- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
.
was not worth a comment. . fine. . our diametrical
opposition is at least on the same circle -- objectivism.
I will support you, regardless. -- j
.
would hurry up. -- j
.
We are reaping the crop that has sprung from these tiger-teeth.
If we want to enact a 'slow' and relatively non-destructive change in our culture in the direction of valuing individual freedom and achievement, it will take another 3 generations to do this. The other choice is for there to be a calamitous collapse of society - and hope that you and I will be amongst the survivors. Reality will destroy socialism; we can rebuild; but much will be lost.
Jan
One component at a time plugged in with 'oh that is only for this and that situation and this and that group of people' but no limits are in writing....it became moot. With the ability to do away with the Bill of Rights - civil rights section along with the long time ignoring of the 9th and 10th amendment and ability to suspend portions by executive order such as was and is common since WWII - habeus corpus for one- the entire Bill of Rights becomes moot and the rest is meaningless.
We may not be 'rag head terrorists' today but the requirement to fall under 'suspicion of' with no proofs required is not limited - nor is suspension of the Constitution within 100 miles of the borders and coastlines which is in effect and it is not limited. Incrementalism at it's worst. As for the interior of the country. A decision that 100 miles from international airports deemed to be technical borders is a very small step. It's not that it IS being used YET it's that it CAN and MAY be used.
How does that not make the Patriot Act more powerful than the Constitution. Supreme Court. They aren't exempt either.
"Have we been made privy to ALL the provisions? What of secret side deals? How, these days can we be sure of that."
Add in the other known changes in our daily lives. Technical eavesdropping, the call by the President to make DOHS equal to or greater in power than the military. The TSA body searches with no probable cause. Since 300 plus million citizens have been deemed guilty without trial for the acts of twenty some and that used to both create an aura of fear and an acceptance of daily acts which a decade and a half ago would have not been accepted - and where is the infamous ACLU in all this? Where are our 'protectors' in public office?
As a nation we allowed trading fear into loss of freedoms and acceptance of that loss.
In giving up our strongest values to fight a war we have lost the war. Terrorism has - both the external and internal varieties - won. Enemies Domestic have been institutionalized and accepted.
A little more than roughshod with a few amendments since there were no amendments...to the Constitution. Ignoring it's provision was, here to fore not an option.
Congressional openly state it's a document not much in use anymore.
How then has the Patriot Act NOT replaced the Constitution?
Because it's not your turn YET?
pretending that I do not measure up. . you do not accept the
simple fact that "A is A" is a principle. . you do not accept the
simple fact that my loyalty to you as an objectivist
is appropriately placed, however contingent it is on your
continuing to be an objective thinker. . parading around
as a purist drives people away. . I try to bring them in
with sincere appreciation and devotion to excellence,
no matter its style or form. -- j
p.s. I happen to think, from experience, that honey attracts
more bears than beeswax. . if you appear prickly and too highly-
structured with your intelligence, you are less attractive than honey.
my mom once asked me -- after I had just introduced a new girlfriend --
how I "got all of those women to fall in love with me." . it shocked me.
I explained that we were just being ourselves and appreciating
one another. . it pertains to philosophy, also -- I love it into existence
and it keeps me alive.
.
copies of Anthem or For The New Intellectual? -- a better
use for their money??? -- j
.
tame socialist" and having trouble. . isn't a tame bengal tiger
a contradiction in terms? -- j
.
over a few amendments. -- j
.
.
of independent rational thought rears its ugly head, and its name is
kardashian, or hasan, or brian williams, and the sheeple just
go along to get along. . and the country whose language
has become so polluted that greatness is now inferiority
has re-set "average" to a position of negative net value. -- j
.
noun: a principle or belief). There are no beliefs in Objectivism, only objective facts, rational reasoning, and reality. And if there are such persons as Objectivist Loyalists, they are not Objectivist. Such would be weak or lazy minds looking for someone else to tell them how to think, exactly opposite to Objectivism. Objectivist Philosophy, again is about reality and facts, separate from feelings and rationally, logically reasoned as true.
responsible individual -- to acknowledge your worth.
it is a moral debt which I choose to accept because I can see
value in your work. . I also choose to acknowledge the value
of those whose work enables my life. . I am no longer physically
able to provide everything for myself. . I appreciate those
who do it for me. . there is no altruism involved, just gratitude.
when Dagny appreciated Galt or Cherryl or the bum, or took the life
of the "guard," she was acknowledging the value -- or the lack of it --
of another human, not paying a tithe. -- j
.
on the back for loving -- the dry analysis of objectivist
philosophical tenets? . we can do that, but what sort of
expansion of our group, and of the world of objectivist
loyalists, would accompany a pure analytical site??? -- j
.
But I fail to see why I would owe someone anything, particularly for doing the job they've trained for and are being paid to do. I've been in the position of saving other's lives and I certainly didn't expect anything for that effort on my part. In fact, just the opposite.
AR's 'praise' was for the egoist, producer, achiever that did the best they could do in the job they loved, regardless of their station in life or their inherited ability levels. Her highest praise was for the innovator, the entrepreneur, the inventor. And her condemnation was for those who failed to or chose not to use their minds to the fullest extent possible, again regardless of anything as petty as IQ, and particularly for those that thought they either owed or were owed anything (altruism).
a person with an IQ only two-thirds of mine, I will snub her
and remember the very best people who actually
deserve the credit. . OK? -- j
p.s. Rand had sense enough to praise the average people
in AS, and we should too.
.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded— here and there, now and then—are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.” —Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
“People don't want to think. And the deeper they get into trouble, the less they want to think. But by some sort of instinct, they feel that they ought to and it makes them feel guilty. So they'll bless and follow anyone who gives them a justification for not thinking. Anyone who makes a virtue - a highly intellectual virtue - out of what they know to be their sin, their weakness and their guilt... They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
If "the average man is a rational being"* as you state, its hard to imagine that a country founded on the ideals of individual rights and limits on government could have ever been transformed into the state in which we find it today, or that idiots such as those in the referenced post article could ever have advanced to the point that we trust them to educate our children.
We already know well that we are surrounded by ignorance and non-rationality, but rather than publishing all the examples of that we can find, we might better work to advance Objectivist thought and acceptance by discussing the positives available in that philosophy rather than the negatives from the irrational.
I think that's the biggest failure by the conservatives of this site as well as of the nation. 'This is how stupid they (progressives) are, let us (conservatives) rule. We'll do it better.' Nonsense and B$llsh!t.
Load more comments...