NoodleFoodlers (E-mail) | Recent Comments NoodleCaboodle (Info) | Archives | Blogroll RSS Feed (Via E-mail) | OList.com Coalition for Secular Government | FIRM
A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!

Monday, September 01, 2008 Individual Rights Should be Cornerstone of Change By Gina Liggett @ 2:27 PM Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi wrote an editorial critical of the anti-capitalist Democrats at the DNC. I wrote the following letter-to-the-editor that was published in the Sunday Denver Post. (And the editors gave it such a lovely title, "Individual rights should be the cornerstone of change.") Bravo on David Harsanyi's column, "In Denver, the end of capitalism." The Democrats evade the truth of how the wealth they expropriate is created. They hijack the word, "investment," to justify the legalized stealing of earned income to pay for their "solutions." To the Democrats who want to lead America, we are nothing more than some group with needs: "underserved," "women," "employers," "seniors," "the corrupt," "the bankrupt," etc. There is no mention of the fact that we are individuals--and that the pursuit of one's own life and happiness is the foundation of our rights in this country. Freedom, individual rights, and property rights should be the cornerstone of what the U.S. needs to move forward. I have a new slogan for the Democrats: "Change for America: the immolation of the individual in service to others." Another reader, Sukumar Vijaraghavan, also wrote a letter. It is so rabidly anti-capitalist that it makes me wonder why the reader doesn't move to Cuba and become Michael Moore's roommate in one of Havana's public housing projects. But I got the last word between the two letters, so HA HA! Labels: Activism, Politics   E-mail Gina Liggett    PermaLink ()    Comments [38] (New Page)

Comments on "Individual Rights Should be Cornerstone of Change"
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 15:56:32 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: jgb Can you please clarify whether this series of postings criticizing Obama and the Democrats means that you are supporting McCain?
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 16:23:37 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail jgb - is the suggestion here that one cannot legitimately criticize Democrats without being FOR Republicans or criticize Republicans without being FOR Democrats? Why does pointing out that the Dems are wrong in the identified respects require 'clarification' of one's support for Reps? Would that make the identified facts any less real?
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 16:30:26 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: Gina Liggett E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net jgb, No it does NOT mean I'm for McCain. I just haven't gotten there yet because the DNC occurred first. BELIEVE ME, I will have something to say about McCain. And I totally agree with BrianS. What's so pathetic is that we have such lousy options this election.
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 16:36:32 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: jgb I asked this as a *question*, specifically because I agree that criticism of Democrats does not have to mean endorsement of the Republicans. I was curious, however. And I very much agree with Gina's comment that we have very lousy options this election.
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 16:44:53 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: jgb BrianS-- I don't repudiate what I replied, either... but I forgot, you think we should vote for the religious right, rather than the "environmentalists/liberals". Cute. Don't expect me to vote for the McCain-Jesus Christ ticket.
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 17:02:25 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail jgb - actually, I suggest no such thing. So the only "cute" thing here is your straw man.
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 17:09:16 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: jgb Huh, BrianS. I know your history here on NoodleFood.
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 17:17:51 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail jgb - given what you present as my position, I must dispute that which you claim to "know".
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 17:53:06 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: jgb Sadly comments from 2006 do not seem to be available on Diana's web site (or I would link to some suitable threads). In the fall of 2006, a person named "BrianS" chose to 'debate' those who support Leonard Peikoff's remarks on the 2006 election and those who agreed with the thesis of the book "Kingdom Coming". I will stipulate up front, that if you are not that person, I apologize for my earlier comments. On the other hand, if you are that person, the burden of proof lies with *you*, to demonstrate that your views have changed.
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 18:24:46 mst Comment ID: #10 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail jgb - I certainly did not agree with Dr. Peikoff and others that one should blindly vote for or against anyone based SOLELY on their party affiliation. But that is *not at all* the same as saying "we should vote for the religious right, rather than the "environmentalists/liberals". That's simply the opposite position of a FALSE ALTERNATIVE. *My* position was that one should NOT vote blindly in either direction, but should vote based on the individual politician's actual positions and premises - rewarding the more rational/secular and shunning the less rational/religious. And, so far, my position has NOT changed (meaning - contrary to your assertion - I have no "burden of proof" to meet here). It is unfortunate you apparently did not grasp my argument then, and that you have so grievously misrepresented it now. Suffice to say, what you claimed to "know" is not the truth but simply just a straw man (as I have already indicated).
