CowDung -
Neither Walker nor Ryan –“Willard” Mitt Romney – has the balls (like most tyrannical and egomaniacal subversives) to actually come out into the sunshine and clarify the philosophical underpinnings of their agendas. Although Ryan, to his credit, stupidity, shame or phenomenal arrogance, recently gave a speech at an Ayn Rand gathering where he stated, quite unequivocally, that Ayn Rand, and her philosophy, was, and continues to be, the most profound influence in his life. This, coming from a congressional representative – auditing Catholicism – who also claims to be deeply Christian, a Catholic. Now, if you can unwind that pretzel, you are really, really good.

When GWB came into office, he never told us that, if al Qaeda in Afghanistan attacked America, he would …err, attack Iraq! Yet, he did…

People (particularily business people and politicians) rarely get in your face with their TRUE agenda… most mature and intelligent people know that and hence they look at a person’s BEHAVIOR. If you observe the behavior of these folks, over time, you will discern the greed, the selfishness and rapacity of a “take away” agenda. These folks do not advocate “giving” or increasing “community rights” or “freedoms” they are only concerned with TAKING THEM AWAY...

Moreover, as Americans, we all know that the INDIVIDUAL is more important than SOCIETY. John Galt, the industrialist-hero of Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, would be oh, so proud…

So you are claiming that they are hiding their "true" agenda, so you are free to paint them as pure Randian extremists?

Why don't you just give their actual proposals an honest read and characterize them based on what they actually say rather than what you see though your left wing filter?

CowDung -
Hiding, YES, for the most part... (Ryan actually is proud to be a Randist, he openly professes that...) Do I really have to inform you that, fire is hot, water is wet?

That is NOT the same as unknowable... look at the record...

These folks do not advocate “giving” or increasing “community rights” or “freedoms” they are only concerned with TAKING THEM AWAY. Laws against employment discrimination, particularily, against women, take them away; laws allowing women access to contraception, take them away; laws allowing us freedom FROM religion, take them away; laws allowing “we the people” access to state courts for grievances, take them away; collective bargaining rights, take them away; the right to unionize and actually work for a livable wage, take it away; Social Security, take it away; Medicare, take it away; Medicaid, take it away; voting rights, take it away; access to affordable health care (PPACA), TAKE IT AWAY…

Just like Obama is hiding his true Marxist self?

It seems like all of your claims are lacking in accuracy. Ryan and Walker made it illegal for women to have contraception? Ryan and Walker are mandating a state religion? Ryan and Walker have made unions illegal?

CowDung -

Ryan and Walker are working on these items... abstinence only taught in our schools is one step, Walker's own words in wanting to "Divide & Conquer" and make WI a Right To Work State...

Sometimes – usually always – what a politician says is really not what they mean or what it actually IS. For example, we want a Right To Work State! Well, by gosh, by golly, that certainly sounds good to me! What does that really mean? IF you add the appropriate qualifier to this radically mis-named policy: Right To Work FOR LESS State, you now begin to understand what the phrase truly means. It means you cannot collectively bargain for your wages, benefits or working conditions; it means you cannot have a Union – think, again, TAKE AWAY here – and it means that your employer now controls YOU, through a state policy, just as surely as our founding fathers controlled the slaves that they owned…

Who benefits from this Master-Slave relationship? Well, the INDIVIDUAL owner of the business! The Master gets to make exorbitant profits, perhaps even some additional side benefits, as sexual favors from his/her employees; if you are really good you can finesse these folks into getting your dry-cleaning done, your house cleaned, groceries taken care of, the possibilities are virtually endless here…

Right wing, left wing or no wing, the RESULTS of the proposals of these Randists is always the same… the INDIVIDUAL Master profits; the community – society – suffers…

'Abstinence only' is which one on your list--access to birth control, forced religion, or something else?

Which states in the US currently have no unions? We have many 'right to work' states, but I know of none where unions have ceased to exist because of 'right to work' laws.

Why shouldn't the owner of a business have the right to set compensation levels for his/her employees? If someone risks their money and starts their own business, I'm not going to deny them the profits they earn as a result. Not exactly a Randian idea...

@John Wilson -

"Right wing, left wing or no wing, the RESULTS of the proposals of these Randists is always the same… the INDIVIDUAL Master profits; the community – society – suffers…"

So then, what are the RESULTS of the proposals of these true Marxists, such as Obama?

@Cow
The answer is simple and our president defined it, because the individual is not responsible for his own success. As such his gains are done at the expense of the rest of society. Hence, he must repay the society for the his success. Our government has then established itself as the equalizing agency of the society; therefore, it must regulate jobs and redistribute wealth via taxation to ensure the successful account for the gains they have been granted.

Just for the record: the Objectivism condemns Right-To-Work laws as a violation of the rights of owners and workers to contract freely. In a free society the terms of any exchange of values shall be established by the parties to the exchange and no one else, especially not the government.

JRH -

First of all, I totally reject your premise that Obama is a true Marxists; like Michelle Bachmann, you do have a very troubling relationship with facts… not to dwell upon your penchant for vicious, unwarranted and undocumented personal attacks.

Secondly, as with any administration, you may only judge the RESULTS of that administration, in its totality, when that administration is complete; seeing as the Obama administration will not be completed until 2016, any inform conclusion regarding the RESULTS would be grossly premature…

@John Wilson.... It looks like 'we the people' will be judging Obama & many elected officials throughout the USA in November. Or, are you planning on forfeiting your right to vote?

@John Wilson -

Just as any sane person would totally reject your premise that Walker and Ryan are true Randists; like Nancy Pelosi, you do have a very troubling relationship with facts… not to dwell upon your penchant for vicious, unwarranted and undocumented personal attacks.

"Secondly, as with any administration, you may only judge the RESULTS of that administration, in its totality, when that administration is complete"

And yet, you're able to make a judgment call on both Walker and Ryan, in claiming that they are true Randists, merely hiding such agenda, and concluding what the RESULTS of their time in office will inevitably produce even though they haven't made it to the conclusion of their respective tenures in the public offices that they currently occupy.

How exactly do you justify employing a clear double standard when analyzing the opposing sides of the political aisle unless you're really nothing more than the typical partisan hack?

MCM:

I'm not sure I understand how right to work laws are a violation of the rights of owners and workers to contract freely. Don't the right to work laws guarantee that right rather than violate it?

CowDung -
“Abstinence Only” derives from Catholicism, which, last I checked, is a RELIGION. This is the precursor to further intrusion of religion into government. It’s bad enough that we taxpayers pay for a clergy to pray before each day congress meets, I’m just surprised that they don’t sacrifice a lamb; however, we do all see how well that works out. Keep your puerile imaginings [i.e. GOD] out of my government and policies!

