Column: You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus

[AceNZ]

lol Ayn Rand also believed in free-will, but believing in free-will requires MORE faith than believing in God since there's much more scientific evidence against free-will than God

So anyone who believes in free-will would've ruined all the "belief without evidence" arguments as the reason for not believing in God....

Care to cite any of this so-called "evidence"?

Oh, and if free will doesn't exist, then isn't this discussion pointless? A lack of free will means that life is deterministic; that things "just happen." How did you write your post? How are you reading my response? What purpose could any discussion possibly serve without the ability to choose?

Anyone can prove to themselves that free will exists. Just look inward (introspection). Did you make a choice?

 

[Krugerrand]

Care to cite any of this so-called "evidence"?

Oh, and if free will doesn't exist, then isn't this discussion pointless? A lack of free will means that life is deterministic; that things "just happen." How did you write your post? How are you reading my response? What purpose could any discussion possibly serve without the ability to choose?

Anyone can prove to themselves that free will exists. Just look inward (introspection). Did you make a choice?

Not wanting to put words in anybody's post ... I'd guess genetic predisposition would be a big one.

 

[Jim Casey]

Not wanting to put words in anybody's post ... I'd guess genetic predisposition would be a big one.

there are moves under way to unzip those genes.

 

[low preference guy]

Care to cite any of this so-called "evidence"?

Oh, and if free will doesn't exist, then isn't this discussion pointless? A lack of free will means that life is deterministic; that things "just happen." How did you write your post? How are you reading my response? What purpose could any discussion possibly serve without the ability to choose?

Anyone can prove to themselves that free will exists. Just look inward (introspection). Did you make a choice?

The funniest thing from my pov is the implication of his argument that you and I are arguing for the existence of free will automatically.

 

[jmdrake]

I must not understand the Christian concept of love. Can you explain what this really means?

In my world, to love someone means to admire them as a result of shared values; to value them. An enemy would be someone who holds conflicting values, who I condemn and despise. They are two contradictory concepts. This also means that it's impossible to live this way in a consistent fashion; to do so invites death.

In concrete terms, if someone seriously threatened my wife's life, and I were to then tell her that I loved that person anyway, she would be rightfully repulsed, and likely throw me out on my ear. If she didn't, and I invited him in, she would end up dead.

Maybe a personal example can help. My dad used to beat my mom. (I'm being serious here). I still love him even though I know he was wrong for that. While he doesn't do that anymore, if he was threatening my mom I would do what I needed to do to stop him. That doesn't mean I don't love him. My kids sometimes fight each other. (Boys do that). I love both of them. I'm not going to let one of them hurt the other. I'll go even further. I'm not going to let one of them hurt a stranger. Why would I do that? Would I be showing love to my child by letting him do something stupid that could get him hurt or killed or put in prison? So applying that to your example, it would not be love for the stranger to allow him in to hurt your wife. Let's say the stranger called your wife a bitch and she went in the house to get a gun to shoot him. Love for your wife should cause to to restrain her from doing that. Why allow her to needlessly throw her life away over an insult?

Again, how does that work in the Christian sense?

Everyone having value? Because in the Christian sense God called us to try to reach everyone. Everyone you meed is a potential new brother in Christ. From a political standpoint everyone you meet is a potential new Ron Paul voter.

In my world, for someone to have value, there must also be someone doing the valuing. If a person is threatening my life, or the lives of those close to me, they have no value to me. In fact, they would be an anti-value, because of their desire to destroy those who I do value. I suppose they might have value to someone, perhaps as a child/parent/friend, but why should that matter to me? Anyone who supports or encourages someone who is an enemy of mine would also be an enemy.

The whole "friend of my enemy is my enemy" nonsense? So the doctor who patches up the man you shot while he was trying to kill you is now your enemy? That's what has our foreign policy so screwed up. We're running around picking friends and enemies and deciding who's today's biggest enemy. Al Qaeda in Libya is our "friend" because our government had declared Qaddafi our "enemy". Contrast that with the founding father's principles of "Friendship and honest trade with all and entangling alliances with none." Being friends with everyone doesn't mean you can defend yourself. Sometimes you have to defend yourself from your friends. But when the immediate threat is over, it's over.