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 18:46:03 mst Comment ID: #11 Name: Burgess Laughlin E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com Gina Liggett's letter to the editor mentions freedom, individual rights, and property rights. This led to think about the relationship among them. As I use the terms, they name these ideas: - "Freedom" is a political/social condition, one which results from respect for and protection of rights. (Freedom is the effect.) - "(Individual) rights" are, politically/socially, conditions that must exist for one to take action in order to survive and flourish as a volitional, rational animal--that is, for one to be moral. - The "right to property" is a _kind_ of (individual) right, one that is drawn from the most basic right, the right to life, without which the right to property (a concept of relationship) is meaningless. In summary, to tie them together, I would say politically I strive for freedom, which is a state of society in which my rights--such as my right to property--are respected. If this is not correct, then what _is_ the proper relationship between freedom, (individual) rights, and property rights?
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 18:50:29 mst Comment ID: #12 Name: jgb Yeah, BrianS. You also disputed the accuracy of "Kindom Coming", while never actually reading the book. Until/unless your past comments on NoodleFood are available online, I've said all I will say.
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 19:03:56 mst Comment ID: #13 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail Here is a thread from fall 2006 which shows my position at the time and reveals the straw stuffed into jgb's argument: http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/view.pl?entry=116213504243363585 One need merely do a 'find' on "Brian" to read my posts on that page. That should put to rest the nonsense being spouted about my position here. As to jgb's NEW claim about my 'disputing the accuracy of "Kingdom Coming"', I can only say his understanding of my position in that instance is as much a straw man as his previous claims here. Put simply, he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to my premises.
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 19:18:19 mst Comment ID: #14 Name: Paul Hsieh E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com URL: http://www.geekpress.com I'd like to echo Gina's comment about the lousy options we have this election. And I'd also like to re-post an excerpt from an astute observation that Kyle Haight (frequent NF commenter) once made on the Myrhaf blog: http://preview.tinyurl.com/6qrooj or http://myrhaf.blogspot.com/2008/05/another-day-at-circus-at-end-of- ... --- "I too will probably pick the lesser of two evils. Where I differ from xxx is in my assessment of which outcome is less evil. My political values are already defeated in this political cycle. All choices will launch massive assaults on freedom across a wide spectrum. But a McCain victory has broader ramifications. It isn't a choice between a totally socialist government and a slightly less socialist government. It's a choice between two parties whose orthodoxy is totally statist versus two parties one of which is totally statist and one of which is mixed." --- "The argument I see advanced in support of McCain is, in essence, that Obama is so bad that we have to focus on the short-term consequences of his election. My view is the opposite -- both candidates are so bad that we have to focus on the long-term, because the short-term is already lost."
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 19:32:30 mst Comment ID: #15 Name: jgb Paul -- dead on right!
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 20:17:57 mst Comment ID: #16 Name: Rob Abiera URL: http://moralitywar.blogspot.com Paul- I disagree with Mr Haight's assertion that "the short-term is already lost". As bad as both McCain and Obama are, the presidency is not the sole determining factor in judging the political situation in this country: the President does not enact laws, Congress does, and as long as free speech exists in this country it will remain possible to influence who gets elected to Congress as well as the laws Congress considers. This is not to minimize the impact the President can have, which is considerable, but it does need to be kept in context.
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 20:49:54 mst Comment ID: #17 Name: James Newport URL: http://www.jameskeith.net Gina, I thought your letter was really great! Well phrased and put together, to the essentials, and giving anyone who reads it a lot of subjects to think about.
	Monday, September 1, 2008 at 22:54:34 mst Comment ID: #18 Name: Kyle Haight E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/ With respect to Mr. Abiera's comments, I have one observation. The Democrats have already indicated a desire to abrogate political freedom of speech through a reenactment of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". Since they will almost certainly still control Congress after the election, I expect them to try this whether Obama or McCain is in the White House. Both Obama and McCain are hostile to political freedom of speech, and I wouldn't expect either one to oppose the Democrats in this attempt. However, with Obama in the White House, opponents of the Fairness Doctrine in Congress and the culture at large will be able to frame the issue as the left trying to censor its political opposition. With McCain in the White House, the censorship will be presented as a bipartisan attempt to 'clean up' politics, much as the McCain-Feingold law was, and will be much more difficult to prevent. My conclusion is that if one values political freedom of speech then one should not support McCain. More broadly, the point I was trying to make in my original comments on Myrhaf's blog was that as President McCain would automatically become the leader of the Republican party. The direction he would lead the party would reinforce its statist tendencies and undermine such pro-freedom impulses as remain, i.e. it would move us significantly towards a future in which both parties are totally statist. It isn't just what McCain would do politically as President; it's what he would do to the Republican party while leading it, and where that party would try to lead the rest of us afterwards.
