Global Warming, Objectivism, and Comrads in Arms
I received a great e-mail from Objectivist Philosopher Peter Brown from the Land Down Under this week, directing my attention to two articles posted by the Cato Institute which give a laymen`s rundown of the follies of the Global Warming scare. Go here and here to check them out.
Peter Brown is an objectivist, that is to say, a devotee of Ayn Rand. As my more Libertarian friends are aware, Randian philosophy is at the heart of Libertarianism, and is a natural ally to Conservativism (as we both oppose repressive governmental intrusion.) To learn more about Objectivism, go here and here.
Peter had this to say about Objectivism, America, and the War:
Objectivism is a closed Philosophy by Ayn Rand. Objectivists are
Radicals for Capitalism & staunch advocates of the American Republic,
which today is now a mob rule (majority voting away the rights of the
minority -- the smallest minority being the individual) democratic
experiment heading for disaster. I personally think the Declaration of
Independence is the greatest document of all time, and that's coming
from an Australian.
In the second paragraph of the declaration Jefferson says that each
individual has inalienable rights, and that these rights consist of the
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and that to
secure these rights Governments are instituted among men. What this
means is that a government should only consist of courts, police and a
military, funded voluntarily like your car insurance policy, just on
your life, you pay less, you get a bad military, etc -- we advocate this
under a free market capitalist system, where the state is separated from
the economy for the same reasons the state is separated from the
church, we oppose Anti-Trust laws, support private property, insider
trading, the womans right over her body and life (abortion). The purpose
of Government is to respond to the initiation of physical force with
retaliatory physical force and only against those who initiate its use,
this way the government acts only in the victims interests, that is, for
individual rights, the courts are within every individuals
self-interest, for disputes, the police, life, military, life, etc.
"What makes the initiation of physical force Evil makes the retaliatory
use of Physical Force a moral imperative."
we want America to be its former greatness, acting in self-interest, not
self-sacrifice, to respond to pearl harbors with the unblinkingly
slaughtering of Iraqi terrorists, without sacrificing American lives (a
higher value) for a lesser value for their 'freedom'. Such
self-sacrifice makes War about Love, and thus we supported Carpet
bombing the f*** out of Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, etc after 9/11,
and not to stand around for Just War Theory to validate the US the right
to invade afghanistan because the world respects war to be a last
resort, whilst we say that objectively, if i punched you, would you wait
until you were nearly dead to fight back, or would you unblinkingly
slaughter your enemies, leaving no room for self-sacrifice -- you would
assert your right to life and liberty, etc. From the first drop of
blood, you can start looking at the criteria, as to whether physical
force in return is just.
Now, I have some reservations about a number of issues here-abortion, for one (I think this disregards the right to life of the baby), but we share much common ground. I have always followed the arab maxim ``the enemy of my enemy is my friend`` and Objectivists/Libertarians are certainly my friends in the real war against Modernism and her proxies (such as Islamic Fascism). We share many common aspirations and goals. We are, and should be, friends.
Let`s face it; most on the Left are not disturbed a bit about Islamism. Why? Because they think, much like the Left believed prior to the ascension to power of the Nazis, that they can use Jihad as a tool to destroy the ``capitalist`` system, then they will be able to rid the world of these kook Moslems rather easily. They are employing the ``enemy of my enemy`` maxim in their own way, and, in their arrogance, believe they can use Jihad then discard it. They may be in for a terrible surprise.
THEY are the ultimate enemy-of ourselves, of Objectivists, of Christians, Hindus, Jews, and even Moslems. Modern Liberalism is a philosophy of destruction and death; it is the moral equivelent of a cancerous growth which, if allowed to metastasize, will bring ruin down upon Humanity.
We have to fight them-together.
Peter Brown is an objectivist, that is to say, a devotee of Ayn Rand. As my more Libertarian friends are aware, Randian philosophy is at the heart of Libertarianism, and is a natural ally to Conservativism (as we both oppose repressive governmental intrusion.) To learn more about Objectivism, go here and here.