It's surprising how often people bring this example up. It happens so often that Ayn Rand wrote a chapter about it in one of her books. What your question brings to mind for me is similar to what it brought up for her:

Why is it surprising? Doing a Google search on Ayn Rand and altruism brings this up on the first page. If she didn't use the example, and if her supporters didn't use it I wouldn't bring it up.

Regardless, here's what she said regarding the case you brought up:

"To illustrate this on the altruists' favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one's own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one's own life no higher than that of a random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one's sake, remembering that one's life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)

If the person is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person's value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, the one can be willing to give one's own life to save him or her -- for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable."

Yes. That's just what I read. I'm not sure what your point is in retelling it. I haven't misrepresented her views.

I'm confused about the Christian version of events with regard to Jesus' death. Wasn't he killed -- you know, nailed to the cross and all that? And wasn't one of the cries of the Christians from the middle ages about "the Jews killed Jesus"? So he didn't voluntarily give his life, did he? If that's right, how can he have been said to have died for others?

The Christian teaching is that Jesus could have escaped at any time but chose not to. In fact the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemene was "Father if it be thy will, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless not my will but thine be done." In John 10:15 Jesus said "I lay down My life for My sheep". As for what some Christians said during the middle ages, and some may say today, that has no bearing on what the Bible actually teaches. The core of Christianity is John 3:16.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[jmdrake]

It seems difficult to me to love those who hate you without hating yourself. If you're indifferent to the fact he is willing to destroy you, that would show that you don't love yourself.

Why do you think love = indifference to danger? Jesus said "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves". Look at it another way. Say if you were a wild animal photographer. You loved your work and you loved the lions that you photographed. One day you found yourself by accident in between a lion and its kill. Does the fact that you realize the lion is willing to kill you if you don't get out of the way or take some other precaution mean that you are at that point incapable of loving the lion?

 

[jmdrake]

Care to cite any of this so-called "evidence"?

Oh, and if free will doesn't exist, then isn't this discussion pointless? A lack of free will means that life is deterministic; that things "just happen." How did you write your post? How are you reading my response? What purpose could any discussion possibly serve without the ability to choose?

Anyone can prove to themselves that free will exists. Just look inward (introspection). Did you make a choice?

I believe in free will. But many scientists do not. That includes atheist scientists. For more on the debate see:

http://www.philosophicalturn.net/intro/Freedom/Churchland_Free_Will.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...3PTbNK_zqiTderIhYDY_1T-Zs#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles/Wolfe-Sorry-But-Your-Soul-Just-Died.php

 

[low preference guy]

Why do you think love = indifference to danger? Jesus said "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves". Look at it another way. Say if you were a wild animal photographer. You loved your work and you loved the lions that you photographed. One day you found yourself by accident in between a lion and its kill. Does the fact that you realize the lion is willing to kill you if you don't get out of the way or take some other precaution mean that you are at that point incapable of loving the lion?

Humans have free will. Somebody willfully hating and wanting to destroy you is different from an animal who doesn't choose anything.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm reposting, censored according to the moderator's guidelines.

I stand corrected.

How much do you know about Islamic tradition and law, including their attitude toward women?

It's not really different from Judaic tradition and law and least according to the Torah. But the Jews did not have their own country until modern times. Anyway, apparently you are unaware of the fact that not all Palestinians are even Islamic. And you're sounding like a neocon at this point. Which might explain why neocons are loving Ayn Rand. Collectively hating Arabs is more important to them then loving Christ apparently.

I didn't hear that quote in the clip you posted.

Fine. Must have been a different clip. In this one she talked about them "murdering women and children" and said "that's what I have against the Arabs" as if all Arabs murdered women and children and the Jewish IDF never did.

Even so, don't the Palestinians teach their children that Israel has no right to exist, and should be destroyed? Don't they name public squares after suicide bombers, and generally treat them as martyrs? Are you saying you support a society like that?