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 1:32:22 mst Comment ID: #19 Name: Gina Liggett E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net Thanks, James. And an interesting question by Burgess regarding the issues of freedom, property rights and individual rights. Ayn Rand says that property rights is fundamental to a free society because without property rights there can be no other rights. This is because humans must create what they need to survive through a process of reason; it is not automatically obvious to us how to feed, clothe, house and defend ourselves. In order to survive we therefore adapt our environment to meet our requirements. Without the right to property and to benefit from the fruits of our labor on that property, we cannot properly survive. Individual rights include other rights such as what's spelled out in the Bill of Rights and cover broader areas of what actions are properly allowed in a society. I don't have my handy Ayn Rand reference to speak specifically on freedom, but it seems to be a general concept that means freedom to pursue one's rational self interest in a society without violating others' individual rights. I hope that helps.
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 8:23:30 mst Comment ID: #20 Name: Don Kenner E-mail: dbkenner(at)earthlink.net If you look at the current election in light of Yaron Brooks' excellent writings on the threat of Islamic Fascism, a case could be made for McCain as the lesser of two evils. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but Obama looks to be a wholesale surrender to the idea that America can negotiate with Iran, etc. I emphasize "wholesale" since Republicans are obviously guilty of same; it's a matter of degrees. Add to this the Obama's belief that the U.N., the E.U. and the rest of the world tend to get it right while the United States wallows in militaristic narcissism, and you get Jimmy Carter redux. I'm familiar with Leonard Peikoff's argument of preferring a dying socialism to an emerging theocracy. It's a compelling argument. However, there are aspects of the American system that mitigate against theocracy, such as the 1st Amendment. Socialist programs can be fed into the system with ease of we have Obama as President and a Democratic congress. Higher taxes, more regulation, property confiscation, and regulation of speech on the public airwaves would seem to await us should Obama win. Also, McCain seems to me to be slightly less egregious in the theocracy department than Bush, Huckabee, or any number of other Republicans, notwithstanding the red meat he throws to Christian conservatives. I have no illusions about McCain, but he seems better prepared to stave off Islamic theocracy than Barack Hussein Obama. I guess I'm wondering: why is it axiomatic that Objectivists should vote for Obama as their lesser evil?
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 9:29:57 mst Comment ID: #21 Name: Kyle Haight E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/ McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts. He supports massive environmentalist regulations like "cap and trade". His name is the first half of the most egregious violation of political free speech rights in recent years, McCain-Feingold. I'm not seeing the advantages of McCain over Obama on those issues. At best one can say that McCain is slightly less consistent in carrying out the implications of the basic premises he shares with Obama -- but is that really an advantage? Remember Rand's observation that in a conflict between two sides holding the same basic premises, the more consistent wins? I certainly wouldn't say it's axiomatic that Objectivists should conclude that Obama is the lesser evil. If it were I wouldn't bother arguing the point; it would be self-evident. I'm also skeptical of McCain's ability to stave off Islamic theocracy. Effective opposition to the Islamic totalitarian movement would require major military action against Iran. Doing so would require a declaration of war from Congress, which will not be forthcoming barring circumstances so grim (e.g. the nuclear destruction of an American city) that even Obama would be forced to act. McCain would be restricted to minor, temporizing actions which would both fail (because they would be inadequate) and be blamed on his allegedly aggressive foreign policy. Given that we are going to be giving ground either way, I prefer that the resulting disasters be placed where they belong -- on the policy of appeasement advocated by the left. (One final note on taxes specifically. Even if McCain were to veto tax increases, taxes will be going up anyhow. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. The Democrats will not be renewing them, and McCain wouldn't be able to do anything about that.)