There would be no end to “the list” which is why I provided you with only a few examples… nice try though…Walker and Ryan, as you and I, do not derive our guiding philosophies from but one source; these folks are quite eclectic in terms of philosophy. [Ryan’s blending and constant equivocation of Catholicism and Randism is truly awesome.] There really is no PURE RANDIST, with the exception of Ayn Rand; monumentally selfish people just borrow her philosophy to justify their obscene greed and abuse of humanity...

CowDung -
Right-To-Work statutes in Right-To-Work states do not prohibit unions, per se, they do, however, prohibit the right to collectively bargain – you know, just like the state of WISCONSIN. Furthermore, they have to be certified by the state; before that, they have to get permission of the Master of the company to form a union, get a vote of enough people within the company – usually the process terminates here, as the Master simply informs his/her employees that if they vote for a union, they will be terminated. Union membership has been in decline for decades – currently, 7% of the total labor force – because of the assault by folks like Walker and Ryan, and precursors, set by various statutes that make it all but impossible to form a union. The practical effect of Right-To-Work states and the statutes they engender is to castrate unions. I usually refer to that phenomenon as state sponsored sterilization – the ultimate “Abstinence Only” program.

We tried allowing Masters the right to set their own compensation levels in the early 1900’s… I probably would not want to go back to those good ‘ol days before enlightened labor laws… you obviously want to…

Don’t be bashful, JRH, Schmidt, Sykes, et al… get your keen intellects and laser-like thoughts and ideologies in this discussion…

Jay Sykes -
The entire electorate, informed and uninformed will be judging the Obama administration in November and that is how it should be. However, that is also very, very OBVIOUS... tell me that is not the only arrow you have in your quill?

Do you have a prediction or a hope?

I wonder what that might be?

I'm quite content with letting the people decide and waiting for November 6...

'Abstinence only' derives from Catholocism? Where do you think that 'thou shall not kill' came from? Teaching abstinence only is no more an intrusion of religion by the government than are laws against murder...

Right to work laws do not prohibit the right to collectively bargain. You may want to read up a bit on the subject.

http://www.nrtw.org/d/rtwempl.htm

You may also want to note that Wisconsin law does not prevent or restrict collective bargaining at all in the private sector, and allows but applies restrictions to it in the public sector.

Right-To-Work laws violate the rights of both owners and workers by coercively establishing standards for agreements between them. Workers have the right to demand any contract with the owner that the owner will accede to, and vice versa. If the owner declines, the workers may strike and no one may regulate that strike except to prevent violence. The owner may fire any or all the workers who do not have a contract preventing it at that time. In a free society all relationships are contractual and must be voluntary.

Separation of government from economics is as necessary as separation from religion.

Correct. How do right to work laws act to prevent that though? It seems to me that right to work allows the worker and employer to freely negotiate contract agreements with each other, while not having right to work laws means that the union can dictate employment terms for the worker.

More directly to CowDung's question: No one has a right to contract with anyone else if they do not want to do that. No one has a right to establish any standards for how a person (or business) will operate. If an owner wants to run his business without unions, he has a right to do so. The government may not create a right for any individual or group of individuals to demand a particular relationship to the owner of a business.

I have already explained here that no group of individuals can have any right that its individual constituents do not already have. Since no individual may demand a relationship with a business, neither may any group.

@CowDung

It is the right of workers to demand whatever contract they want. But they cannot "dictate" a contract, because the owner has the right to reject it and collective bargaining altogether. In a free society there is no need to legislate this at all . Both parties have the same rights at all times. The contract will be what they voluntarily agree to or there will not be any contract.

@John Wilson -

You're so far off in left field that you're missing the ballgame! And your so-called 'facts,' well, CowDung is doing a fine job at debunking the biggest whoppers and it's quite honestly not worth my time or effort doing a line-by-line debunking of the rest.

You have nothing but grandiose conspiracy theories with which to attack Paul Ryan and Scott Walker, and can cite to no primary sources to support the BS you're peddling.

Cheers!

...but right to work legislation doesn't mandate that the employer and employee negotiate together, nor does it mandate that they do not. The legislation grant the worker the right to negotiate his own agreement with the employer without interference of outside groups like unions or the government. Without right to work legislation, the worker would be required to join the union if one were established in that workplace.

MCM:

Please see the bottom of the page for my response to you. Too many replies on the top post are making this difficult to follow the thread.

JRH –

I have never stated that Ryan & Walker are TRUE RANDIST… do not put your words and Cow Dung’s words in my posts. For the second time, there are no TRUE RANDISTS.

Both Walker & Ryan are definitely hiding most of their TRUE AGENDA and some of their agenda has been realized and is open to analysis and JUDGMENT. Ryan has been around for more than one-term; Walker has just won a recall election, which will, at least marginally, redirect his most nefarious efforts to rule Wisconsin.

Remember: "Divide & Conquer" and moving to a Right To Work State? Surely your handlers allow you access to TV?

You call everyone, at least those that don’t agree with your mind-numbing meanderings, a “typical partisan hack” so I am not particularily surprised that your response immediately turns to personal name-calling… As I said earlier you, like Michelle Bachmann, have a very troubling relationship with facts…

My comment, “Second” was clearly directed to the Obama administration NOT the Walker administration nor the Ryan administration, and I stand by that. There is no double standard.

Again, you may only judge the RESULTS of that administration, IN ITS TOTALITY, when that administration is complete.

Historians, typically, do not render a “final judgment” on a President and his administration, until it is complete; in actuality, most prefer to let it simmer and marinate for 5-10 or more years before they render a final judgment on it.

You, maybe not…

But the owner has a right to sign an exclusive closed shop agreement with the union that would require all individuals to join the union and prevent any individual from negotiating separately if he wants to. Right-To-Work law forbids that.

Example: The owner is a communist and believes in union dictatorship of worker relationships. He has the right to a contract allowing that. No government has a right to outlaw it.

@John Wilson -

You claim that administrations can only be effectively judge and the results of such concluded upon only after they have ended and some time has passed. And yet, you've judged and made conclusions about the results produced by both Walker and Ryan, despite their respective 'administrations' continuing into the future. How is this not a double standard exactly?

I hope you realize that any answer you provide will just prove your extreme partisanship.

JRH -

I would hope that even you would recognize that their just might be a difference between a President’s administration, where policies and initiatives effect the entire USA, as opposed to a Governor’s administration or a nonexistent (Ryan administration) – thought you might have picked up the essence of my meaning with that, butt, that just means I gave you too much credit – that only effects the miniscule state of Wisconsin.

You, maybe not…

JRH –

WOW… that was easy… I hope you and Michelle Bachmann are comfortable now…

CowDung –

Don’t drag the kitchen sink into my post; the topic in this post is ABSTINENCE ONLY; it is a tenant of Catholicism… and Catholicism is a RELIGION. Furthermore, I do not want religion interfering in my secular government. That is why we have the 1st Amendment and the establishment clause. I’m happy that you conflate “Abstinence Only” with “Murder.” That's real intellectual gymnastics!

