Recent content by Ben2008

It's a pathetic thing for Nader to say. Here we are trying to put race behind us, but Nader is making an issue out of it by using the racism-charged "Uncle Tom" terminology.

It depends on each individual who supports it to decide why they support it and if that support is justified. I support it because it allows me to accumulate wealth without limit through the application of my own labor and creativity by producing things of value. I would expect others to support...

It doesn't matter. If God gives you the "right" to something, it's irrelevant if you don't have the liberty to exercise that "right." So in the end, all that matters is that you secure from freedom for yourself, whether you have a "right" to it or not. I don't have to justify to myself my desire...

What do you mean? Rothbard's metaethics are basically the same as Rand's. Rothbard justfies anarcho-capitalism on the basis that he thinks anarcho-capitalism is most compatible with man's nature in order for him to live and prosper. The end justifies the means again.

Of course the ends justify the means. Read some Ayn Rand. That which is good is that which works toward nourishing and sustaining life. That which is bad is that which works against it. Morality is nothing more than that. That's not "moral relativism" though. What works is not contingent upon my...

No, because big government would come a lot slower. The key is just to set up whatever system allows as much freedom to exist for as long as possible.

You're right. What makes something good is that it works. Drinking poison is not good, for no other reason than it kills you. Capitalism is good because it provides prosperity. Communism is bad because it brings poverty. Consequences are the ultimate consideration for determine what is good or...

Borrow money, and get in on the next bubble. Then bail out and take your profit before it collapses. I've got a $300,000 credit line here looking for what the next bubble will be. Apparently this is what the government wants, I'm not going to sit out of an opportunity to make money.

It makes perfect sense for him not to attend. A candidate should not debate people that are very much lower in the polls than he is. That only popularizes them and gives them an opportunity to take votes away from him. It doesn't make political sense. It would only make sense for Barr to debate...

Whoever is the lesser of two evils can be outweighed by the benefit of having different parties controlled the Legislative and Executive branch. The same party controlling both is very dangerous.

Don't call me a liar. My conscience tells me to do whatever has the best consequences for the country in the pursuit of freedom. Your conscience tells you to only vote someone if you agree with them 100%, apparently, regardless of the consequences no matter how horrific. I contend that my...

Simply because McCain is a Republican and Congress is controlled by Democrats. The worst situation is to have both parties in control of both branches, where there is no check and balance. Dr. Paul pointed out today the benefit of McCain over Obama winning the presidency...

Vote McCain in order to buy time to turn the country around. Like you said, an Obama win would send us on a path of no return into true socialism. You say you want to vote your conscience. My conscience tells me to vote for McCain, even though there are others that I agree with much more...

"Vote for principle" means nothing unless you define what that principle is. What is your principle? Voting for evil is not irrational if doing so prevents a greater evil from happening. What's rational about allowing an attrocity to happen if you could have helped prevent it. Again, I think...

If Hitler and Clinton were running against each other, you wouldn't vote for Clinton because he's a lesser evil. This is the problem with you people who refuse to vote for a lesser evil. Due to your fear of getting your hands dirty, you allow greater evil to happen when it could have been...