Do they all teach their children that? No. They do not. And when you start talking about "they" and "them" you become a collectivist. I thought libertarians were supposed to be individualists? I guess not. Contrast Ayn Rand with Ron Paul.



While your at it, see this video of Palestinian parents trying to enroll their daughter in a Jewish daycare.



Do you think they were doing that just so she could blow them up?

What she says before that quote sets the context:

"No, I don't resort to terrorism; I don't go around murdering my opponents, innocent women and children. That is what I have against the Arabs. That takes the conflict out of the sphere of civilized conflict and makes it murderous. And anyone who -- private citizens -- who resort to force, is a monster, and that's what makes me condemn and despise them."

So, it's the use of force that she was against.

Except she doesn't say she only despises those who use force. She despises the entire group. That's the problem. Really, what in your mind is different from her view towards Arabs and the neocon view?

So because she's against the use of force, and in favor of a culture that is bringing advanced technology to the region, she's suddenly a rabid Zionist? I'm certain that if asked, she would have thoroughly rejected Israel's near-theocratic political system.

I'm only going by what she said and not by your sanitized version of what she said. And I won't speculate on what she might have said about a question she wasn't asked.

She called anyone who uses force a monster. In the context she presented, I would have to agree.

Except for some odd reason she's oblivious to the force used by the Jewish state and those who set it up against their enemies. Google Irgun King David Hotel for more on that.

A more interesting question is why you apparently don't.

I take the Ron Paul position on seeing people as individuals and not as groups. A more interesting question is why apparently you don't.

 

[jmdrake]

Humans have free will. Somebody willfully hating and wanting to destroy you is different from an animal who doesn't choose anything.

Koko the gorilla chose a kitten for her birthday so I don't think your "animals don't choose anything" assertion is correct. Regardless whether or not you can simultaneously love something or someone and protect yourself from danger isn't dependent on if that someone or something has free will. If a person is trying to kill you because he has an insane delusion or if that person is trying to kill you because he's in a jealous rage you still have the same need to protect yourself.

 

[low preference guy]

Koko the gorilla chose a kitten for her birthday so I don't think your "animals don't choose anything" assertion is correct. Regardless whether or not you can simultaneously love something or someone and protect yourself from danger isn't dependent on if that someone or something has free will. If a person is trying to kill you because he has an insane delusion or if that person is trying to kill you because he's in a jealous rage you still have the same need to protect yourself.

I can't conceive anyone loving people who want to destroy them without hating themselves.

 

[jmdrake]

I can't conceive anyone loving people who want to destroy them without hating themselves.

Do you recognize the man on the right?

 

[AceNZ]

Not wanting to put words in anybody's post ... I'd guess genetic predisposition would be a big one.

How does genetic predisposition take the place of free will? Free will only applies when there is actually an alternative.

So applying that to your example, it would not be love for the stranger to allow him in to hurt your wife. Let's say the stranger called your wife a bitch and she went in the house to get a gun to shoot him. Love for your wife should cause to to restrain her from doing that. Why allow her to needlessly throw her life away over an insult?

How should a Christian show love toward a stranger who is threatening to kill his wife?

Everyone having value? Because in the Christian sense God called us to try to reach everyone. Everyone you meed is a potential new brother in Christ.

Why do you care if they are a new potential brother in Christ? Why is that a value to you? And do you value that more than your own life? Because that would seem to be the cost in some situations.

So the doctor who patches up the man you shot while he was trying to kill you is now your enemy?

Yes, because the doctor enables my enemy to return to the battlefield to try to kill me again.

Contrast that with the founding father's principles of "Friendship and honest trade with all and entangling alliances with none."

The early Americans also understood than they needed to respond when pirates were raiding ships in the early 1800's -- so they weren't friends with everyone.

Why is it surprising?

Because it's immaterial to living your everyday life. As I showed in the quote I referenced, Ayn Rand only mentioned it only because it was a frequent question from people who opposed Objectivism.

The Christian teaching is that Jesus could have escaped at any time but chose not to.

I see.