“Teaching abstinence only is no more an intrusion of religion by the government than are laws against murder...” RIGHT!

Again, in Right-To-Work states, collective bargaining is abridged by state statutes… Once you start down the road of restricting collective bargaining, you castrate unions and the new formation of unions. You not only have to look at the text of the law, but the effects of the application of the law, as well… You want to argue TEXT; I want to argue net EFFECT…

Separate but equal was the law; the net effect of the law was to keep blacks in the back of the bus… but, it did sound really, really good…

I’m happy that Wisconsin law does not prohibit collective bargaining in the private sector; that’s really good, primarily because private sector unions are an anomaly!

You and the state simply cannot restrict collective bargaining public or private and expect there to be any true collective bargaining… you’ve just pulled the testes off of public unions, but you say you only have a few restrictions… RIGHT!

Ima Hippe -

I have been to Europe many, many times... I have lived and worked in Germany, France and the UK and on Monday, I am going to fly to the UK for the Olympics. Nobody with a brain would fly Delta...

Contrary to you, I have fought, where it counts, for the United States of America, and I have actually earned the right to criticize my country and its government when it goes astray; I have fought for your freedom, so you too would have that right…

Thank you, John… You are welcome, Ima…

Which will turkey out as spectacularly as Part 1. Guess not enough college sophomores.

"Ryan hasn't said a word about throwing over his Social Security, Medicare, or Congressional pension and healthcare."

Why would you have that expectation from Ryan?

@Bren -

"Ryan hasn't said a word about throwing over his Social Security, Medicare, or Congressional pension and healthcare."

Please cite us to the page of Ryan's Path to Prosperity where he exempts Congress from the Path in regards to the specific programs you mentioned. I've looked and I can't find such an exemption anywhere.

Once again, I see that you're intentionally trying to deceive the low information / non-thinking voter. Why?

Toddler-like stubborness? Sounds more like the public workers, not the Tea Party.

Cow, because Howard Roark would have! This fictional character was willing to live in poverty before he would give up his visions. Right now Paul Ryan is only embracing one half of the Rand ideal. The willingness to be personally accountable and suffer for beliefs hasn't quite kicked in.

Mr. Hoffa, why would the P2P review Congressional pensions and benefits? P2P is for you and me, not Paul Ryan.

Brian, as I said, I was young when I read the book so my range of experience was limited. Now I would call it toddler-like stubbornness. ; )

Bren:

That assumes that Ryan and Walker are the Randian purists that Poulos is trying to claim them to be...

Cow, I would say they aren't purists. Rand's fictional characters (at least in the screeds I've read) are 100% confident and committed to themselves, whatever the cost. Scott Walker is a special interest puppet, and Paul Ryan is willing to conduct social experiments (Newt's term, not mine) on other people.

Ordinarily it would feel strange comparing the behavior of fictional characters and real people but we are discussing two "personality stars..."

Pretty much every social program that has been implemented can be considered to be a 'social experiment'. Why is it a bad thing for Ryan, but applauded for people like Obama?

@Bren -

Once again, you know that Hoffa is correct and that you have no primary sources that will support your little conspiracy theory. Maybe instead of making stuff up or believing in the unfounded 'analysis' of the left-wing pundits, we should try sticking to the primary FACTS. So, I'll ask once again for where exactly Ryan exempts the members of Congress from the reforms contained within his Path to Prosperity - a citation to the exact page number and paragraph on that page would suffice.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to give us a direct citation to where, in either Ryan's Path or in his House passed budget, does it expressly give big oil companies $43B in tax breaks? Again, I've looked through both documents in their entirety and I can't find any mention of tax breaks for oil companies, yet alone $43B worth. Seeing as how you've previously attested to the truth of such an assertion having been made by several lefty-liberal blogs, and that you always do your homework, it should be easy for you to just provide us with the direct citation.

Be a decent person and just admit that you're WRONG, have no primary sources upon which to back up such conspiracy theories, and were duped by the LIES of the lefty-liberal blogs.

This goes to your character the integrity. So, what kind of person are you going to be Bren?

Mr. Hoffa, you, my favorite "restauraunttorney" have of late become increasingly enamored of conspiracy theories of unknown stripe. And to try to prove my opinions wrong. How frustrating that must be for you! ; )

Just for you I re-read my .pdf of the Path to [Someone Else's] Prosperity. This screed is long on rhetoric and finger-pointing and short on practica (baseline data, tactics, etc.) but the groundwork is there. (I'll mark it out this weekend.) I do note that you linked to a summary budget document instead of to the P2P .pdf nestled two click-throughs in on morninmist's orignal post (and a cynic might say that you did that so you could "point" to the summary and say "You lie! It's not in here!" But I know you'd never do that! ; ).

@Bren -

Again, while you're fully entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own objective facts. The facts are the facts whether you like them or not. You're asserting things about Ryan and claiming them to be true without any citation to a primary source of such information. I call that unfounded supposition, conjecture, speculation, or in short, a conspiracy theory.

The lefty-liberal blog that morninmist linked to expressly stated that it was "Ryan's budget" that gave the oil companies the alleged $43B in tax breaks. The Path to Prosperity is merely a summary budget document - it is not legislation. The document I linked to, H.CON.RES.34, is not a summary document - it is the actual Ryan authored budget that was voted upon by the entirety of the US House of Representatives. Why do you keep on referring to the actual budget bill as a "summary budget document?" If you're claiming that H. CON. RES. 34 is not the actual Ryan budget bill that was voted upon by the House, then please provide us with the proper citation to such budget bill. Your legitimate and credible news sources all claim that the House did indeed vote on Ryan's budget bill - so what was the number of that bill if not the number that I provided to you?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/house-passes-ryan-budget-again-despite-unanimous-democratic-opposition/

In either case, neither the Path or the budget bill references anything about exempting members of Congress or giving oil companies tax breaks - if they do, then please provide us with the direct cite, as I can't find either of these things anywhere despite have thoroughly read and examined both PRIMARY documents! Did you thoroughly read and examine both of these documents? I thought you did your homework?

And you, Mr. Hoffa, presented a summative document as evidence disputing the existence of the source data in question. I could call that a deliberate attempt to mislead the court! You're going to need several of your multi-post responses to justify that one! ; )

I said I would mark through the P2P plan over the weekend and I will. I just need to arm myself with a highlighter, and a figurative clothespin and large bowl of bleach, to block the stench of histrionic,pedantic, yet pedestrian narrative and to disenfect my gray matter. ; )

@Bren -

For the last time - that thing that you call a "summative document" is the actual Ryan authored budget bill that was voted upon by the entirety of the US House of Representatives. The blog referred to the "Ryan Budget." Hoffa wasn't attempting to mislead anyone. If you're disputing this, then please provide us with the actual bill number to the Ryan Budget. What's so hard about anything that I ask and why do you keep dodging the issues here? The Path is not legislation - it is merely a summative and explanatory document.