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 12:07:31 mst Comment ID: #22 Name: Paul Hsieh E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com URL: http://www.geekpress.com Just to add to Kyle Haight's excellent points, another danger of McCain is that he is being portrayed as the champion of "free markets" and "capitalism" even though he is no such thing. Hence, if his policies were implemented and they proceed to their inevitable failure, it will further discredit the very notions of "free market" and "capitalism" in people's minds. Just as an example of this sort of thing, Diana and I lived in CA during the energy "deregulation" which was (of course) no such thing. As a result of the statism-called-deregulation, prices shot up and supplies ran low, leading to blackouts, energy crisis, and political upheaval. Now no one in CA will touch "deregulation" with a 1000-foot pole. Their attitude is "we already tried that free market stuff and it failed - this just proves we need *better* regulations, not DE-regulation". The best way to destroy a concept (such as "capitalism") is to have a faux-defender of that concept being the main advocate of it. As a doctor, it would be like having a quack portrayed by all the mainstream media as a "leading physician" on all the TV talk shows, advocating psychic surgery or whatnot. His repeated public misrepresentations of what constituted "medicine" would destroy people's genuine concept of "medicine" in no time. A President McCain will do far more to destroy "capitalism", "free markets", "tough on America's enemies" and other vital concepts far more effectively than a leftist-socialist President Obama. It's not that I'm looking forward to Obama's policies -- they will be dangerous and painful in countless ways, and I plan on opposing them as much as possible. But I wanted to highlight this particular danger that a faux-capitalist like McCain poses to our ideas, since I think this point can be often under-appreciated by many Objectivists.
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 12:57:38 mst Comment ID: #23 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail "...another danger of McCain is that he is being portrayed as the champion of "free markets" and "capitalism" even though he is no such thing." Who was the last Republican or Democratic presidential candidate that *was* a 'true'"defender" of "free markets" and "capitalism"? Is the claim here we must never vote for someone who might use a valid fundamental philosophic concept in an invalid way, thereby smearing the proper Objectivist principles and concepts? Besides putting the philosophic cart before the horse, that pretty much rules out voting for ANYONE.
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 14:02:11 mst Comment ID: #24 Name: Kyle Haight E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/ No, that is not the claim here. In this context I think it's worth reviewing some of Rand's lesser-known comments on Richard Nixon. Nixon was certainly a mixed-bag at best, and nobody would describe him as a 'true defender' of capitalism. I wrote a fairly lengthy post on this topic, with a brief comparison to Obama/McCain, at the ObjectivismOnline forum, which may be relevant here. http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=12606&st ...
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 14:38:11 mst Comment ID: #25 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail Kyle said: "No, that is not the claim here." If, as you say, the claim in Paul's post is NOT that "we must never vote for someone who might use a valid fundamental philosophic concept in an invalid way, thereby smearing the proper Objectivist principles and concepts" then what IS the claim in that post then?
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 15:50:27 mst Comment ID: #26 Name: Kyle Haight E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/ I will let Paul speak for himself, rather than put words in his mouth. All I can speak to directly is my own understanding of Paul's post. It turns on what is meant by "faux defender". I take a faux defender of capitalism as someone who claims to advocate capitalist policies while fairly consistently acting on an opposing principle -- as McCain does. One possible alternative to this would be a "true defender", someone who claims to advocate capitalist policies while actually acting on the correct principle most or all of the time. But that is not the only alternative. You could have a candidate whose ideology is simply mixed or pragmatic -- a fair description of George H. W. Bush, IMHO, and Nixon as well. It is precisely their lack of motivation by any consistent underlying principle that limits the amount of damage they can do. What makes McCain dangerous is the framing of his thoroughly consistent altruism/statism as the pro-freedom position.
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 16:58:12 mst Comment ID: #27 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail Is the claim that Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bushes were NOT "portrayed as the champion[s] of "free markets" and "capitalism" even though [they were] no such thing"? I must disagree with such a claim. All these men have been portrayed thusly, and all the negatives of their policies have been used to smear "free markets" and "capitalism" and all sorts of valid Objectivist principles. Put simply, I must protest any principle which claims one should not vote for someone because of the ignorance of *other* voters. Political choices are not properly made to *teach* other people a proper philosophy. That is not the function of a vote. If it is believed that votes should function as teaching tools, then that belief stands in opposition to the arguments *against* forming an Objectivist Party.
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 17:35:37 mst Comment ID: #28 Name: Burgess Laughlin E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com What do you think is " . . . the [proper] function of a vote"? I think it is to secure my long-term rational self-interest in one realm: my rights in political society. For anyone: Do you think that is incorrect? If so, what would you suggest as a positive alternative?