I believe in free will. But many scientists do not. That includes atheist scientists. For more on the debate see:

I looked at those references. None of them describe any scientific evidence against free will. It's either pseudo-science or an evasion of what free will is. As I said above, free will only applies when there is actually an alternative. Another way to look at it is that at a fundamental level free will is really the same as reason.

There are philosophies that deny the existence of free will -- variants of determinism. But to say they are backed by science is not correct. To use science and to understand it both require free will.

 

[AceNZ]

Except she doesn't say she only despises those who use force. She despises the entire group.

That's not how I interpreted what she said.

Really, what in your mind is different from her view towards Arabs and the neocon view?

The neocon view is that we should attack and destroy people just because of their views.

The Objectivist view is that we should interact with each other primarily as traders. However, when an individual, or a representative of some country or culture, announces that they are committed to your destruction, and then takes actions in that direction, then you should believe them, and defend yourself.

Except for some odd reason she's oblivious to the force used by the Jewish state and those who set it up against their enemies.

This is getting back to speculation, which I thought you wanted to avoid. They didn't have the Internet back then; maybe she bought the popular press at the time. Who knows?

I take the Ron Paul position on seeing people as individuals and not as groups. A more interesting question is why apparently you don't.

There is a difference between talking about attributes of a group and how you treat individuals. In spite of the generalities I've mentioned, I have always treated every Arab I've met as an individual. But that doesn't mean that I haven't noticed that they are Arab, or that most Arabs have a culture, and a religion. But I don't assume that the culture and religion apply to every Arab I meet. I don't prejudge. My (white) mother married a black man as her second husband in the late 1960's. Trust me when I say that I understand what it's like to be prejudged.

 

[jmdrake]

How does genetic predisposition take the place of free will? Free will only applies when there is actually an alternative.

If the human brain is actually a deterministic electro biochemical computer then there is no free will. That said we don't know for certain if the brain is merely a deterministic biochemical computer. We don't know for certain how the brain works. Scientists have done studies to show that when someone is told to raise his arm whenever he's ready, the action potential for raising the arm fires before the consciousness registers the "decision" to raise the arm. But that signal can be interrupted. Some scientist hypothesize that there is no free will but perhaps a free "won't".

How should a Christian show love toward a stranger who is threatening to kill his wife?

How should a Christian show love to a father who is beating his mother?

Why do you care if they are a new potential brother in Christ? Why is that a value to you? And do you value that more than your own life? Because that would seem to be the cost in some situations.

Why do you think that in order to defend yourself from an aggressor you have to hate the aggressor?

Yes, because the doctor enables my enemy to return to the battlefield to try to kill me again.

Most civilized nations treat wounded enemies. So if you were in the military would you kill your own medic because you saw him treating the enemy? And can't you keep an enemy from getting back to the battlefield without killing him? If you kill all of your prisoners who do you interrogate for more intelligence? Also if you kill all of your prisoners then who do you use for a prisoner exchange later? I suppose if everybody follows your values there will be no prisoners to exchange so it doesn't matter?

The early Americans also understood than they needed to respond when pirates were raiding ships in the early 1800's -- so they weren't friends with everyone.

Again, dealing with an immediate threat is not the same as hate. And it's certainly not the same as the position Ayn Rand took of "Choosing Israel over the Arabs". The Palestinians haven't attacked us. And has Ron Paul has pointed, the attacks on 9/11 (if you believe the official report) were in response to our ill advised intervention.

Really, Ayn Rand lost me when she gave an ill advised answer to the question "Who's side should we be on?" It's none of our business. Really it's not. I think deep down you know that's true, but you feel duty bound to defend and indefensible position because it's Ayn Rand making it. Applying everything Ayn Rand said to the conflict between the Soviet Union and the Mujahadeen you would be left with we should have been siding with the Soviets. After all the Soviets were more technologically advanced. Some of the Mujahadeen did engage in terrorist tactics. The followed the same Islamic religion that you've criticized for its treatment of women. Our country sided with the Mujahadeen (we actually instigated the Mujahadeen before the Soviet invasion to get the Soviets to invade) based on the "enemy of my enemy" calculus you seem fond of. Look where it got us? We should have minded our own business. We should mind our own business when it comes to the middle east. If there's a direct threat the we aren't inviting we should deal with it. If we are inviting a threat we should quit inviting it.