And again, neither of these documents, either the Path or the bill, reference either the Congressional exemptions or the oil company tax breaks that you've erroneously asserted they do.

CowDung -

Democracy is the ultimate social experiment…

To your insincere question: mainly because of the underlying ideologies… Republicans are for the “I”; Democrats are for the “WE.”

Republicans have consistently and quite vehemently been against ALL SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, since Social Security in 1935. They have fought, tried to undermine the funding, tried to slip amendments into legislation to repeal various items covered; the same with Medicare, Medicaid, Brown v BOE and, more recently, PPACA. Having some 33 votes to repeal PPACA, from a congress [Tea Party 2010] that was elected under the guise of “Job Creation” and “turning the economy around” brings new meaning to the definition of insanity being the act of doing something over and over again and getting the same result. [Where are the jobs, and the economic turnaround? Oh, they are coming with sequestration; I’m sorry, I forgot about that great bill… the one they are now trying to get out of.]

Therefore, it is with much trepidation that the citizens of America look at Ryan’s Path To Prosperity. We’ve had that fox in the hen house before and we know all too well where that is going. As Newt said: “A radical right wing social engineering program.” You folks can’t even get your usual Republican lemmings to walk that wobbly plank.

Perhaps their alleged opposition to 'ALL SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, since Social Security in 1935' is an attempt to reaffirm the secular foundation of the US government. Helping others and treating them as one would like to be treated are themes that are strongly tied to religion...

CowDung –

Perhaps their – Republicans – opposition to ALL SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS since Social Security in 1935 is an attempt to secure the $$$ for their own selfish purposes, and has absolutely nothing to do with religion or secularism… only astonishingly obscene greed…

People pay into these systems and Republicans simply want to steal their $$$; yes, it really is that simple… Vulture Capitalism at its very finest… GWB, one of our finest presidents, even worked at privatizing Social Security so Wall Street could get its greedy hands on the money…

I'd rather let those greedy bastards on Wall Street have it rather than the greedy bastards in our federal government--I'm much more likely to see my money when I retire and I'll actually see growth on my investment...

Render unto Caesar... I do believe that was a quote from Jesus himself, regarding payment of taxes. It's not Christian teaching to selfishly cling to your money. You can ascribe many other philosophies to it, but Christ was pretty clear about paying your taxes.
Other elements of the Christian bible actively opposed by Republicans:
- Feed the hungry (opposed to food stamps)
- Give drink to the thirsty (oppose clean water regulations)
- Clothe the naked (oppose programs to help the poor; arrest naked people)
- House the homeless (oppose low income housing, cut funding for homeless shelters)
- Comfort the sick (oppose affordable health care)
- Ransom the captive (favor indefinite detention of prisoners, with no due process)
- Bury the dead (hey, we just make 'em dead - burying is someone else's gig)
- Instruct the ignorant (oppose public education, and willfully become ignorant themselves)

@Kelly---Ask an Indian.

So Jesus believed the government has a right to use force and throw you in jail to collect these taxes .. Yeah that sounds Christian

Bert are you daft, you give voluntarly not by Force, so Jesus would hold a gun to a Dr.s head to comfort the sick if the Dr. refused .. you are flippin ignorant

Kelly -
America needs to reaffirm its secular foundation; along the way, fanatical Christians grabbed Christianity by the throat and dragged it, kicking and screaming, into a secular democracy. Then, claimed that it was there all along and our founding fathers were all enamored with Christianity... Really?

The Constitution, in today’s world, a horribly inefficient and ineffectual document, does NOT mention GOD, not even once... who would have thunk?

Furthermore, the Treaty with Tripoli of 1796-97, under George Washington’s second term, clearly states… “As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion…” This Treaty was ratified by the senate and passed into law with the signing of none other than George Washington…

A government cannot exist under the pernicious influence of religion; look at the world around you today and all that you can see is religion as the underpinnings of one war after another after another…

No, Kelly, we do not need religion in our secular government… the more it is contaminated by religion, the more dysfunctional it becomes…

If you are going so far as to claim that abstinence only sex education is an intrusion of religion into government, why aren't social programs that follow the Biblical commands to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. also an intrusion?

Aren't these types of social programs a 'contamination' of secular government with religion?

CowDung –

Societies establish legal and social contracts with its citizens, independent of any religion… and sometimes, guess what… the same social conscience that guides a society also may be something a religion also espouses. It is only when a religion drags its GOD and religious dogma into my secular government that I have an issue.

When presidents have to swear the oath of office on the bible, I have an issue.

When presidents spout “GOD bless you” and “GOD bless the USA” I have an issue.

When Republican president Eisenhower inserts GOD into my pledge of Alliegence, I have an issue.

When Ike (1957) demands that IN GOD WE TRUST be printed on all our $$$, I have an issue.

When congress over-reaches and gets involved in the Terry Schiavo case, I have an issue.

When congress votes to make IN GOD WE TRUST our national motto, replacing our true national motto, E Pluribus Unum, I have an issue.

When the senate building is renovated and congress spends $$$ to have E Pluribus Unum, which was carved into the marble base of a statue, removed and replaced by IN GOD WE TRUST, simply to satisfy some fanatical Christians, I have an issue.

When we have a de facto Christian religion test for someone to be president, I have an issue.

No wonder we can’t get anything done in Swampland, we’re too busy hating on a tanned president and praying…

Clear?

Bert - you are absolutely wrong in every element. Absurdly wrong.

In fact, I would say your view has not only created the entitlements but your side opposes each element. What is wrong with helping someone to engage themselves and find the American ethic to do your listed elements on their own?

No one from the Republican side is advocating the drivel you have ascribed to Republicans. A better case, an easier case can be made that the left is keeping people down. Like, um...how about..Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

You are only looking to feed for a day.

John - Europe is waiting for you. Delta is ready when you are.

John Wilson:

The only thing that's clear is your hatred of religion. I think that it is causing you to see an intrusion when there really is none. Abstinence education is not religious dogma...

CowDung –

Abstinence Only sex education is nothing but religious dogma and it is horrible public policy too!

I don’t really think that religion should be fostered upon rational human beings; its deleterious and obscenely pernicious effects upon mankind in general and the USA in particular fills history books with the inhumanity upon humanity that it has created. There is no need for religion in a rational world; MAN created GOD to control the unruly masses, he can certainly dispense with that artifice…

Abstinence Only sex education comes from the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is fostered and promoted by the Catholic Church. It is a natural outgrowth of the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control. They are simply against birth control in any form, except the Vatican Roulette method. That is, you track your ovulation and abstain – precursor to abstinence only – from sex during the time you are fertile. The Pope controls the vagina and all reproduction apparatus of women, because they are MEN and are told by GOD to assume that role. Yes, I do understand…

Some, many other Christian religions – (R) presidential candidate, Sanatorium’s Church, for example – teach that the only church approved reason to engage in sexual intercourse is 1) with your wife, and 2) ONLY for the reason that you are consciously attempting to get the wife pregnant. NO PLEASURE ONLY SEX! Yes, I do understand…

Yes, I really do understand...

