Iran: the Most Dangerous Nation, by TED KOPPEL

[Objectivist]

Objectivist:

Man, why the hell did you push a show that you weren't even going to watch? 

I already know Iran is a threat. Hell, I even know it isn't a mis-spel of IraQ.

And now, you're using it to justify attacking Iran....

While nations are considerably more complex than pit bulls, the principle remains--keep provoking the pit bull, and you're going to get hurt.

True, the long-term solution is philosphy. That's why I am a fire-breathing Objectivist who never ceases to annoy the lethargic, not a soldier with a dog-tag.

That's also why I have a plan for a school, not a gun and dog tag.

As for being volunteer cannon fodder, I believe we need to STOP SACRIFICING OUR BRAVE SOLDIERS!

What We Owe Our Soldiers
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13587&news_iv_ctrl=1021

We have the means to force these craven regimes (and peoples) to submit without the thousands of deaths we are currently enduring. Then we can force a constitution on them like we did to Germany and Japan after WWII (and I don't give a F*CK whether they want it or like it. We'll force the little f*ckers to be free, just like Germany and Japan. We won't let them vote in dictators.)

Its because of peace-freaks like you that I wouldn't think of joining the military today. Our soldiers are brought to trial for shooting at the enemy for the love of God! (I'm an atheist.)

Let's spend less money on occupation and funerals and more on big bombs.  :dragonball:  Then this shit would have been over by now and we could settle down to trading and making cash.

Objectivist

[eques]

Since a true democracy would be inefficient with more than a hundred or so people we have the need for a representative democracy. Hence, we must elect some potatohead to be the representative.

Can you define what a "true democracy" would actually be?  What would it actually mean to have "the people rule"?

Some people define this as "mob rule."  However, if you took democracy to its most extreme form, there would be absolutely no rulers.  I don't think that democracy necessarily has anything to do with voting--it merely describes how people interact with the ruling body.  However, since the ruling body of a true democracy is "the people," there are, in effect, no actual rulers.  There is no single person nor an elite group of people calling the shots.  In one sense, you might call it the "rule of the majority."  One might call a "true democracy" a "flat democracy," referring to the non-existence of any hierarchy.  Thus, once the majority seeks to impose its will on the minority, the system suddenly ceases to be an actual democracy.

In all practicality, of course, there would need to be a great deal of cohesion among the majority which may or may not be possible in order for them all to oppress a minority.  It's within the realm of possibility, but my guess is that getting an actual majority of people when you're drawing from such a large number over such a large region is rather unlikely.

In any case, you would need for "the people" to have some sort of philosophy in place that would ensure that the flat democracy would not collapse into some form of mob rule.  I think that the philosophy of self-ownership would be a good candidate, especially with the emergence of rights-greivance procedures.

What you are eluding to is that no one should tell anyone what to do.

In a sense, I am saying this in general, yes.  I am assuming that, 99.9% of the time, I will not be violating somebody else's rights, though I did not mention this.  In that 0.1% of the time that I accidentally or purposefully violate somebody else's rights, then there is a sense in which others can tell me what to do because I have violated my contract with that other person, be it implicit (social) or explicit (formal or business arrangements).

What I am saying is that since YOU have decided to live within a community you are bound by the laws of that community. The community has determined what it believes is right and wrong. You may not agree. In fact, a lot of people may not agree, but enough people agree that is made into law.

I don't think I can buy your assertions about law.  I think that many laws, if not most, are made by a handful of people in agreement which hardly, if ever, consult the people those laws end up affecting.

Also, I don't know what you're referring to exactly regarding a "community."  It seems like you're using it as a shield word for "government."  If so, then I most certainly did not make the choice to live within this community.  I was born into it!  Now, yes, I have made a decision to move to New Hampshire, but really all I have done is trade my New Jersey masters for my New Hampshire masters.  Sure, my New Hampshire masters may be somewhat more benevolent than my New Jersey masters, but I still don't have the choice of opting out of certain aspects of the "community" if I so desire, and I certainly don't have the freedom to opt out of the federal government's "community."

But let's assume that you meant "community" literally... I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at, because I don't really have a sense of "community."  I have a very distinct sense of town, county, state, and federal government, but these are poor replacements for an actual community.

