Ted Cruz is a pathologically religious Christian. He stands for little that Rand stood for. Frankly, Rand Paul and his father Ron have also fallen by the wayside, praying for votes at the feet of Christian idiots. And then there's Roman Catholic, Paul Ryan. None of these people would find a seat at The Collective today. They're using the memory of Ayn Rand to gain our confidence. They are con men, not conservatives. There is no excuse for mysticism and no conservative is a mystic for any purpose.

I continue to get the Cruz pleas for support via e-mail. I am disgusted, first that he has teamed up with our Governor Kasich, who is a player, takes Soros money, supports Common Core, is for open borders - things Cruz once said he was against. Then Cruz's wife continues to meet with bankers and other one worlders and her CFR buddies to get her husband elected, even though he claims to be against, all those things she obviously is for. Iethe Cruz is a major player and not at all what he seems, or he is willing to buddy up to anyone to get elected, no matter if it means giving up principles. It is disgusting.

There are two ways to get my stuff (property, time, etc.). Take it by force or convince me it is in MY best interests to give it to you. The concept of "sacrifice" is a sales tool, playing on a "noble cause" argument to get me to give up something that I hold in higher value than what you are offering.

Thank you. I think we both support the Constitution, it's just that we have very different perspectives on how to interpret it.

I only downgrade when people continue to use logical contradictions even when they have been pointed out as such, or in cases where they invoke name-calling or are intentionally provocative or rude. And I note when and where I downvote. The other downvotes you may have received did not come from me.

In general, you have been the epitome of a reasonable conversant. We disagree without being disagreeable. I sincerely commend you.

If the primary purpose of our criminal justice system is rectification, it does a pretty awful job of it. Criminals are rarely forced to work to pay back in cases of theft. One can't really pay back in cases of assault or rape, either. I would argue that a proper criminal justice system focuses on rehabilitating the offender so as to re-introduce them to a productive role in society, but they don't do a very good job of that either. I have a couple of friends who are counselors to inmates and the stories they have with these individuals just make one shake one's head.

That being aside, the whole reason for the existence of laws is absolutely to forward the ideals of civilization. There are some which get tried and don't work (or violate rights) and some which get tried and do work. But all laws set forth the expectations for behavior (ie ideals) for the actions of its citizens. The evidence is right in front of you and I have presented example after example. Your "ideal" that government should not advance the ideals of its citizens is pure and unadulterated contradiction, as I demonstrated. What is hypocrisy? It is when one claims to hold a certain ideal in esteem, but acts contrary to it. A hypocrite is definitively inconsistent in his application of ideals.

With regards to Prohibition, what was in play was an ideal, was it not? On the one hand were those who said that because of the deleterious effects of alcohol, we're going to ban it and on the other were those that said we don't care about the effects, we should be able to make the decision ourselves. Originally, the one camp persuaded the adoption of the ban. Eventually, the camp opposed was able to persuade a majority in favor of repeal. What should be noted was that both sides absolutely were pressing their ideas as what should be the standards for society to the point of ensconcing those ideals in law - to be promulgated and enforced by government.

Any time someone does anything, it is because they are acting on their principles. It really is that simple. And in acting on them, you are not only reinforcing them as the way you will live your life, but demonstrating to others that that is how they should live their lives as well. Some call it example. Some call it leadership. To me, implicit is something that is understood without doing; explicit is when it is done. Therefore if one acts, it is explicit. A government based on implicity would be a government that does absolutely nothing and therefore serves no purpose. (Of course, we have quite a bit of that in our current government, so you may have a point... ;)

The primary purpose of punishing a criminal is to rectify a perceived injustice. Advancing an ideal is a secondary consequence, and will not necessarily occur. Punishing alcohol consumption during the Prohibition era did not “forward” the ideal of an alcohol-free society, it turned public opinion against that ideal and led to the abandonment of that ideal and the repeal of Prohibition.

Foreign nationals obey our laws while here primarily because they perceive that we will implement them, not because they perceive that we are forwarding our ideals.

And power-seeking governments do not say, “We have these principles, let’s forward them.” They say, “Here’s something we can get away with, let’s do it.”

I suppose you can point to any government activity (or individual activity, for that matter) and say, “Look, this person/government is forwarding his/her/its principles.” But unless the explicit purpose of a given action is to advance one’s principles, such a statement does not have much explanatory value.

And in implementing those principles, they also advance them, do they not? The only way not to advance principles is not to have any!

"Forwarding or advocating such principles is properly a private activity of citizens. What specifically would you have the government do (at its citizens' expense) to forward such principles?"