JBS –

Honesty and humility is the path to enlightenment…

Despite being absurdly long-winded, you're also self contradictory. You say public schools wouldn't exist in a Randian state because the funding for those would be acquired by threat of force. So how would the military, police, and court funding be obtained? If funding for public institutions can only be obtained by threat of force, and such threat is evil, then any government institution that requires money to exist is evil. Therefore, the blogger's assertions about the Randian ideal are dead on.

The point about the clash of Randian ideas and the real world is much more salient. Eliminating all regulation does not lead to increased productivity, it leads to exactly the kind of financial meltdown we just experienced in 2008. Furthermore, the consequences of the immoral acts of greedy bankers were not solely born by the bad actors; in fact, it was the hard-working small businessman and employees across the country who paid the price for a government that refused to exercise any oversight of the financial markets. Wealth and power are synonymous. Without a strong agent of the public, which is controlled by the public, to serve as a mitigating force, the power of the wealthy few will ALWAYS be used against the interest of the many. THAT is what Rand neglects, and what today's Teaheads can't grasp.

An interesting and well-written defense of Objectivism. I agree that Nick should have distinguished actual Objectivism from the politicians and businessmen claiming to follow it. Like most people, they have interpreted it to confirm their own beliefs. Ultimately though, Objectivism is a doomed philosophy because it cannot be defended from external threat. In _Atlas Shrugged_ their safety was from hiding in the mountains. Any expansion of that society into the greater world would quickly fall apart. When no man can be forced to do something then you will never be able to band together effectively. In times of trouble people will be unwilling to sacrifice for others.

@Michael,
Holding up Sam Walton as a shining example of Objectivism does not make me a fan. By most accounts he was a bitter old miser that squeezed every penny till it screamed. I suspect he would have used slaves if it was still legal here. He certainly could not be credited with "raising the standard of living of this nations (sic) poorest masses". Is flooding the market with cheap goods and driving out local businesses supposed to be a worthy goal?

One's judgment of Sam Walton is not relevant to rights or justice or anything else in the political context. The only fact of importance is that he did not coerce anyone to buy his products. He squeezed every penny out of the inefficient production system in the world merely by saying "if you produce quality goods at a lower price, I will buy them." No one was compelled to increase their quality at a lower price. They all did it for purely selfish reasons.

Sam freely offered the world those goods but did not coerce them to buy them. They were all free to continue shopping at the local merchants in order to preserve their inefficiency (for what God forsaken reason I cannot imagine). It was not Sam that drove them out of business. It was the populace who preferred saving money so they could buy other things too. Sam did not drive out "local" businesses, he drove out INEFFICIENT businesses. And the money customers saved at Sam's was then used to fund other producers who were also more efficient than the mom and pop stores. Mom and Pop then used their skills to get a job at Wal-mart or wherever. And everyone ended up living better. When each new Walmart opens, it creates 600+ new jobs, and usually 2,000 apply for them.

How moral is it to believe that Mom and Pop stores should have the right to oppress the masses by the force of government, causing them all to pay more for less, just so they could stay in business. That evil notion is one of the finer exemples of tyranny.

@Michael Clendenin Miller...Excellent summation of Rand and the arguments for sovereign individualism. However, what Rand failed to include and acknowledge is the sovereign community and the answer to the Hobbesian Question of "why is there order". What we now know, which Rand couldn't have known during her time, and recognize; is that just as we have a need for unfettered individualism and freedom, we also have a biological driven need for community. To satisfy both needs we compromise our need for sovereign individuality against the gain of community cooperation and sovereignty. The tension created between the two needs is a cause to conflicts.

Sovereign community is the ultimate species survival mechanism. We adapt the community construct and structure to accommodate changes in the environments, consisting of the physical environment, technological environment and the social environment.

I think Rand is limited by her personal experiences with the collectivism and socialism that she encountered while still in Russia. Her personal experience was her greatest hindrance.

@Michael,
Objectivism sounds in many ways like Marxism, except where Marx said "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need", Rand would say "from each according to their ability to each according to their wealth." Wealth in this case would be defined by their ability and value to the community.
Let me posit a few examples - If only one doctor is available, and he has two immediate needs - one where a poor person is dying and another where a rich person is sick but not critical. In Objectivism he would treat the rich person and let the poor person die. The poor person has no means to pay off his medical bill in the foreseeable future, so there is no reason to treat him in an Objectivist society.
Another thought example - John Galt thinks his perpetual motion device earns him a mansion. The house builders feel it only gets him a couple bedrooms. Who arbitrates this disagreement? Theoretically Galt's device can power everyone's business and home forever. Does this mean Galt can take anything he likes from anyone for the rest of his life?

In Objectivism he would treat the rich person and let the poor person die .. ummm why, because the Dr. values money more than life .. i fail to see the link

I think that Lyle found a new friend :-)

Michael, it may be that I am missing a key point here, but I did say "Wealth in this case would be defined by their ability and value to the community. " I did glean from _Atlas_ that talent was the valued commodity in Objectivism. Galt never made a penny from his invention in the conventional sense. So, no, I am not interpreting it to confirm my own belief so much as I am trying to understand it. But Galt still needs food, shelter and medical care. To that end, could you please address the two scenarios I described in my previous post?

But if the dying person can't meet the doctor's price, why would he treat him at all?

It seems like he did answer ... why do you think everyone wants wealth to do services, no one wants to help out of the goodness of thier heart .. i guess that is why you "socialists" need to force people to "help" cuz you know you wouldn't help anyone out of the goodness of your heart

Because the value he has chosen to produce is the extension of life. The wealth a rational man "needs" is that which will maximize his productivity. It would be a contradiction to seek more wealth to maximize his ability to extend life, if the means to that end includes letting a man die because he could not pay.

Now tell me what reason a Christian could have to help someone other than the selfish reason to get in good with God?

Hmmm so it is selfish to worship God, never thought of it that way .. So is it selfish to eat my sandwich? To buy clothes? i should instead go naked and starve so others may eat and have clothes to keep them warm? Even Jesus ate, and wore clothes

That's not the way I read it Johnny. The selfishness doesn't come from worshipping G-d, it comes up because the motivation for helping others is not to truly help others, but rather to obtain a more favorable position for oneself in G-d's eyes...

@MCM said "Because the value he has chosen to produce is the extension of life". I assume by 'he' you mean the doctor. So in lieu of a conventional payment the doctor is assuming a value to himself by extending the life of this sick person. Would that be in the form of indentured servitude or what? Could you not make a similar argument for normal charity that the good deed will eventually rebound to the benefit of the giver? After all, even if charity is given to a worthless person that will never provide a direct benefit to others, could you not justify the charity by saying it keeps him off the street and causing detriment to society?