Why is it surprising

Because it's immaterial to living your everyday life. As I showed in the quote I referenced, Ayn Rand only mentioned it only because it was a frequent question from people who opposed Objectivism.

You're being illogical. Ayn Rand used and example to show her position on altruism. I tried to find out Ayn Rand's position on altruism and found the example. I didn't make it up. The fact that she was bringing it up because people opposed to Objectivism used it is irrelevant.

I looked at those references. None of them describe any scientific evidence against free will. It's either pseudo-science or an evasion of what free will is. As I said above, free will only applies when there is actually an alternative. Another way to look at it is that at a fundamental level free will is really the same as reason.

Or option 3. Maybe you don't understand science as well as you think you do. If you're unaware of the debate in the psychological community on whether or not we have free will then you're not fully informed. The first article you read talked about a man who had a compulsive desire to molest his child. When a tumor was removed the compulsion went away. When it grew back it came back. That's not "psuedo science" whether you think it is or not. But if you want to read a paper that's in a higher impact journal here's one.

http://www.mjlst.umn.edu/uploads/Bw/X3/BwX3cMQ1zUuf4fB3ZV1e7g/111_erickson.pdf

For more scientific papers on the matter go here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term="free will" illusion

Again I believe we have free will. But I'm at least aware that this is being debated in neuroscience.

 

[jmdrake]

That's not how I interpreted what she said.

How you interpreted what she said is different from what she said.

The neocon view is that we should attack and destroy people just because of their views.

Beliefs have nothing to do with the neocon view in reality. If they did we wouldn't now be at war with Gaddafi on behalf of Al Qaeda.

The Objectivist view is that we should interact with each other primarily as traders. However, when an individual, or a representative of some country or culture, announces that they are committed to your destruction, and then takes actions in that direction, then you should believe them, and defend yourself.

And when did the Palestinians announce their intention to destroy the United States? Even if you want to go with (CIA asset) Osama Bin Laden, he's not Palestinian and he was unknown to Ayn Rand. Here were the themes in Ayn Rand's statements:

1) We should side with Israel
2) The Arabs are backwards and barbaric
3) The Arabs are killing women and children

I may have missed a few. Anyway, that could have been a Herman Cain speech on why we should send more money to Israel for building settlements. (Yes I know Rand was probably against foreign aid, but she made the same moral case that someone like Cain who supports foreign aid would use for extra aid to Israel).

The Ron Paul view (my understanding of it anyway) is that it's none of our business.

Oh, and using Ayn's logic, we should have sided with the Soviet Union against the Mujahadeen. Everything applies. The Soviets were more technologically advanced. Some of the Mujahadeen used terrorism. The Mujahadeen were Muslim. Some of them believed in oppressing women.

This is getting back to speculation, which I thought you wanted to avoid. They didn't have the Internet back then; maybe she bought the popular press at the time. Who knows?

How is that getting to speculation? I said she was oblivious. I didn't say why she was oblivious. I didn't say she was willfully oblivious. That said, there was an alternative press back then even though there was no Internet.

There is a difference between talking about attributes of a group and how you treat individuals. In spite of the generalities I've mentioned, I have always treated every Arab I've met as an individual. But that doesn't mean that I haven't noticed that they are Arab, or that most Arabs have a culture, and a religion. But I don't assume that the culture and religion apply to every Arab I meet. I don't prejudge. My (white) mother married a black man as her second husband in the late 1960's. Trust me when I say that I understand what it's like to be prejudged.

I wasn't talking about your personal views as much as Ayn's. Anyway, here's the problem with "group attributes". They sometimes blind you to the truth. Did you watch the "Imagine" speech from Ron Paul I posted? He said to imagine how people in this country might react if we were occupied by the Chinese military. His point was to get people to use that to try to understand how our occupations might radicalize people in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Well if you can imagine that and understand blowback against the U.S. then you should be able to understand the same thing when applied to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. But if you think it's all because most Palestinians teach their children to blow themselves up then you'll be blinded to that fact.

