 |
Comments |
|
 | Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 21:05:46 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the tip. My comment:
"I agree entirely with Mr. Provenzo. In spite of the rhetoric, the bumper stickers, the cards filling my mailbox, and the endless campaigning to try to distance the policies of one candidate from the other, they are actually very close in their fundamental beliefs.
They both advocate something closer to fascism, with elements of socialism mixed in. Fascism involves nominal private ownership with a high degree of government control. That is the direction in which we are currently headed as a nation (unless we have single-payer [government] health care, which would be a major move towards socialism).
However, it’s more what the candidates don't advocate that speaks volumes. Like nearly all politicians these days, neither candidate defends individual rights.
Individual rights are the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that are common to us all as individuals, not as members of an ethnic, economic, or other type of special group within society. To pander to such divisions is to push society into a never-ending war of legal one-upmanship and power struggles. There will never be peace and justice under such rules, only perhaps an equality of casualties, a sort of stalemate in a tug of war, as we drag ourselves down the road towards more authoritarian government.
What we need instead is a real choice: someone who advocates rights for all Americans, rather than rights for some at the expense of others." |
|
| Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 5:03:11 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
More and more I am thinking that intellectual activists need to develop a vocabulary of objective but proud or derisive terms for polemics. For example, "monopoly medicine" or even "bureaucratic medicine" is more pointed than "single-payer medical care" used alone. What are the pro's and con's of using such terms, alongside the conventional, mystics' terms? |
|
| Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 8:04:49 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Burgess: Some people I know use the term "government schools" instead of "public schools" when discussing education policy, in order to make the point that these schools are government-run. This assumes that being associated explicitly with government would have a negative connotation with the average voter. In the case of schools, this may or not be the case. I personally think it might be marginally effective.
With the case of "government-run medicine" vs. "single-payer medicine", it may not work too well since many people *like* the idea of government-run medicine. In fact, many advocates call it "Medicare for all", because of the positive connotation that they believe "Medicare" has with many voters.
I think using the right phrase can be of some help, if one is in a setting where one can elaborate as necessary. For instance, I still use "socialized medicine" whenever I refer to any sort of government-run medical system (for instance in a lunchtime conversation at work), but then I also have to be prepared to explain why that applies both to the Canadian system and to more indirect forms such as the Massachusetts system (where there are still trappings of private markets).
I do think that it's important to call people on the use of euphemisms like "single payer health care" and point out that it means "government-run health care". And using the right alternative term can help, as long as one can also communicate *why* that's important. |
|
| Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 9:26:21 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Joe Cillins
E-mail: joecillins(at)yahoo.com
You define rights as "freedom of action". As I recall, Rand defined it as freedom of action, sanctioned and defined by law. My point is, I believe such definitions to be skimpy, though technically correct. In my experience, many if not most people do not understand and emotionally comprehend the concept of rights. I would like to see a more comprehensive definition, together with many examples. For example, right to freedom of thought, right to marry whom you want, right to your emotions, right to pass moral judgment, right to choose your cloths, right to be free from abuse, right to be free from deception, right to privacy, right to order what you please at a restaurant, right to complain, right to say no, the right to read. Over a lifetime, I have every right challenged (including all those I just mentioned), rights I took for granted, and wasn't conscience I had. Someone I barely knew, out of envy, physically threatened me, demanding I don't read books. I kid you not. |
|
| Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 11:20:07 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
Joe: "You define rights as "freedom of action". As I recall, Rand defined it as freedom of action, sanctioned and defined by law. My point is, I believe such definitions to be skimpy, though technically correct. In my experience, many if not most people do not understand and emotionally comprehend the concept of rights. I would like to see a more comprehensive definition,"
Isn't a definition _supposed_ to be "skimpy"? I think--based on what I've learned from Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ch. 5, and confirmed by introspection--that the purpose of a definition is to state only the essential nature of the thing conceptualized. A definition should, ideally, be very brief (e.g., Man is a rational animal), so brief that it is easy to recall and serve as an _essentialized_ guide in the appropriate context.
Further, I don't see how an essentialized definition could be a comprehensive "definition" if "comprehensive" means covering every aspect, essential or not. If a thing conceptualized has nonessential characteristics that are important for a particular context, should not they be stated in a paragraph or essay or book rather than in the definition?
Have you considered writing an essay or book providing a full description describing the concept of right? I agree it needs to be done, if it has not already been done. I hope you will undertake the task. You appear to have a deep interest in it. |
|
| Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 21:42:39 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
I've posted this comment:
"AMERICAN DREAM" said: "...there is no doubt that John McCain and Sarah Palin stand firmly on the side of hardworking “everyday Joes” who understand the value of honest work and the American." Dream.
-and-
ROBERTLP58RT said: "Just a few generations ago, the party of Franklin Roosevelt went to bat for the little guy, the common man, the everyday Joe the plumber."
I completely disagree. Neither McCain, nor Palin, nor Obama, nor FDR stand, or have stood, on the side of anyone who wants to live the American dream -- which is a life of Liberty, in which one is free to act on one's own judgement, in one's own behalf, free from interference by government. It has been more than a century since either party has gone "to bat" for individual rights. Every person, from "the common man" to Bill Gates, has the right to his/her own life, liberty, pursuit of his/her own happiness, and the right to every dime of his/her own property -- without greasy government fingers on one's throat, on one's paycheck, in one's business, or in one's wallet. Neither candidate advocates a government which respects and protects these individual rights. Both candidates call for various government controls over the lives of individuals. Both candidates claim that there is something greater than oneself, to which one must sacrifice. Both candidates seek, in various ways, to use government to force individuals to sacrifice. In other words, both McCain and Obama seek to prevent Americans from pursuing their own happiness. This is anti-American, and anti-American Dream.
If you want to help the "everyday Joe", advocate his individual rights to life, liberty, property and pursuit of his own happiness. And if you want to advocate individual rights, you must advocate every person's rights, because rights are universal principles -- a multi-billionaire has the same inalienable rights as the "common man". Don't endorse government taxing anyone and giving the money to someone else, whether the victim is a billionaire or a pauper. Don't endorse the use of government to dictate how anyone will or will not act (so long as one does not use force or fraud against others). Don't endorse people in power, or seeking government power, who call for Americans to sacrifice. Demand that American government be confined to its proper function of protecting American citizens from criminals, foreign enemies, and others who seek to violate their rights -- such as McCain, Palin and Obama. For more information on individual rights, visit AynRandCenter.org |
|
| Monday, October 27, 2008 at 18:36:09 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: daniel
Just for starters, how about defining rights as freedom from initiated coercion and the right of self defense against those who initiate coercion? |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
