Rescinding membership in Free State Project

[Objectivist]

As I understood it, objectivism still didn't much allow for preemptive force. Am I correct here?

Yes. Zero aggression principle is a Randian/objectivist principle.

WRONG!

"A free country has the moral right, though not the obligation, to attack and/or invade any dictatorship..." -Ayn Rand

The principle you're thinking of isn't zero aggresion, its the NON-INITIATION of force.

Ugh.

And Iran is definitly NOT responsible enough for nukes. They have vowed to destroy Israel. HELLO!!!! are you people anti-semites?

-Objectivist

[Objectivist]

This was one of her contradictions. She advocated ZAP, but also advocated minarchism.
I was never sure how she expected gov services to be paid for.

You might try reading her essay "Government Financing in a Free Society" which is chapter 15 in _The Virtue of Selfishness_.

- Objectivist

[FrankChodorov]

This was one of her contradictions. She advocated ZAP, but also advocated minarchism.
I was never sure how she expected gov services to be paid for.

You might try reading her essay "Government Financing in a Free Society" which is chapter 15 in _The Virtue of Selfishness_.

- Objectivist

why don't you give us a quick summary?

[Rocketman]

"A free country has the moral right, though not the obligation, to attack and/or invade any dictatorship..." -Ayn Rand

Well, the U.S. isn't a free country... in large part because it has followed an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy for so many decades, a policy you want to perpetuate.

Say, I thought you were leaving?         

[Lloyd Danforth]

As I understood it, objectivism still didn't much allow for preemptive force. Am I correct here?

Yes. Zero aggression principle is a Randian/objectivist principle.

WRONG!

"A free country has the moral right, though not the obligation, to attack and/or invade any dictatorship..." -Ayn Rand

The principle you're thinking of isn't zero aggresion, its the NON-INITIATION of force.

Ugh.

And Iran is definitly NOT responsible enough for nukes. They have vowed to destroy Israel. HELLO!!!! are you people anti-semites?

-Objectivist

If this were a free country, you and others who thought alike, could finance and conduct your own attack on Iran.

[AlanM]

As I understood it, objectivism still didn't much allow for preemptive force. Am I correct here?

Yes. Zero aggression principle is a Randian/objectivist principle.

WRONG!

"A free country has the moral right, though not the obligation, to attack and/or invade any dictatorship..." -Ayn Rand

The principle you're thinking of isn't zero aggresion, its the NON-INITIATION of force.

Ugh.

And Iran is definitly NOT responsible enough for nukes. They have vowed to destroy Israel. HELLO!!!! are you people anti-semites?

-Objectivist

Um,.... the non-initiation of force principle is the same as the ZAP. Both say you have no right to initiate force. You have a right to respond to force initiated against you.

[Caleb]

yeah, Alan, but it isn't initiation of force if you're spreading freedom. 

[AlanM]

yeah, Alan, but it isn't initiation of force if you're spreading freedom. 

Oh, sorry, of course you can brutalize anyone if it's for freedom, or their own good. Carry on.

[Spencer]

As I understood it, objectivism still didn't much allow for preemptive force. Am I correct here?

Yes. Zero aggression principle is a Randian/objectivist principle.

WRONG!

"A free country has the moral right, though not the obligation, to attack and/or invade any dictatorship..." -Ayn Rand

The principle you're thinking of isn't zero aggresion, its the NON-INITIATION of force.

Ugh.

And Iran is definitly NOT responsible enough for nukes. They have vowed to destroy Israel. HELLO!!!! are you people anti-semites?

-Objectivist

Emphasis in the above quote is mine.

Ah, yes, play the are you biased card when losing an argument.

I'm pretty sure that Israel -- a non-signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty -- can take care of itself, as it is widely considered a member of the nuclear "club," and attacked Saddam's nuclear program with its missiles / bombs in the 1980's when it feared that he was getting too close to joining.

[d_goddard]

If this were a free country, you and others who thought alike, could finance and conduct your own attack on Iran.

I, for one, might very well contribute funds to such an endeavor, depending very much on who was organizing it and what the details were. High on the list would be that it primarily be propaganda-oriented, and that it involve clandestine infiltration as opposed to opening up a bombing campaign.

But that's offtopic.
The real issue here was best summed up by the character Jayne in the movie Serenity:

Didn't we have an intricate plan on how they was gonna not be here any more?

[slim]

And Iran is definitly NOT responsible enough for nukes. They have vowed to destroy Israel. HELLO!!!! are you people anti-semites?

-Objectivist

Ok so a country vowed to destroy another country and that means what to me????? Throughout history countries have vowed to destroy other countries and people have vowed to vanquish other people. Just in the last few years the United States president has vowed to kill all the terrorists which are a group of people that do not think the same as him.

You do not have any right to put your nose in other countries business and they have no right to put their nose in your business.

If we follow your thinking objectivist then the government should confiscate all the weapons from the citizens because one person may not be responsible enough to posses a weapon. Oh yea and while we are at it lets take away all the cars, fatty foods, alcohol, cigarettes, and chocolate from everyone because one person may not be responsible enough to handle them.

No I am not a anti-Semite, I do realize if I want freedom I have to give freedom to others before I can have it. By the way who decides if a country is responsible enough to possess nuclear weapons, and what about non-nuclear weapons, and crossbows, and swords, and slingshots, and baseball bats, and iron pipes, and sticks, and rocks?

[eques]

As I understood it, objectivism still didn't much allow for preemptive force. Am I correct here?

Yes. Zero aggression principle is a Randian/objectivist principle.

WRONG!

"A free country has the moral right, though not the obligation, to attack and/or invade any dictatorship..." -Ayn Rand

The principle you're thinking of isn't zero aggresion, its the NON-INITIATION of force.

Ugh.

And Iran is definitly NOT responsible enough for nukes. They have vowed to destroy Israel. HELLO!!!! are you people anti-semites?

-Objectivist

It's already been said, but think about the term "zero-aggression."  Aggression does not mean "the use of force."

As for being responsible enough for nukes, how do you figure that any nation in any form would be "responsible enough" for nukes?

You are also being irresponsible in your argument by making a (pre-emptive) ad hominem attack by calling people who might disagree with you "anti-semites."  If you truly hold to the tenet of thinking critically, you might realize that logical fallacies aren't the way to convince others that your stance is correct.

I realize that you were on the way out, there.  Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, if you're really going to leave.

[Ogre]

Well, back to the topic of this thread (sorry to get off-topic topic) -- I wonder what the solution is for people who have given up on the Free State?  Seriously -- since FSP didn't get 20,000 by a certain date, what's the option?  I don't see any other attempts to advance freedom in any way, anywhere in the country.  If not the Free State, what?  (And yes, I'm aware of the Free West, and I'm aware of the number of people there).

As others have posted -- just because there's not 20,000, that doesn't mean there won't be more freedom in NH than anywhere else.

[anthonybpugh]

This was one of her contradictions. She advocated ZAP, but also advocated minarchism.
I was never sure how she expected gov services to be paid for.

You might try reading her essay "Government Financing in a Free Society" which is chapter 15 in _The Virtue of Selfishness_.

- Objectivist

I've read 'Government Financing in a Free Society'  It was stupid.  We already have something similar to what Ayn Rand suggests in place.  All her system would do would be to shift taxation from the present to the future, though in the future it would be more expensive due to interest.   

[error]

No, I didn't receive an email from Ayn Rand!!! I received one from Jackie What's her names.