The entire criminal justice system is based on punishing dissenting behavior - disincentivizing behaviors which diverge from the accepted societal values. I would remind you that a valid government only has powers delegated to it by the individuals it represents, so a government practicing the values of its citizens necessarily forwards the ideals of its citizens.

For example: if a foreign national comes to visit this nation, are they allowed to violate our laws simply because they differ from theirs? Not at all. They recognize that if they come to our nation, they will be subject to its laws and its ideals for as long as they stay. Similarly, American citizens are under the same constraints when travelling abroad.

Every nation on earth pushes its principles out towards every other nation - most notably its economic principles but not to the exclusion of its military principles. China postures in the South China Sea over several island chains it claims to own in dispute with Vietnam and the Phillippines. It is positively asserting its principles. Russia buzzed US Naval vessels in the Black Sea the other day, positively asserting its principles and thumbing their noses at ours. Mexico asserts its principles by encouraging its citizens to cross the border into the US illegally and send money back to Mexico. The EU is trying desperately to salvage their economic unity even as their individual nation-states rebel against the fiscal restraints put upon them in response to their spending excesses. Iran funds terror organizations throughout the world. North Korea tests long-range missile capabilities. There are examples all over of nations forwarding their ruling ideals simply by acting on them.

"You would assert that the government is not there to forward the very principles upon which it is based and upon which it was organized or created!" No, I assert that the government is there to implement the principles on which it is based. Government exists to protect individual rights. Period. Forwarding or advocating such principles is properly a private activity of citizens. What specifically would you have the government do (at its citizens' expense) to forward such principles?

No, I don't support segregation - even if done by the States prior to the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment. I pointed this out when I cited the history of discussions revolving around slavery during the Constitutional conventions.

I didn't skate around your question. I told you that you were asking the wrong questions because you weren't focusing on the principles involved. But to answer your question simply, NO, I do not consider a Ten Commandments monument unConstitutional but YES I do consider a monument to slavery unConstitutional. Why? BECAUSE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF EACH.

I don't disagree per se with Rand's opinions on how America was created. Rand omits one minor detail, however: that the Founding Fathers also considered the source of rights to be the Creator (see the Declaration of Independence). To a man, all 204 involved were deists (see http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding.... Did they rationally and reasonably go through all the past attempts at human government and identify the flaws in each? Yes, and in impressive detail. They were all very acquainted with the Ten Commandments. They were acquainted with the various governments of Syracuse, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Switzerland, England, and many others. They were familiar with Thomas Locke and many other philosophers from St. Thomas Aquila to Plato. What is interesting to me is that they didn't set up a deist government. They allowed for everyone to differ as to how they wanted to practice religion - or even if they did not - and it was so important that they proscribed the Federal Government from adopting a State religion despite the fact that they all held very similar beliefs.

"Protecting individuals and their property from aggression is a proper function of government."

I agree.

"Promoting the ideal that led to its formation (the principle of individual rights) is a function properly performed voluntarily by people within its jurisdiction, not by the government itself."

As a representative government is an extension of the people, your assertion here is openly contradictory. You would assert that the government is not there to forward the very principles upon which it is based and upon which it was organized or created! That's simply nonsense. It's like saying that even though one is an Objectivist, one isn't going to take those Objectivist principles into one's actions in representative government. If you advocate such, you are advocating a society of bi-polar individuals - those who act on one set of ideals during one portion of the day or week and another during the other. This is inconsistency incarnate. You are advocating for A != A.

I didn’t ask if you support the notion of racial segregation. I asked if you thought states had the Constitutional right to engage in such behavior. According to your interpretation of the 9th and 10th Amendments the answer should be “yes”, since any activity not prohibited to the states by the Constitution is lawful, and the feds have no right to interfere.

Yes, I did. You chose not to read it. You fail to understand the basic concepts and rationale behind discrimination. You view ALL discrimination as unjustified. In your world, you fail to differentiate between a blue ball and a red ball, a round column and a square one, a choice to purchase a Scion vs a Maserati because to do so would be to unjustifiably "discriminate". I choose to see things how they are and judge according to their individual merits.

Your hypothetical was whether or not I would support the building of a monument supporting slavery (and in today's time and nation, it is an absurd hypothetical) and I told you: No. Why? Because the principle behind it is abhorrent and unConstitutional. It violates the principle of self-ownership and self-determination.

Now you present a wholly separate hypothetical, which is similarly flawed because of principle. NO I do not support the notion of racial segregation. Why? Because while it is wholly justified to examine the outcomes of choices and view the relative merits of each, but it is not justified to assign different merits or values of people based on their race, color, etc. Is that simply enough for you?