@MCM said "the selfish reason to get in good with God".
Ooh, there's a long-running debate! Is there such a thing as true altruism? I'm reminded of a holy person's poem I ran across -
"Dear God, if I worship thee for fear of hell, throw me in hell. If I worship thee in hope of heaven then deny me heaven. But if I worship thee for thine own self keep me not from your everlasting reward."
Of course, that was from a Sufi mystic. I have always thought religion was just an attempt to scare superstitious people into doing the right thing, because they won't look beyond their own selfish needs otherwise. It's like when King Arthur wanted his knights to stop terrorizing the locals so he sent them on that quest.

@St. Swithin,
The doctor is not "assuming" a value to himself, he is RECOGNIZING the fact that it IS a rational value. It is a greater value to him to treat the man than it is to let him die, for the reasons I have already provided.

If, on the other hand, he is working in some desolate, impoverished region, he has very little money, and working for free would endanger the life of his gravely ill wife or son, he would be morally required to tend the rich man first to get the money he would need. If one chooses to pursue life, life is the standard of all values. One must then define a hierarchy of values in terms of the long-term benefit to one's life and never sacrifice a higher value in that scale in order to gain a lower value. Such values may not be whims. They must be objectively verifiable in principle (to be of actual value to an anonymous human being in the same context).

Altruism and selflessness demand one to have a hierarchy too, but to always choose that which is detrimental to one's life while sacrificing the value that is a benefit to one's life. Altruism is an anti-life ethics of self-hatred, whether it has a religious or secular source.

@Nick -

Your immature attempt at trying to tie GOP candidates to the purist Rand philosophy is no different than the argument made on the opposing side of the aisle linking Democratic candidates to the purist Marx / Engels / Lenin philosophies.

For someone who claims to be advocating for a higher more mature discussion of the issues facing our society, you certainly did take the low road here!

Proving that you're little more than the partisan hack that Hoffa always thought you were!

It's certainly easy to see why you ultimately sought refuge in academia. Only there can one malign an audience and seriously expect them to be receptive to the instructional musings that follow.

@ Nick Poulos,

At the fundamental level you advocate the right of the majority to authorize the government to take values from some men and give them to others. Dancing around through the terminology of "Progressive," "Conservative," "Extreme," and such only obfuscates the fact that all of those options are variants of statism, along with communism, fascism, monarchy, oligarchy, anarchy, matriarchy, patriarchy, and whatever other -archy can be devised to choose force over freedom in the fundamental political alternative. Until the day you grasp the morality of freedom and the evil of force, every argument you make will be implicitly deprecated by your embrace of the politics of statism and the morality of thieves.

You have a warped sense of society. If the people vote in a socialistic government, that is what they want. Up until business started buying it, the government has been and will be the people. Your perverse notion about government does not change that.

Besides, what the hell is so bad with socialism? You seem to take it on an order of faith that it is somehow bad.

Now, thanks to the socialistic of Canada, the average Canadian citizen is richer than the average American. So many socially bent governments are doing far better than we are with our so-called free market.

No this is not MOB rules we have laws the Republic is not democracy .. So you can vote to take my money and that makes it right if the majority want it .. you have a warped sense of society ... Hahaha .. free market, that is funny, that hasn't been a free market for a freakin long time .. the government is involved in every aspect that is not free market

In Keith's neighborhood , we vote in majority that he has to cut everyones grass and if he doesn't we force him to .. and according to Keith everyone is better off cuz they don't have to cut thier grass ..isn't socialism great

OK--now I understand. Thank you for your patience with my questions.

JBS –

Your intellectual dishonesty is awesome...

I SAID: The Constitution, in today’s world, a horribly inefficient and ineffectual document, does NOT mention GOD, not even once...

You want to grab a few phrases, out of context, apply your own intellectual dishonesty and claim you made a spaceship…OK…

I don’t speak for Nick, Democrats or anyone else… I never said anything about throwing it out; IT IS WHAT IT IS… and that is a horribly inefficient and ineffectual document that is 235-years old, and we are simply stuck with it… Christians are stuck with a book over 2,000-years old; good for them!

The founding fathers knew what was germane to their time period; they did not use the internet, automobiles, space travel, or any of the marvelous wonders of modern science. That is why they allowed for… wait for it… AMENDMENTS… However, even with Amendments it does rather take a long time to get things done, unless you try to take alcohol from the masses…

Moreover, I did not even suggest that we change it… YOU DID!

I SAID: The Constitution, in today’s world, a horribly inefficient and ineffectual document, does NOT mention GOD, not even once...

And that was in my argument to Kelly, meaning, simply, that if our great country was founded on Christianity – which it wasn’t – why does the word GOD or JESUS or any other of their imaginary folks not appear in the CONSTITUTION?

Only that and nothing more…

@JB -

You really hit the nail on the head with that assessment!

Wow .. i didn't realize the constitution was the only document the founding fathers ever wrote .. I mean their other books and letters don't mention God or Jesus .. oh the Mayflower .. they weren't Christians either

Yeah that is why we have Amendments so they can form thier more perfect Commie dream .. Hmmm the 16th yeah good plank out of the commie handbook.. Hey we have spaceships and the internet .. Don't know WTF that has to do with peoples rights .... Oh yeah maybe i evolved from a grasshopper and not a more advanced ape like Mr. Wilson because i don't understand his logic ..Oh well i will cling to my bible and guns

@John Wilson
I am confused. You deny the quote is what it said. Then in your denial you say, "and that is a horribly inefficient and ineffectual document that is 235-years old, and we are simply stuck with it" in order to prove me wrong. How is it possible to claim my dishonesty by acknowledging my quote is accurate in your denial?

To claim the document is horribly inefficient and ineffectual is a completely different argument then whether God is mentioned in it. Unless you are arguing that the lack of God's presence makes it such. As I am confident you are not making that claim, your statement needed no context in order to define it.

As for you wanting throwing it out, your statement regarding the challenges of the amendment process back up my claim. Most people find the amendment process intentionally challenging in order to prevent you and your ilk from creating a "new constitution that allows for more government intervention". Is that not what you are looking for with higher taxes and forced equality via wages or education?

As for evidence that the constitution is outdated based on current technology, could you please point in the constitution where the technology of the founders day is referenced. Obviously to claim that modern science has surpassed the capabilities of the constitution, you must have evidence that the technology of 1789 was used as a determining factor in its drafting.

I don't think the Constitution is outdated. Some of the specific circumstances in place at its writing are no longer at issue, but as another here said, that's what amendments are for. The people of the 18th Century wanted freedom from tyranny and self-determination. It's not our Constitution that's the problem it's the undue influence of special interests in our government.