 

[AceNZ]

If the human brain is actually a deterministic electro biochemical computer then there is no free will. That said we don't know for certain if the brain is merely a deterministic biochemical computer. We don't know for certain how the brain works.

The brain is not a deterministic biochemical computer. We can know that even without fully understanding how the brain works.

How should a Christian show love to a father who is beating his mother?

I don't know. I couldn't do that. I could imagine you have some shared values with your father, but then feelings aren't supposed to be part of love in the Christian sense, right?

Why do you think that in order to defend yourself from an aggressor you have to hate the aggressor?

Hate isn't really the right word. I would say that I have to judge and denounce my aggressor, and not take actions that are good for him.

Most civilized nations treat wounded enemies. So if you were in the military would you kill your own medic because you saw him treating the enemy?

If my medics are treating the enemy, then those wounded will be removed from the field of battle, and no longer be a threat. That's different than having an enemy doctor treat the enemy.

Again, dealing with an immediate threat is not the same as hate.

Agree.

And it's certainly not the same as the position Ayn Rand took of "Choosing Israel over the Arabs". The Palestinians haven't attacked us.

The Palestinians haven't attacked us directly, but they have attacked our friends and allies, Israel.

Really, Ayn Rand lost me when she gave an ill advised answer to the question "Who's side should we be on?" It's none of our business. Really it's not. I think deep down you know that's true, but you feel duty bound to defend and indefensible position because it's Ayn Rand making it.

There's a difference between explaining what Ayn Rand said and agreeing with her. I don't agree with everything she ever said.

However, in this context, I do think it's our business as long as Israel is our friend and ally. Really, it is. Now, should Israel continue to be a friend and ally? I suspect so, but I'm open to discussing it. I don't claim to be an expert of any kind on the Middle East, so I'm sure there's lots that I don't know.

Applying everything Ayn Rand said to the conflict between the Soviet Union and the Mujahadeen you would be left with we should have been siding with the Soviets. After all the Soviets were more technologically advanced.

Being more technologically advanced by itself isn't enough. You also need to consider the larger context: for example, were those advancements obtained without violating other principles and virtues?

In addition, a number of Soviet leaders stood up and said that they sought the destruction of the US, and they took action along those lines. Personally, I would have advocated a more direct solution to that problem, rather than fighting through proxies such as Afghanistan. I agree in principle with the idea of standing up for ourselves and our way of life, but I do not agree with what was done regarding giving support to the Mujahadeen.

Our country sided with the Mujahadeen (we actually instigated the Mujahadeen before the Soviet invasion to get the Soviets to invade) based on the "enemy of my enemy" calculus you seem fond of.

I am not fond of the enemy of my enemy calculus at all. That's neocon talk, not mine.

If there's a direct threat the we aren't inviting we should deal with it. If we are inviting a threat we should quit inviting it.

I agree with this, although I suspect we might disagree on the nature of what it means for something to be a direct threat.

If you're unaware of the debate in the psychological community on whether or not we have free will then you're not fully informed.

I'm aware of the debate. The psychological community almost entirely rejects the idea of free will, but that doesn't make them right.

The deeper debate is philosophical. Intrinsicism, for example, holds that truth is available automatically, as in through sense perception, so free will is not required. Here's a link to an article with a useful perspective:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/science/22tier.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

Also, as I understand it, don't Catholics believe in free will, while Protestants believe in determinism? If so, that's an interesting dichotomy.

The first article you read talked about a man who had a compulsive desire to molest his child. When a tumor was removed the compulsion went away. When it grew back it came back. That's not "psuedo science" whether you think it is or not.

That's not pseudo-science, but it is a misunderstanding of the meaning of free will. Free will only exists when there is an alternative. Non-human animals, for example, don't have an alternative; they act directly from percepts, without exercising reason. With humans, it is possible to remove alternatives, for example by torture or disease. The article discussed disease (a tumor); it has nothing to do with free will.