If I were to choose a community in which to participate, that must be a choice I make voluntarily.  In doing so, I agree that I will abide by the rules of that community.  Prior to making the choice to join, it is incumbent upon me to discover those rules and see if they are acceptable to me.  If not, and I enter the community anyway, I can't really complain about it, can I?

You need to be much more specific about what you mean by the word "community."

As an individualist you have two powerful forces working against you. The moral majority, and the popular opinion.

The moral majority have a set of mores and values that they believe the community should live by. I won't go into the flaws of the Judeo-Christian religion that rules this country.

The popular opinion is worse than the moral majority. Examine the average IQ of an American. It's not 100. If you live in a Southern state like Georgia, Alabama, or Mississippi it can get quite scary since they are 92, 90, and 85 respectively. New Hampshire is a little luckier at 105. So a score between 80 and 89 is below average. These people are electing the people that make the decisions. The people that make the decisions are telling THOSE people what should be done instead of the other way around.

I don't see these two forces as being fundamentally different in effect.  Basically, what you're telling me is that, as an individualist, I am facing constant pressure to conform to what other people think.  Well, yeah, that is part of what being an individualist is all about--recognizing what is right for you based on what you think, not on what others think.  I don't really see that as being a fatal flaw, but as part of the challenge of being who I've decided I want to be.

Do you see a problem yet? You have a questionable majority that could only wish it could aspire to mediocracy making all of the decisions. If that wasn't enough you special interest groups via lobbyists ensuring that a select few profit at the cost of many.

What can done? The other half of the bell curve needs to get off its ass and start participating instead of sitting it out because we don't agree with the current system. 

Eh.  IQ is only the barest indicator of actual intelligence and is a fairly poor indicator of good decision-making.  I imagine that most other metrics and quotients show much the same result.

That aside, I don't think that lending my "vote" to the current system is helpful in any way, shape or form.  I think that the system is fundamentally flawed and that my participation in it only serves to perpetuate it.

You may well disagree, and I don't necessarily blame you.  After all, we've been told all our lives that government is, at least, benign, and is here to help us and protect us.  However, I just don't believe that when people tell me that anymore.

[error]

After all, we've been told all our lives that government is, at least, benign, and is here to help us and protect us.  However, I just don't believe that when people tell me that anymore.

Would you care to answer my email from government bureaucrats who apparently sincerely believe they are here to help us and protect us?

Consider the following, which came in earlier tonight from a Homeland Security employee:

Good evening,
I was really Intrigued by your website.  I assume that it is hard to adress all the situations of our society.  It is easier to slam a group and call FEMA responsible for the whole devastation know as "Hurricane Katrina." Many of the stories posted are an exaggeration. People read it because it sounds good. some are uneducated some are nosy and good news doesnt sell or make good stories.  I under stand that you have freedom of speech and if it wasnt for the government you would NOT have that right.  Do I agree with everything they say? NO I dont but you dont put into the limelight all the"minorities" who feel that the government is responsible for the hurricane. The United States Coast Guard is responsible for many of the Valiant rescues that could have been avoided had the "minorities"listened to what was said. What about all the "victims" abused the assistance cards and bought sneakers and rims.Nowadays everyone seems to want a handout.  I have seen this in my line of work.  I have also seen many people who are truly grateful for what I do.  Basically what Im saying is that without the Dept. of Homeland Security you would not have the right to say what you do.I hope that someday you will be able to notice the positive sides of my Dept.  Understand all the sacrifices that myself and many of my counterparts go through on a daily basis to keep you safe from harm, simply because you are a citizen of this great Country.  I do not feel that you should slam the DHS.  I think the airports are safer.  But a man without a High school diploma can check my bags and make me safer......maybe but keep in mind that my safety and yours depends on the concerns of citizens who recognize and have the "gusto" to stick up for what is right. 

Sit Back and take a look at who you actually put down and realize that many of these people might be your neighbors or relatives.  They work to keep you safe.
have a great day

[Taors]

I under stand that you have freedom of speech and if it wasnt for the government you would NOT have that right.

[error]

I under stand that you have freedom of speech and if it wasnt for the government you would NOT have that right.

I should share my inbox more often.

[eques]

After all, we've been told all our lives that government is, at least, benign, and is here to help us and protect us.  However, I just don't believe that when people tell me that anymore.