@Wilson -

"Don't try to bend the spoon; that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: There is no spoon. Then you will see, it isn't the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."

You're spinning yourself into oblivion and don't even realize it!

@John Wilson
Ball peen hammers are typically used in metal working and as such everything would not be nail.

However, Hoffa really hammered it home regarding your spinning.

JBS –

It has been manifestly obvious for quite some time, that you are confused; it is, though, refreshing to see you honestly admit to that. You should, moreover, port that small bit of honesty to your posts, particularily when you mis-site, mis-represent and mis-quote me. Your intellectual dishonesty is only surpassed by your lack of facts…

Don’t take a subordinate clause from my quote, make a spaceship out of it, and pretend that you have done something, other than be completely intellectually dishonest.

The Constitution has always been inefficient and ineffectual; the framers created it that way, purposefully, as they wanted it to be very difficult to make CHANGES to it. They did not like CHANGE, but they recognized that there just might be some situation, albeit light years away, where a CHANGE might be needed. Recognizing that inbred southern bias, they did allow for Amendments.

Again, your intellectual dishonesty is referenced: “Obviously to claim that modern science has surpassed the capabilities of the constitution, you must have evidence that the technology of 1789 was used as a determining factor in its drafting."

Look, JBS, learn something, the Constitution was signed into law on September 17 of 1787; the Constitution was already 2-years old in 1789, while you claim it was still being drafted!

Again, your intellectual dishonesty and lack of facts…

JBS -

The "ball peen hammer" was a reference to JRH using your head as a hammer... sorry you missed that... but you seem to miss a lot...

@John Wilson
The constitution went into effect on March 4th, 1789 as the law of land. On September 17, 1787 was the date it was signed and accepted by the Constitutional Convention (aka its date of creation). However, you failed to provide any evidence that science has had role in the drafting of the constitution that would make the science of today incapable of fitting the mold provided by the founders.

My claim is that you think the constitution is "inefficient and ineffectual" and thus requires change. You only continue to support my claim with your rantings. I have been intellectually dishonest about nothing. You are anti-constitution. If you feel that constitution is "inefficient and ineffectual" (which by the way is opinion and not fact) and don't want change then you are intellectually dishonest. I have added nothing but your quotes and used nothing but your ideas in proving my points. In return, you insult me and lie about your own position.

As for the hammer, you need to lighten up.

JBS –

We were discussing the DRAFTING and SIGNING of the Constitution; you stated that they were still drafting the Constitution in 1789! If it was SIGNED on September 17, 1787, they were all done drafting it... As Judge Judy would say, “REEEDICKULOUS!”

Moving on…

“However, you failed to provide any evidence..."

I did not provide any evidence, because I DID NOT SAY THAT… YOU DID!

I stated that the 'framers did not have to deal with modern science in there time…' that is irrefutable…

“My claim is that you think the constitution is "inefficient and ineffectual" and thus requires change.”

That’s YOUR CLAIM… deal with it…

Mine: 'The Constitution, in today’s world, a horribly inefficient and ineffectual document, does NOT mention GOD, not even once...’

Don’t take a subordinate clause from my quote, make a spaceship out of it, and pretend that you have done something, other than be completely intellectually dishonest.

Further, in America, it is alright to criticize our government, our Constitution, our government officials, in fact, it is our duty as citizens and it is guaranteed by the mighty 1st Amendment…

If anyone wants to change the Constitution they must be “Anti-Constitution.” Well, there certainly are a lot of people in America that are “Anti-Constitution” considering WE THE PEOPLE have amended it 27 times! Golly Gomer, you are slow…

As for the hammer, it is so fitting…

@John Wilson
Your right, you didn't say what you said and its my fault for saying what you said.

red -

Of course, the Constitution was a gift from GOD, I saw him come down from the mountain with 2 huge tablets... Oops, that was the menu from Pizza Hut...

red, here's the full part (paragraph) of what Barack Obama said at a speech in Virginia:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

If someone took a few of your words out of context and tried to make it seem as if you had said something ridiculous, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it.

@Bren -

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

And businesses don't pay taxes, by a much larger proportion than an individual does, that contributes to building such infrastructure that the President is speaking of? Not to mention the expansion of the tax base that a business creates by hiring others and engaging in commerce. By his own words, Obama appears not to think so, as "somebody else made that happen." This is the same flaw that Elizabeth Warren made when she gave virtually the same speech during one of her campaign events.

Why couldn't he have said "you helped build that, but so did everyone else too." But no, instead it's "you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." That's a very dishonest statement and does not apportion credit fairly, does it? But isn't he supposedly campaigning on fairness? Looks like nothing but more hypocrisy from the commander in chief to Hoffa!

Such attitude is insulting to business owners everywhere and does not instill a great deal of confidence in this President with the job creators!

This kind of insidious class warfare rhetoric is highly divisive and contributes nothing of substance or value to the discussion of the issues that face our nation. So why is Obama trying to appeal to the low information / non-thinking voter - or in other words, the Daily Kos crowd?

Is Al Gore aware that the internet apparently didn't get invented on its own?

JRH -

Thankfully, Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism – not having anything to do with objective reality – has been thoroughly debunked and rejected by the most of the rational world, a long, long time ago… its current devotees are largely people who are totally disconnected from reality and the “just released from Bellevue” crowd.

Obama, Warren, Hillary – It Takes A Village – et al are suggesting, and attempting to make the point, that we all live in a COMMUNITY and that we owe that COMMUNITY much more than most of us would ever like to admit. Obviously, the wolf pack that raised you in the wilderness left you feeling inadequate, forlorn, unappreciated and unloved… now get your pack together, go kill and eat a lamb… you will feel better…

red -

"Take care of the truly needy.... but don't give everybody including illegal aliens food stamps that are being increasingly fraudulently used."

I get it, you don't like people of color - white is the absence of color – and your source for “illegal aliens” getting food stamps that are being increasingly fraudulently used is?

@John Wilson
People joined communities for protection of their own private property. They do not form communities in order to redistribute their own wealth to those with less. In fact, as you start to destroy the personal property and wealthy of the individual in order to establish an arbitrary level of equality you destroy the community through the creation of class warfare. Suddenly the protection the community originally needed, erodes from the inside as groups attack other groups.

The President through his statement regarding the individual not being able to take responsibility for his own success is in effect saying the property he owns was granted rather then earned. That the community allowed the individual to acquire his property, thus it is not his but the communities. That may run in line with a socialist agenda, but it runs contrary to freedom and the individuals ability to own property. In other words, the foundation that built our country.

Love the quote from the President! Doesn't his quote really mean that if you aren't successful, it is your own fault? Turn it around. So the govt. built the Internet...concede that point, then why aren't every one Internet millionaires. Apparently everyone had a great teacher in their past...then why isn't everyone successful...clearly it's not societies fault. There were roads and bridges built...which EVERYONE has access to...so if a person doesn't take full advantage of them, who's fault is that?