Now, I know your next argument is going to be that there is no difference between being "black" and engaging in various kinds of sexual behavior. But if you were reading at all, I have already discussed why this is a false comparison: because one is not a choice while the other is. You seem to conflate one's physical attraction with the conscious choices to act on that as if they are one and the same. I do not.

Where I live, gambling is legal and debts to casinos (and debts by casinos to their patrons) are enforceable. (And I don’t downgrade people I disagree with, feel free to do so if you wish.)

You didn’t answer my question. Are you saying that if states provide schools and force students to attend, those states have a Constitutional right under the 9th and 10th Amendments to practice racial discrimination within the school system they created? This is not a “meaningless hypothetical,” it was public policy in the South where I grew up in the 1950s.

Nice way to skate around my question, which is: If you consider a monument on public land promoting Christian dogma to be constitutional, do you also consider it constitutional for there to be a monument on public land promoting the re-introduction of slavery? (And by the way, many Christians defended slavery back in the day.)

Ayn Rand weighed in on exactly which ideals form the basis of a proper government. “America’s founding ideal was the principle of individual rights. Nothing more—and nothing less. The rest—everything that America achieved, everything she became, everything ‘noble and just,’ and heroic, and great, and unprecedented in human history—was the logical consequence of fidelity to that one principle.” –Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Letter.

Protecting individuals and their property from aggression is a proper function of government. Promoting the ideal that led to its formation (the principle of individual rights) is a function properly performed voluntarily by people within its jurisdiction, not by the government itself.

I do things every day. I act the way I talk. I respect others - even those with whom I disagree. I teach my children the same. I teach my Scouts the same. I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied enough of it to know the basics. I'm not a politician either - I haven't the stomach for it.

I support the right of everyone to lead their own lives and to argue for their own ideals. What I don't support is the notion that all ideas are of equal merit and that we as individuals or as society should strive for anything but the highest of ideals.

I have no control over others nor do I wish any. I want people to arrive at the correct ideas and principles of their own reasoning and volition because only then will those principles truly matter.

We've been over this before. Discrimination is the process of discerning and acting upon perceived differences. And the reason why we discriminate is due to a value judgement on the various merits of the choices before us. The question is whether or not the perceived differences in value between two things are real. When they are, we are entirely justified - and in fact logically compelled - to recognize and promote the one of higher value. When they are not, there is no such justification. So the question isn't about discrimination at all, but whether or not discrimination is justified.

And get off the notion that somehow race and sexual choice are equivalent. That's quite a fallacy as well. One chooses to engage in sexual behavior - of whatever stripe. One does not choose their skin color (although there are many who want to make their skin color some sort of protected culture). -1 If you want to engage in meaningless hypotheticals, you just go off on your own tangents, but I'm not going there with you.

"Objectivism recognizes that individuals still retain their right to enter into valid, non-infringing contracts (such as the right to gamble with one's own money) even if the law forbids it."

Huh? The whole purpose behind entering into a contract is to have an enforcement mechanism behind it in case there is a dispute? And now you want to claim that an invalid (ie unenforceable) contract is somehow still valid/enforceable?

-1 for terrible logic.

"It is not a proper function of government to “officially” promulgate, enforce or promote ideals."

Traffic laws are all about enforcing the ideals of speed limits, right-of-way, etc. Parking tickets are all about the enforcement of ownership of property. When a thief is prosecuted and sentenced to prison, it is again about the ownership of property - an ideal. Behavior and value are all based on incentives (and disincentives). Punishments are disincentives to certain behavior, intending to persuade people to choose the opposite behavior.

Why the push for government healthcare? To supplant the notion of personal responsibility with the notion of entitlement. Why did the IRS target conservative groups for scrutiny? To deny them the opportunity to participate in the electoral process and promote candidates with their values. "You didn't build that" was an ideological statement pushing to supplant the notion of personal achievement with community benefit. Targeting the coal industry for shutdown is a push for the green agenda (ie slate of ideals). We can go on for hours. If you choose to deny that government promulgates ideals, you delude only yourself.

As to the slavery issue, you view that part of history however you choose. I have read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers which cover the Constitution Convention debates as well as other materials and my views differs significantly with your presentation of the matter.

If you want to go build a monument encouraging slavery, go ahead - just don't expect me to participate or condone any such. Of course, there already exist such monuments in every State in the Union - they are the Social Security and Medicaid offices. And yes, we pay for them with tax money. Another: Planned Parenthood offices. Their founder was a eugenicist whom Hitler openly praised and their mission was to rid the world of "the scourge of colored people". I don't support any such thing - nor the ideals upon which they stand. And ideals, i.e. principles are what are key. If you view a recognition of an incorrect principle of slavery to have the same Constitutional validity as a recognition of correct principles of honesty, sanctity of life, etc., I can not help you.