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 18:18:22 mst Comment ID: #29 Name: Kyle Haight E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/ No, my claim is that Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush 41 (I'm still thinking about Bush 43 in this regard) were not consistently acting on the altruist/statist premise. They were more mixed cases. (Nixon, Ford and Bush 41 definitely; Reagan somewhat less so.) It is one thing to vote for a mixed candidate who is perceived as pro-capitalist; it is something else to vote for an anti-capitalist who is perceived as a pro-capitalist. Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush 41 are IMHO examples of the former; McCain is an example of the latter. I decline to endorse McCain because I think he is, at root, a crusading altruist and a statist. He is not a mixture of good and bad elements, not in his fundamental viewpoint. I don't like to reduce political discussion to the simple question of whom to vote for (or against). For many people the direct impact of their vote is negligible. I, for example, live in California. Even if I and every registered voter I have ever met in my entire life were to vote for McCain, my state's electoral college votes would still go to Obama. So if your only concern is the impact of my vote on the outcome of the election I might as well stay home. I view the election as a teaching opportunity, in that it provides a reason to discuss political principles with others. But that discussion need not, and in my judgment should not reduce to supporting one candidate unless there happens to be one worth supporting. Rather the goal is to identify the proper political principles and identify the ways in which the candidates contradict them, and the disasters that result. Nothing in this process requires that I endorse a candidate, or run for office myself, or support any particular candidate financially or organizationally, or form a party of my own. Elections provide a forum for intellectual activism, but that's different from political activism. For the record, my current plan of action on election day (which is a bit different from my earlier intention to vote for Obama) is to show up, vote the ballot initiatives and down-ticket races, and leave the entry for president blank. At this point neither candidate is acceptable to me, and that's the only way I can think of to indicate my disgust with all the choices on offer.
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 18:42:46 mst Comment ID: #30 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail Kyle - but the point is, capitalism, free markets and the like still get blamed for all the anti-capitalist premises and practices of those (and other) Presidents, whatever their 'mix'. As such, refraining from voting for a candidate because his practices may discredit valid fundamental concepts and principles leaves no one to vote for - Republican OR Democrat. That was one of the two points I made in my response to Paul's post. "I don't like to reduce political discussion to the simple question of whom to vote for (or against)." I don't either - nor have I done so in this (or any other) thread. Here I questioned a principle which had been put forth as a guide to voting. "For many people the direct impact of their vote is negligible. I, for example, live in California." I am in exactly the same boat. "Elections provide a forum for intellectual activism, but that's different from political activism." Quite true. And it is important to promote *valid* principles when engaged in such intellectual activism.
	Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 23:00:09 mst Comment ID: #31 Name: Kyle Haight E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/ I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall here. One more try. In a race between a mixed candidate and a thoroughly bad one, it can make sense to vote against the thoroughly bad candidate. The Nixon/McGovern election in 1972 is a good historical example. In such a case, the fact that the mixed candidate is mixed means he will not substantially alter the ideological playing field by consistently tying bad policies to good ideas and vice versa. That is not the situation we have today. Both McCain and Obama are thoroughly bad in their underlying premises. Both are altruists and statists. It is not possible to vote against statism in this election. This context means we have a different choice facing us. We have to choose between a bad candidate who is viewed as a freedom advocate (McCain) and a bad candidate who is not so viewed (Obama). Given that choice, and that assessment of the candidates, it does not make sense to vote for McCain or to support him in other ways. Do not blur the distinction between voting for a candidate and advocating on that candidate's behalf. I considered voting for Obama. I have never advocated for him, nor will I, because I find his policies utterly loathsome. I think at this point I've made my position sufficiently clear, both the principles I'm working from and the reasons I have for applying those principles as I do. In the end, I expect we are on the same side in that we share the same long-range political goal -- the defense and eventual restoration of freedom -- even if we don't agree on the tactics for getting there from where we are now.
	Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 0:09:15 mst Comment ID: #32 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail "I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall here." Perhaps that is because you are arguing against a point I am not presenting? Your statement: "Do not blur the distinction between voting for a candidate and advocating on that candidate's behalf." leads me to this supposition, since NO such idea has even been implied in ANY of my statements here. So what exactly do you think is my premise here? "We have to choose between a bad candidate who is viewed as a freedom advocate (McCain) and a bad candidate who is not so viewed (Obama)." So the Democrats (and Obama) are viewed as ANTI-freedom advocates? Only the Republicans use and promote themselves with fundamental philosophic concepts (like rights, freedom, etc)? And thus ONLY Republicans can smear them? I must dispute such claims. I must further ask whom supposedly holds this one sided "view" of the two parties and candidates? Whose "view", exactly, are you worried about here? And how exactly is your "vote" for either party or candidate supposed to impact this 'viewer'? Are you trying to use your vote as a tool to teach philosophic principles to these 'viewers'? If not, then why is your vote seemingly dictated by their (as has been admitted) *ignorant* 'views'?
	Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 6:05:46 mst Comment ID: #33 Name: Don Kenner E-mail: dbkenner(at)earthlink.net I think Kyle Haight's and Paul Hsieh's arguments make sense. They are certainly worth chewing on as we enter this bleak election. I suppose it comes down to weighing two different outcomes: 1) any differences between McCain and Obama in which the latter's actions/policy would result in a disaster, and 2) the political and cultural damage done to Capitalism/freedom as a result of having McCain the "defender of liberty" take a wrecking ball to Capitalism and individual rights. I voted for Bush over Kerry to avoid #1 and was very disappointed.
	Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 11:26:18 mst Comment ID: #34 Name: BrianS E-mail: blspro (at) gmail Obama is 'viewed' as being a social "defender of liberty" as much as McCain is 'viewed' as being an economic "defender of liberty". Why is the worry here ONLY about the damage one side may do to valid fundamental philosophic concepts and not about the same damage which can be done by the other side?
	Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 22:06:26 mst Comment ID: #35 Name: Hermione Gina wrote: "BELIEVE ME, I will have something to say about McCain." I have never seen such follow-up comments from Gina criticising McCain. At this point, what may have been an open question earlier, I can only conclude that in fact Gina's preference is for McCain. As of tonight, I can say that McCain clearly represents 4 more years of the worst socialism this nation has ever seen. At the very least, Gina, at least acknowledge that BOTH candidates at basically equally bad.
	Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 7:03:07 mst Comment ID: #36 Name: Gina Liggett E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net Hermonine, Because I work for a living and don't have time to blog full time, I don't always get to every single topic I want to write about in a timely fashion. If I wanted to endorse McCain I would do it explicitly, not passively as you suggest by saying *nothing*. I am not at all happy about McCain--he's a dud; and I don't remember ever voting for a Republican in recent elections primarily because of their heavy invasion by Christian ethics. And if you think I'm happy about Bush--he's about the worst we've had. In fact, I am deeply worried about this country and the fact that the Republicans have become nothing more than conservative socialists. It's more than being equally bad in terms of this election: it's a matter of who would be "less worse" for the country. So, sorry to disappoint you, Hermonine, for not getting to McCain as fast as you might like. It isn't November yet, and I frankly haven't decided who to vote for. Have you?
	Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 21:51:22 mst Comment ID: #37 Name: Hermione Gina wrote: "So, sorry to disappoint you, Hermonine, for not getting to McCain as fast as you might like. It isn't November yet, and I frankly haven't decided who to vote for. Have you?" *I* have decided to vote anti-Communist. I will vote for Obama. As far as I am concerned, 'silence' on McCain's part amounts to an endorsement of Bush. I.e. An unprecedented level of socialism in America. And, ignoring Bush, for the moment-- McCain's own policy positions are not really any better. "Paritial nationalization" of the top 9 banks in America -- to use the Washington Post's terminology -- can anyone pretend that a Republican could earn an Objectivist's vote?
	Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 22:02:25 mst Comment ID: #38 Name: Hermione In fairness to Gina, or at least for the benefit of the casual NoodleFood reader-- I wish to point out that I had already concluded that I would not, under any circumstances, vote for McCain, when I made my original comment. The reasons, however, are the same as indicated in my earlier comment this evening. The only difference is that the crimes of Bush have gotten worse. Frankly, at this point, I would only vote for a Republican, FOR *ANY* OFFICE, if said Republican explicitly repudiated the recent actions of his party leader, George W. Bush. I would not vote for a Republican DOG CATCHER, let alone a Republican presidential candidate.
Post Your Comment on "Individual Rights Should be Cornerstone of Change"
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board, so please do not post random questions or comments on any blog post. If you have an out-of-the-blue comment or question, please submit it as a question for NoodleFood or e-mail one of the NoodleFoodlers. To weed out spammers: 0 plus 5 equals 7918914125949650680