@John Wilson -

"Obama, Warren, Hillary – It Takes A Village – et al are suggesting, and attempting to make the point, that we all live in a COMMUNITY and that we owe that COMMUNITY much more than most of us would ever like to admit."

Ummm... once again, you're forgetting that a community is made up of people and that the only reason that a community is successful is because people within the community contribute to its success. Some, such as business owners/leaders, contribute much more to the success of the community than others that live within it do. And then there the takers, who contribute nothing of value to the community.

You and the 'it takes a village' crowd believes that an individual owes their success to the community. Hoffa believes that in large part, the community owes its success to those shining stars that go above and beyond with the their contributions to the community. Without leaders, without initiators, without dreamers, without innovators, without risk takers, etc., a community is little more than a village full of idiots.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe until an individual proved it wrong. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat until an individual proved it wrong. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow if you wake up and start thinking for yourself!

JRH -

Since when did carrying water for the Republican Party = thinking for yourself?

You are indeed the Matrix...

@JRH...What makes one member of a community more valuable than the next? Businesses are necessary for only one part of the community. Other elements are equally necessary for a successful community. What about each product and compliant member; are they less important than others. How do you value each?

@Lyle -

Isn't that why we value individual liberty and have embraced an incentive based capitalistic, as opposed to a planned / controlled / centralized economy?

You make your own position within the community via your personal choices and decisions, which everyone in this country is free to do.

Without the shining stars, what would the community look like? And let's face it, the shining stars could be personally successful and self sufficient without the need for other's contributions. It's in the sharing that everyone is elevated, but it's the stars that end up giving the most at the end of the day, so why shouldn't they be justly rewarded for such disproportionate contribution? Certainly, the community needs the stars much more than it needs non-contributor takers. That's why capitalism has lead to the creation of the socio-economic classes.

We've all seen what happens when the mass of the community tries to make everyone in the community equal, haven't we?

@ Lyle,

While you do have a working understanding of Objectivism, your conclusions are flawed. Objectivism is a body of ideas. It is only "full in or full out" in the context its consistency as a whole system, but that does not affect the applicability of its separate conclusions.

The validity, applicability, and resulting benefits of the philosophy's principle that a political system must prohibit initiated force among men does not diminish if some men disagree on the underlying foundation of that principle. What diminishes is only the ability of those men to substantiate their position to others. The principle remains valid and unaffected by that.

The adoption of philosophies is a slow process, and even when dominant , they are never unanimously adopted. Furthermore, progress in the influence in a philosophy is not a matter of our species evolving, it is a matter of personal choices to think. The process begins with a philosopher, who influences an enthusiastic cadre of intellectuals who gain a following among influential people like teachers and politicians and business men, who influence their students, constituency, and employees, who influence relatives, especially their children, all of whom spread it throughout the culture in colloquial attitudes and platitudes. Only the tiniest minority of these will ever actually understand the dominant philosophy or that it is the source of their contemporary culture and the reason people feel and act the way they do.

@Michael Clendenin Miller....If one looks at humanity on a continuum of adaptation to the physical environment, then if and only if the conditions are overwhelmingly advantageous to all, will humanity be able to adopt such a system based on Objectivism. Your claim along with claims made by other Randites that the population can be educated into accepting such a system, ignores other fundamental elements of what comprises a human being and undermines the rational, moral and ethical. Other human elements include stupidity, greed, envy, religion, and selective perception. Without all agents being fully capable of morally and ethically engaging, then the system cannot work and the rational agent will be forced to protect themselves from the unethical agent. For example: using free markets; a free market only works as long as each agent voluntarily adheres to rationality, morality and ethics. If one of the agents does not, then the system immediately breaks down and the one not observing the ethical process becomes an evil agent and victimizes the moral and ethical agent. Most often this would occur for a short term benefit and undermines the entire system. Once the system is broken by a negative experience causing mistrust, then it cannot survive. The only way to assure that all agents remain moral and ethical is that there will be immediate and sure negative consequences. (continued)

@Michael Clendenin Miller...(continued) The question is who or what will assure honest exchanges and value? Who would or could levy a negative consequence on the dishonest agent? What would the nature of that consequence be?

I still maintain that the problems of philosophical application makes the philosophy impractical. To make it viable, the least of humans would have to be capable of without coercion. We are clearly not there yet and probably never will be. Since all utopian systems are impractical, and this is clearly a utopian idea, then it isn't worth pursuing at this time. The environment must change first.

@Lyle,

The primary question for a philosophy is not practical or impractical. It is right or wrong. If it is right, it is practical. It is absurd to suggest that failing unanimity, one should pursue an irrational ethics/politics on the grounds that it would be more practical. Objectivists do not wait to start living by the philosophy until they get others to go along with it. As I have indicated, one pursues a rational philosophy in order to cope with a world of irrational men. It is to the extent that men choose to live by Objectivism that the culture will change.

The Founding Fathers integrated Enlightenment philosophy into the government they formed without waiting for unanimity. Throughout its history there have been countless "agents" who have not adhered to the expected "rationality, morality, and ethics." But as long as they acted so in private and did not apply force to it, they remained free to do so. If they did use force the government followed the dictates of the Constitution and kept the free market open. You do not need unanimity. You only need agreement of the dominant portion of the population. In an Objectivist dominated society is they who will assure that value exchanges are voluntary. While it is immoral (and impossible) for anyone to coerce men to be rational, it is not immoral to coerce them to abstain from initiating force. Since we already do that successfully in most instances, all we need to do is extend that to all instances.

John, I suggest that the Constitution was set up with a checks-and-balance system so that the pace of change is deliberate, not precipitous. I believe that's because the Founders understood human nature--that there would always be influence peddling, etc. (Wasn't the nation's first "smoke-filled room" over the election of John Adams?)

The basic tenets of the Constitution are sound, I believe. What we need are elected officials who are more interested in service and not in lining their own nests and preparing for post-career lecture and consulting gigs.

Bren –

“The basic tenets of the Constitution are sound…” To that I have to say, I agree. Not to be stubborn or unusually obstinate, however, I still think – as opposed to all the FEELING folks on this blog, who feel this way and that way – that it is an inefficient and ineffectual document as a whole. Again, it is all that we have to work with…

Further, as Americans, we would be loath to even look at other nations Constitutions – even as an academic exercise – to sort of look for “best practices” or even elements that might pique our curiosity. After all, if it doesn’t come from America, well, it just isn’t any good.

Corporations have embraced a “World View” and because of that they are making $$$ at an unprecedented rate. [Not that $$$ should be our sole metric for judging a society or nation] Individuals in America are so tied to their county, state and the folly of American Exceptionalism, that, in the end, they really see nothing… every country in the world thinks that they are Exceptional…