 

[AceNZ]

And when did the Palestinians announce their intention to destroy the United States?

Do the words "friend and ally" mean nothing to you? Israel is a friend and ally. Announcements of an intent to destroy a friend and ally should mean something to us.

The Ron Paul view (my understanding of it anyway) is that it's none of our business.

I don't understand RP's view well enough to comment. My view is that the US should not provide foreign aid to either side, and that we should denounce the initiation of force when and where it occurs, regardless of who initiates it, and we should support acts of self-defense. That doesn't mean that we would have to stop being Israel's friend and ally.

I believe that US intervention with Israel has very likely impaired their ability to fully defend themselves and to bring peace to the region. I believe I once heard RP say something similar. However, by withdrawing this kind of support, we should also understand and accept that the likelihood of Israel using nukes to defend itself would increase.

How is that getting to speculation?

Because you said "for some odd reason..." I have no idea of knowing what that reason could be, or what her thinking was when she didn't mention those things. Saying she was oblivious is speculation.

I wasn't talking about your personal views as much as Ayn's. Anyway, here's the problem with "group attributes". They sometimes blind you to the truth.

Yes, they can. But they don't have to. In many aspects of life, observing one aspect of something and ignoring others can lead to problems. Being fully conscious, rational and objective can help avoid those problems.

Did you watch the "Imagine" speech from Ron Paul I posted?

Yes, I've seen it many times.

Well if you can imagine that and understand blowback against the U.S. then you should be able to understand the same thing when applied to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. But if you think it's all because most Palestinians teach their children to blow themselves up then you'll be blinded to that fact.

Who said anything about why some Palestinians are doing what they're doing? I agree with the whole blowback concept. It works two ways, though: the Palestinians are also the ones who started the 1967 war, not the Israelis.

The point here wasn't why some Palestinians are being violent, it was that it was happening in the first place, with the explicit support of their leaders and communities.

Or are you saying that you support and encourage Palestinian violence? What, in your view, should Israel be doing differently?

 

[low preference guy]

FWIW, I like reading Ayn Rand a lot, and agree with her on most philosophical issues.

I however believe that in some cases she didn't apply her explicit principles correctly. I disagree with some of her foreign policy views. I agree with her opposition against getting involved in WWI, Vietnam, and Korea, but I definitely think the U.S. government shouldn't do anything about the middle east, or any other part of the world that isn't an imminent thread to the security of the United States. However, if individuals want to help, they should be able to send money or support anyone they want in any way.

Another disagreement I have when it comes to foreign policy is her suggestion to fight the Soviet Union with embargoes. The U.S. didn't need to fight the Soviet Union, because communism doesn't work and ends on its own.

 

[abolitionist]

How is Ayn Rand "the new darling of the Republican party"?

Ayn Rand demolished collectivism as a workable ideology in Atlas Shrugged and was a proponent of the libertarian philosophy of Objectivism.

Thus, the american left hates her beyond all reason. They will use any excuse they can make up to beat up on her, and to attempt to hang her around republican necks so that they can beat up republicans (even though the modern republican party is as far from Objectivism as the democrats.)

They are so afraid of the truth of what she said that they absolutely refuse to even mention Objectivism or Atlas Shrugged-- lest someone take the "we're liberals, we read books" idea seriously and actually read the book.

Whenever you find someone arguing against Ayn Rand-- a woman who has been dead for 3 decades-- rather than the philosophy-- you've found someone whose expressing collectivist prejudice.

Libertarians have nothing to fear from Ayn Rand, Objectivism or Atlas Shrugged, and a great deal to gain.

However, if individuals want to help, they should be able to send money or support anyone they want in any way.

I don't think Rand opposed this. I can find nothing in objectivism that would stop you from, if you felt that innocent people were being threatened, to putting your own life or money at risk defending them.

I think the error that many people make- including many libertarians-- is in feeling that because innocent people are threatened, that creates a right for some collective (like a government) to use violence (in the form of taxes, or conscription, or sending military off on a war that isn't defending the country from an invader) to go defend them.