates. I didn't check Rand Paul because hey, he's libertarian right? Wrong. As pointed out in another thread and in another comment in this thread. That was a disappointment, but then his father has the same position.

    As of now, my position is it's still early, although I can safely rule Cruz out, is the a candidate out there I'm missing remotely close to having principled views?








    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 years, 7 months ago
      "As of now, my position is it's still early, although I can safely rule Cruz out, is the a candidate out there I'm missing remotely close to having principled views?"

      Many of them have principles, but the wrong ones. But no, there isn't going to be a candidate with the principles you are looking for, and if there were he couldn't be elected in this culture if the electorate realized what he was despite his being constrained to limited choices he would have if in office. (Even an ideal candidate could not abolish various improper departments of the government, etc., and would have to manage the government in accordance with bad laws.)

      We can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various candidates and potential candidates, but in the end the election isn't about endorsing someone's principles or philosophy, it is about which of two (for all practical purposes) who will be in power, and only from those two. It means only that you get to vote for which of two candidates you will have to live under despite what he and the rest of the government are.

      If you don't think there is a practical difference between them, then don't vote, but otherwise all you can do is select one from the limited two based on whatever aspects of freedom are most important to you and which you think might better survive to some extent. That's it.

      You can't say who you would or would not vote for until you know who he is running against. If Obama were running against the Stalin/Mao ticket, you would have to vote for Obama. Morality pertains to the choices you have in reality, and your political choice is necessarily very constrained, so be sure to learn what you can about the candidates and choose accordingly when the time comes. It usually does make a difference when you know what is going on in Washington, how the system works, and where the greater threats are.

      All hand-wringing about "making a statement" with a write in, etc. which we often hear, is meaningless. When the votes are counted no one will know or care about your politically irrelevant statement. If you want to make a statement, speak, but that's not what voting is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
        Agreed, except that I would not vote for Obama or Stalin/Mao - Obama would do exactly the same things as Stalin/Mao if he could get away with them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 4 years, 6 months ago
          I had considered this topic when first writing the post, but didn't want to go into it at more length unless someone brought it up, and I'm glad you did to continue it further.

          For all his evils, Obama is still not the overt, sadistic mass murderer of a Stalin or Mao. If he were to follow out his own premises consistently in time he would become that, and put into power in a system more degenerate than ours -- which still serves as some restraint -- he would no doubt act worse than he does even now (as he has admitted he would like to), but so would any statist if he lived long enough.

          I was comparing them as the men that they are/were, not what else Obama could ultimately become. There are still in fact differences among politicians even though they are corrupt, and that still makes a difference to our lives. In the case of Obama, you have to look pretty far out to find a difference -- like to Mao or Stalin -- which is how they got into the initial comparison.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 7 months ago
      I didn't realize that Ron and Rand Paul were both pro-life, but when I think about it, they are both physicians, and it makes sense.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 7 months ago
        Yes, dad is/was an obstetrician and claims witnessing late-term abortions made him pro-life. He has (as usual) a unique perspective in that he believes, as he does with almost all laws, it should be up to the States, not a Federal prohibition. He is somewhat consistent in that he would be against a law prohibiting a woman who lives in a state where abortion is illegal from going to a different state and having one. I don't know if the son shares all those views. I still disagree with both of them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 7 months ago
          it is a difficult moral issue. I do NOT want the fed govt deciding this we need to educate women.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 7 months ago
            It is a difficult issue, which is precisely why it should be a personal choice, not a government dictate. And I think, unlike the Messrs Paul, that, like slavery, this is an issue where the Federal government (and I believe in a very, very restricted Federal government) must trump the States. A woman's right to choose is an objective, rational and clear principle. Just as we can't have a State or States saying "slavery is OK", we cannot have some saying a woman has a right to choose abortion, and others saying she can't.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 7 months ago
          I have witnessed a late term abortion, and it did make an impression on me. The federal government has no business dictating this or anything else.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 4 years, 7 months ago
            I read an article today that the GAO said billions of taxpayer dollars go into abortion programs a year. The vast majority of that money to Planned Parenthood under the chilling title of "women's reproductive health." That is so wrong.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 7 months ago
              I agree. The "right to choose" does NOT mean the right to have somebody else pay for your choice. And except for the usual very convoluted "reasoning" typical of government agencies, I don't see any real meaning or relevance to the term "reproductive health". I have no objection to Planned Parenthood advising women, but not on my dime..