Peter had this to say about Objectivism, America, and the War:
Objectivism is a closed Philosophy by Ayn Rand. Objectivists are
Radicals for Capitalism & staunch advocates of the American Republic,
which today is now a mob rule (majority voting away the rights of the
minority -- the smallest minority being the individual) democratic
experiment heading for disaster. I personally think the Declaration of
Independence is the greatest document of all time, and that's coming
from an Australian.
In the second paragraph of the declaration Jefferson says that each
individual has inalienable rights, and that these rights consist of the
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and that to
secure these rights Governments are instituted among men. What this
means is that a government should only consist of courts, police and a
military, funded voluntarily like your car insurance policy, just on
your life, you pay less, you get a bad military, etc -- we advocate this
under a free market capitalist system, where the state is separated from
the economy for the same reasons the state is separated from the
church, we oppose Anti-Trust laws, support private property, insider
trading, the womans right over her body and life (abortion). The purpose
of Government is to respond to the initiation of physical force with
retaliatory physical force and only against those who initiate its use,
this way the government acts only in the victims interests, that is, for
individual rights, the courts are within every individuals
self-interest, for disputes, the police, life, military, life, etc.
"What makes the initiation of physical force Evil makes the retaliatory
use of Physical Force a moral imperative."
we want America to be its former greatness, acting in self-interest, not
self-sacrifice, to respond to pearl harbors with the unblinkingly
slaughtering of Iraqi terrorists, without sacrificing American lives (a
higher value) for a lesser value for their 'freedom'. Such
self-sacrifice makes War about Love, and thus we supported Carpet
bombing the f*** out of Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, etc after 9/11,
and not to stand around for Just War Theory to validate the US the right
to invade afghanistan because the world respects war to be a last
resort, whilst we say that objectively, if i punched you, would you wait
until you were nearly dead to fight back, or would you unblinkingly
slaughter your enemies, leaving no room for self-sacrifice -- you would
assert your right to life and liberty, etc. From the first drop of
blood, you can start looking at the criteria, as to whether physical
force in return is just.
Now, I have some reservations about a number of issues here-abortion, for one (I think this disregards the right to life of the baby), but we share much common ground. I have always followed the arab maxim ``the enemy of my enemy is my friend`` and Objectivists/Libertarians are certainly my friends in the real war against Modernism and her proxies (such as Islamic Fascism). We share many common aspirations and goals. We are, and should be, friends.
Let`s face it; most on the Left are not disturbed a bit about Islamism. Why? Because they think, much like the Left believed prior to the ascension to power of the Nazis, that they can use Jihad as a tool to destroy the ``capitalist`` system, then they will be able to rid the world of these kook Moslems rather easily. They are employing the ``enemy of my enemy`` maxim in their own way, and, in their arrogance, believe they can use Jihad then discard it. They may be in for a terrible surprise.
THEY are the ultimate enemy-of ourselves, of Objectivists, of Christians, Hindus, Jews, and even Moslems. Modern Liberalism is a philosophy of destruction and death; it is the moral equivelent of a cancerous growth which, if allowed to metastasize, will bring ruin down upon Humanity.
We have to fight them-together.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 8:21 AM
4 Comments:
On Philosophical grounds, Objectivism proves that Philosophy makes all hard (objective) sciences possible, with Physics being its closest ally.
In my opinion if Science were a pyramid with the fundamentals at the bottom, philosophy is at its bottom, followed by Physics and Mathematics.
Without the validation of Reason, Logic, Deduction, Integration, Disintegration, Misintegration, etc, you have no Hard Science.
To address your comment.
Reality has always existed, this is an immutible reality proved by the Atomic Bomb, using a thesis on Energy & Matter (some deriving from Einsteins equations) -- if God exists -- arguing this on purely Physical grounds -- the Atomic Bomb would have literally Destroyed matter & energy rather than transforming it.
It is a physical fact that Matter & Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but merely transformed, this 'universe' or the cosmological universe, may not have always existed, as it is, but Reality has.
I know it can be hard to accept, but the man who proposed the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaitre (from memory) -- when Edwin Hubble seemed to verify his mathematics of Expansion (by Observing that galaxies were moving away from us in all directions) in 1929, Georges Lemaitre was quick to say something like quote "Like in Genesis, in the beginning there was light".