Would you care to answer my email from government bureaucrats who apparently sincerely believe they are here to help us and protect us?

Consider the following, which came in earlier tonight from a Homeland Security employee:

Good evening,
I was really Intrigued by your website.  I assume that it is hard to adress all the situations of our society.  It is easier to slam a group and call FEMA responsible for the whole devastation know as "Hurricane Katrina." Many of the stories posted are an exaggeration. People read it because it sounds good. some are uneducated some are nosy and good news doesnt sell or make good stories.  I under stand that you have freedom of speech and if it wasnt for the government you would NOT have that right.  Do I agree with everything they say? NO I dont but you dont put into the limelight all the"minorities" who feel that the government is responsible for the hurricane. The United States Coast Guard is responsible for many of the Valiant rescues that could have been avoided had the "minorities"listened to what was said. What about all the "victims" abused the assistance cards and bought sneakers and rims.Nowadays everyone seems to want a handout.  I have seen this in my line of work.  I have also seen many people who are truly grateful for what I do.  Basically what Im saying is that without the Dept. of Homeland Security you would not have the right to say what you do.I hope that someday you will be able to notice the positive sides of my Dept.  Understand all the sacrifices that myself and many of my counterparts go through on a daily basis to keep you safe from harm, simply because you are a citizen of this great Country.  I do not feel that you should slam the DHS.  I think the airports are safer.  But a man without a High school diploma can check my bags and make me safer......maybe but keep in mind that my safety and yours depends on the concerns of citizens who recognize and have the "gusto" to stick up for what is right. 

Sit Back and take a look at who you actually put down and realize that many of these people might be your neighbors or relatives.  They work to keep you safe.
have a great day

Some of that almost sounds like a veiled threat.  I guess you're on their radar.

I don't know if I'd have much of an answer to what he (I assume it's a "he") is saying... I can pick out a few things right away, but they're sort of "asides" and don't really get at the meat of the problem.  I definitely understand that there are some people who sincerely believe that government is there to help, as well as people who went into government because they thought it was the best place to help people.

I'm guessing that this guy was responding to a criticism of DHS's handling of the Hurricane Katrina situation.  I'm feeling friendly and understanding, so I'd probably start off with the disclaimer regarding my understanding as stated above.  I would, however, proceed to state (or re-state, as may be the case) that the disaster of Katrina was a failure at nearly all levels of government, both relating to the original cause of the flooding and response to it.  Yes, there were some people saved, but there were also many egregious violations of the public trust.  Exposing those violations and discussing them does not diminish the heroism of those who risked their lives to save people.  However, because this is our government, it must be held to the highest of all possible standards, especially when so much is at stake.

Now, yes, I'm using quite a bit of statist-speak, but you're kind of saying to the guy, hey, I'm on your side (sort of).  I don't know, I guess it depnds on what your overall aim is.  If you aren't looking to make friends with the guy, I could probably give you a couple of tirades. 

[error]

Well, I was going to try to gather a bit more intel on the guy before responding...Let's do that now, shall we?

Looks like he's using a PalmOS-based smart phone with Verizon Wireless, which would explain the odd formatting in his message.

He just kind of skimmed through the Hurricane Katrina category archive for five minutes, but didn't actually read any of the articles. At least not from his smart phone.

[Objectivist]

After all, we've been told all our lives that government is, at least, benign, and is here to help us and protect us.  However, I just don't believe that when people tell me that anymore.

Would you care to answer my email from government bureaucrats who apparently sincerely believe they are here to help us and protect us?

Consider the following, which came in earlier tonight from a Homeland Security employee:

Good evening,
I was really Intrigued by your website.  I assume that it is hard to adress all the situations of our society.  It is easier to slam a group and call FEMA responsible for the whole devastation know as "Hurricane Katrina." Many of the stories posted are an exaggeration. People read it because it sounds good. some are uneducated some are nosy and good news doesnt sell or make good stories.  I under stand that you have freedom of speech and if it wasnt for the government you would NOT have that right.  Do I agree with everything they say? NO I dont but you dont put into the limelight all the"minorities" who feel that the government is responsible for the hurricane. The United States Coast Guard is responsible for many of the Valiant rescues that could have been avoided had the "minorities"listened to what was said. What about all the "victims" abused the assistance cards and bought sneakers and rims.[?, not .]Nowadays everyone seems to want a handout.  I have seen this in my line of work.  I have also seen many people who are truly grateful for what I do.  Basically what Im saying is that without the Dept. of Homeland Security you would not have the right to say what you do.I hope that someday you will be able to notice the positive sides of my Dept.  Understand all the sacrifices that myself and many of my counterparts go through on a daily basis to keep you safe from harm, simply because you are a citizen of this great Country.  I do not feel that you should slam the DHS.  I think the airports are safer.  But a man without a High school diploma can check my bags and make me safer......maybe but keep in mind that my safety and yours depends on the concerns of citizens who recognize and have the "gusto" to stick up for what is right. 

Sit Back and take a look at who you actually put down and realize that many of these people might be your neighbors or relatives.  They work to keep you safe.
have a great day

Is this real? If so, I'm not sure this guy has a diploma - high school or middle school.

IS it real?

[error]

Is this real? If so, I'm not sure this guy has a diploma - high school or middle school.

IS it real?

Looks like he's using a PalmOS-based smart phone with Verizon Wireless, which would explain the odd formatting in his message.

On second thought, it COULD be a Pocket PC based smart phone. But it's definitely a smart phone.

[error]

Well, I was going to try to gather a bit more intel on the guy before responding...Let's do that now, shall we?

His name is Sean, he's 26, (born March 16, 1980) and he's in the Coast Guard. He lives in Costa Mesa, California, and a couple of months ago got engaged to Natalie, who's 21. He was born in California, but she moved out there from Port Huron, Michigan after she graduated high school.

Is this real? If so, I'm not sure this guy has a diploma - high school or middle school.

IS it real?

Sean graduated from Upland High School in Upland, Calif., in 1998.

Sean did a 12-month tour in Iraq and seems to have gotten back to the U.S. in mid-2005.

He likes punk rock and frequently goes out to area clubs to see local bands.

He voted for what he called the "lesser of two evils" in the 2004 election.

I could probably find out a lot more, but I'm sleepy...

[mvpel]

This is why I've never bothered to try to conceal my identity while online, since 1984.

[error]

This is why I've never bothered to try to conceal my identity while online, since 1984.

We didn't have Google in 1984. Oh, those were the days. Running a board cost REAL MONEY because of all the AT&T long distance charges, which really add up, even in the middle of the night.

[error]

Well, I was going to try to gather a bit more intel on the guy before responding...Let's do that now, shall we?

His name is Sean, he's 26, (born March 16, 1980) and he's in the Coast Guard. He lives in Costa Mesa, California, and a couple of months ago got engaged to Natalie, who's 21. He was born in California, but she moved out there from Port Huron, Michigan after she graduated high school.

Is this real? If so, I'm not sure this guy has a diploma - high school or middle school.

IS it real?

Sean graduated from Upland High School in Upland, Calif., in 1998.

Sean did a 12-month tour in Iraq and seems to have gotten back to the U.S. in mid-2005.

He likes punk rock and frequently goes out to area clubs to see local bands.

He voted for what he called the "lesser of two evils" in the 2004 election.

I could probably find out a lot more, but I'm sleepy...

I didn't scare everyone off, did I?

[Spencer]

After all, we've been told all our lives that government is, at least, benign, and is here to help us and protect us.  However, I just don't believe that when people tell me that anymore.

Would you care to answer my email from government bureaucrats who apparently sincerely believe they are here to help us and protect us?

Consider the following, which came in earlier tonight from a Homeland Security employee:

[W]ithout the Dept. of Homeland Security you would not have the right to say what you do.I hope that someday you will be able to notice the positive sides of my Dept.

Forget the Revolutionary War, forget the minutemen who died at Lexington and Concord, and forget the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence which enforced our natural rights: the Department of Homeland Security created and protects your right to speak freely.  Wow!  And considering that the Dept. didn't even exist until this century, it is amazing that we've survived so long.

I don't care about any diplomas, they should make these people pass civics tests -- that would solve the problem of being abused by TSA / DHS (there wouldn't be any employees).

[error]

You should see what else they've been doing to protect our rights.