              And even without looking, although I believe I've read it in the past, I would make an educated guess that one of the mandated things health insurance companies have to pay for under Obamacare are condoms, birth control pills, diaphragms etc. etc. etc...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 4 years, 7 months ago
                birth control is not only covered but males have it included in their plan too. so their premium is determined as if they could get pregnant. up is down as to that. the Planned Parenthood thing from the beginning was shady and deeply disturbing if you read about Margaret Sanger, the originator of the "cause."
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jdg 4 years, 7 months ago
              I have no problem with it and don't see why anyone else should -- given the fact that the vast majority of births prevented are to poor people, and welfare for those kids would be far more expensive than preventing their existence. They would also grow up with no prospects in life except to bear another generation of parasites and be paid for doing so.

              When the government stops making taxpayers pay for *that* then I'm willing to consider having us no longer pay for birth control or abortions.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 7 months ago
      There are four potential Republican candidates I can think of that have cited Ayn Rand as an influence on their political philosophy, but none of the four are Objectivists.

      Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by gilmorehome 4 years, 7 months ago
      I have always had difficulty understanding this complex individual liberty issue. "In protecting the life of an unborn child" to what extent does the government or public opinion have to intervene in the life and liberty of the mother . . .or father?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  winterwind 4 years, 6 months ago
        I think you're having trouble understanding it because it doesn't make any sense, as your question points out. It will always be either/or: parent, 2nd parent, unborn, "cells", "products of conception". When the language becomes so convoluted that a reasonable conversation can no longer be held, everyone needs to STOP, step back, define terns, and make thoughts v. feelings known to all. Then we might have a chance, but like the falling peanut killing the elephant, I've never seen it done.
        and furthermore, any issue which can bring LIBERTARIANS to blows is beyond tough - and I've seen it happen.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gilmorehome 4 years, 7 months ago
    The war for LIBERTY is won by winning the majority of little battles, including the election of our next president. I'm putting my vote behind the candidate who can meet most of my principals and CAN WIN THIS ELECTION, because there doesn't appear to be one individual that can meet all of them.I believe that if we all "like-minded" did the same we would have someone that represented most of our principals and interests. We can not vote with just unflexible ideology given what is at stake. At the moment Ted Cruz isn't at the top of that list but if he is, I would vote for him despite is misgivings. I will also continue to send as many messages as possible to the front runner so our message of Liberty does not become stiffled as it has been.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Matcha 4 years, 6 months ago
    If Christians, the Tea Party, Conservatives, Libertarians and anyone or any group interested in the Constitution don't join together we are certainly doomed. We can't all be exactly alike but maybe we have common goals.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 4 years, 7 months ago
    At least, God is on OUR side. If the Liberals were able to safely state that our rights are not bestowed by God (with the assumption that He does not exist), then they would naturally surmise that our rights were bestowed by men...there is no other option.

    Now, using Liberal Logic, if our rights are bestowed by men, they can be taken away by men...correct?

    Since it appears that the government and our people seem to place such a priority on things bestowed by God, I am willing to live under those conditions. Remove God from the equation (just try taking God out of the Constitution and see what you have) and those rights we hold so dear become optional. As far as I'm concerned, God has my back and I'm happy to have Him there.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  puzzlelady 4 years, 7 months ago
    I listened to all 21 hours of Cruz's filibuster megathon. He actually quoted Ayn Rand with respect and understanding, and he made sense on most of his points. It is a grave disappointment that this otherwise promising (no pun intended) young man is also mired in the notion he must please the fundamentalist Christian right.