Both the steady state theory & the Big Bang standard cosmological models are false, and to tell you the truth you, any scientist, nor me, know enough to start speculating about the nature of the Universe as a whole conclusively(figure out the problems on Earth first ehh ;)) -- such conceptual knowledge simply does not exist without millions of years of Human space travel and validation.
Cheers
Peter Brown
(also my carpet bombing the !^%!^ out of nations was strong and misguided, I was summarizing how I saw Objectivism to Tim, and did not think I'd be quoted from e-mail, but that's okay)
I don't speak about the rights of an embryo, but Individual Men.
Right upto the moment the baby is outisde the vagina, the Womans body & the fetus is her private property.
Objectivism often dogmatically proves things right through the use of reason, we can take an extreme, such as a woman needs surgery on the heart, and the fetus disposed, would this be murder? Or self-preservation?
That's where Conservatives tend to be inconsistent, they hold their own lives as a precious sanctity, then in the extreme situation, blindingly follow their ideology to let the woman self-sacrifice her to a fetus, the whole time, like a mental illness, implicitly knowing that it was the wrong thing to do.
We then take the extreme circumstance, and apply it to a Woman's property rights, and thus even if she was sitting on the couch having a nice day, she has the right to roundhouse kick that fetus if I can put it any blunter.
she also has the right to take the value which makes all others possible -- her life -- she is the basis of morality -- what's right is what is proper (furthers, benefits) her life (as a rational being) -- what's wrong threatens her life, negates it, opposes it, destroys it, etc.
In defining Value & morality objectively Objectivism solves the Moral-Practical Dichotomy of philosophy.
Briefly, for me, what's moral furthers my life, what's not destroys it, what's practical is surviving, what's impractical is not.
What's moral is practical.
What's impractical is thus immoral.
Your life is the standard by which one makes the value judgements as to whether something is practical or not, not society, etc.
One of my all time favorite authors is an avowed objectivist and it’s not Ms. Rand. I was unimpressed with her as an author after reading “Atlas Shrugged” her philosophy came through clear as a bell but her characters were wooden and nearly unlikable.
End of literary review.
Objectivism offers many stances that I can back wholeheartedly and a few I cannot.
If followed without compromise Objectivism would turn humanity into a sea of unfeeling automatons. Human frailties cannot be so easily dismissed.
“[Conservatives] blindingly follow their ideology to let the woman self-sacrifice her to a fetus, the whole time, like a mental illness, implicitly knowing that it was the wrong thing to do.”
One of the key tenets of conservatism that is utterly ignored by objectivism is personal responsibility. I can’t throw it by the wayside when the objectivist self-sacrifice argument is offered regarding a woman’s body. A woman’s body is fertile ground, she knows this implicitly before offering herself to the act that could lead to impregnation. Is she absolved from the personal responsibility to the embryo that she with, full knowledge of the potential outcome allowed to be created within her personal property? A life is a life and according to objectivism, it is an end onto itself. The only argument between conservatism and objectivism is when that individual life begins, with the first breath or when the union between the parent’s bodies occurs.
If the objectivist self-sacrifice reasoning was uniformly accepted and exercised with every inconvenient pregnancy terminated, humanity would be virtually aborted out of existence in a few generations. In most cases, no one forces women to play roulette with their fertility. There are too many viable options to prevent the necessity for the self-sacrifice we call motherhood, and in this case personal responsibility has to trump all other arguments.
I have further difficulties with some of Ayn Rand’s bedrock assertions that lead to the formation of her philosophy. She writes that under the heading “Human Nature” that Man is a rational being, I have to disagree rather strenuously here. Man is a highly emotional being and a strictly rational philosophy denying our inherent emotional nature is an unnatural existence for most humans. It would be nice if the reverse was true but reason tells me I may be more right than she was.
As an American and a conservative, due to our constitution “perhaps the second greatest document ever written” I have the freedom to take whatever philosophies I choose, in any amalgamation I like, and make it my own and live a happy life, inconsistencies and all. Objectivism is not the end all be all of human relations and the state of reality of the universe, any one claiming otherwise is blindingly following their own ideology and wants you to blindingly following it with them.
Post a Comment
<< Home