    What an irony that with fewer than 10% of Americans who are atheists, it is left to the socialist left to be the better defenders of reproductive and marriage rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by waytodude 4 years, 7 months ago
    My problem with Cruz is the same as Obama. One is too far to the left and the other to the right for all the wrong reasons. You can take your pick on which one goes in what direction. Neither one knows anything about the individual rights of man only a collective of rights of man.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Matcha 4 years, 6 months ago
      I guess his reasons have to be like yours to be right. Thank goodness you have the answers. Everything should be ok now.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by waytodude 4 years, 6 months ago
        There will be many to choose from I hope. But it will take a lot to sway my vote from any of them. And I want you to know I wish I had the answers. I'm reading a lot more Rand and I'm figuring out a few questions I have
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gilmorehome 4 years, 7 months ago
    I read this article and I'm sharing it here because of the importance of the message and news we all need to consider as thinkers and doers who protect Liberty. I have shortened/edited portions of the article, for brevity, to 5000 character limit.

    "Can Americans Win a Guerrilla War [against those who want to destroy Liberty here and worldwide]? This is still an open question and the answer to the question should be rephrased to “Does America have the stomach fight a guerrilla war against the banker occupation forces? The fact remains that the civil war has already begun.”

    REVOLUTION 2Benghazi is the one event that President Obama cannot make go away. This article will review the facts that demonstrate that the Benghazi affair was connected to an attempted military coup against Obama which subsequently failed. However, the motivation behind the coup did not die with Ambassador Stevens, it has only changed form and has now morphed into civil war mode. This is a two part series which examines why it is likely that the coming civil war will be a guerrilla war. Further, a convincing case will be made that the Benghazi incident will serve as the flash point for this emerging civil war. .

    Since the end of WWII, the percentage of success for guerrilla forces has indeed gone up to 39.6%. Yet that still means that government forces have continued to prevail 51% of the time.

    When the American people engage in a guerrilla war in the upcoming years, the people have less than a 40% chance of success.

    Guerrilla wars are rarely short and as a result do not favor the American culture and psychological makeup because of our collective psyche of instant gratification. Will Americans set aside their entitlements as well as their entrenched soft lifestyle and rise to the occasion? The answer to that question, is that it does not matter. America is in the early stages of a civil war, whether it realizes it or not.

    History will someday show that Civil War II began with the Benghazi affair. In the fall of 2012, it is now clear that President Obama survived an attempted bloodless military coup.

    The murder of Stevens and his security team at Benghazi is a seminal moment in American history. We have further learned that al-Qaeda forces, fighting on the side of NATO in Libya, obtained 20,000 hand-held stinger missiles. This means that the Obama administration has allowed al-Qaeda to be armed to the teeth including the acquisition of 20,000 stinger missiles in which only one is needed to take down an American airliner. The ties between murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and jihadist Syrian rebels, now morphing into ISIS, are becoming more clear as it is now known that Chris Stevens was an arms dealer for the CIA. To cover their tracks, the Obama administration left Chris Stevens and his bodyguards defenseless as they were killed by the very terrorists that this administration armed. Can you imagine how the election of 2012 would’ve turned if the American public had this information prior to voting. This is why Stevens had to be killed, but there’s more. These events also explain why Hillary Clinton refused to honor Stevens’ request for more bodyguards. Is this why DHS director, Janet Napolitano abruptly resigned her post as well. Clinton certainly distanced herself from Obama by resigning as the head of the State Department.

    [Obama's] purge of the leadership of the American military and his disdain for the traditions of the military being forsaken by Obama, the military seized upon the first opportunity to unseat Obama.

    If Stevens, knowing he was betrayed at Benghazi, had been rescued by American military forces, Obama and his administration would have been deposed.

    It is abundantly clear that had Obama been concerned for saving the lives of the four. Obama, Panetta and Clinton are, at minimum, accomplices to murder. At maximum these three rogue government officials are co-conspirators to first degree murder and now they have sacked two senior command military leaders to cover their complicity in an act of treason.

    Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged by Obama:

    Information is coming to light with regard to new military and paramilitary actions being directed against the Obama administration by disaffected military, black-ops, ex-military contractors and private mercenaries. This unholy alliance is presently acting out against the establishment. In short, dead bankers and earthquakes in Connecticut are interrelated and are much more significant than the American people are being led to believe. "
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo