Tag Archives: Ayn Rand

What is the motive of a FAU’s professor’s demand that students “stomp on Jesus” ? Nihilism #tcot #tlot #jcot

Ayn Rand ‘s: The Fountainhead Toohey …..”One does not reverence with a giggle”…. Envy/Hatred of the Good for Being the Good — Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/envy-hatred_of_the_good_for_being_the_good.html …..”

Today, we live in the Age of Envy. “Envy” is not the emotion I have in mind, but it is the clearest manifestation of an emotion that has remained nameless; it is the only element of a complex emotional sum that men have permitted themselves to identify. Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves. . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good. This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree. . . . Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one’s own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable. If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good. The nature of the particular values a man chooses to hold is not the primary factor in this issue (although irrational values may contribute a great deal to the formation of that emotion). The primary factor and distinguishing characteristic is an emotional mechanism set in reverse: a response of hatred, not toward human vices, but toward human virtues. To be exact, the emotional mechanism is not set in reverse, but is set one way: its exponents do not experience love for evil men; their emotional range is limited to hatred or indifference. It is impossible to experience love, which is a response to values, when one’s automatized response to values is hatred

”…… “The Age of Envy,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 152 What’s Wrong with Stomping on “Jesus”? http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/03/whats-wrong-with-stomping-on-jesus/ ….. ”

We all recognize that intentionally stepping on something in such a context, or spitting on it, or burning it, is a sign of disrespect of the person or thing symbolized. There is of course nothing wrong with showing disrespect toward a person (or institution) who deserves it and for whom one legitimately holds contempt. For example, Hitler, Stalin, and comparably evil figures are worthy of nothing but contempt. And TOS published images of Mohammed that Muslims find offensive; but this was in response to Muslims assaulting and murdering people for exercising the right to freedom of speech ”….. ….” The problem with the exercise at Florida Atlantic University is that it asked students to show disrespect toward a figure they likely personally admire. The assignment did not argue that Jesus was a bad person or that Christianity is a bad religion; nor was the assignment a response to something horrific or irrational that Christians had done in the name of Jesus. Rather, this assignment asked students to personally stomp on a symbol representing a religious figure for whom they likely hold great reverence. The purpose of the assignment was to make them assault their own values. It was an exercise in moral nihilism. This —not the mere fact that it offended some Christians—is what was reprehensibly wrong with it.

“…. RRD: Exactly. I have encountered this before,it is not a attack on Christianity per se. It is an attack on that which someone values because they value it. It’s purpose is not to tear down a false standard & replace it with a true one,its purpose is to to tear down standards for the sake of tearing down standards. It is destruction for its own sake ,it is pure nihilism. Unlike Voltaire with his Satires this is not about ridiculing or rebutting Christianity so as to replace it with some belief system that the satirist thinks is superior,it is about making people attack their own values,precisely because they are sacred to them. This type of “teacher” would probably do the same to an Atheist. It is an act of impotent rage,it is the kind of spite for its own sake that one encounters in a Dostoevsky villian.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Cultural Nihilism, Culture, Current events, Religion

Byron York absolves the GOP of their responsibility for tax increases

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/how-gop-can-turn-the-tables-on-obama-on-spending/article/2514983/?page=2&referrer=/politics ….”

Republicans will cave on the question of raising the tax rate for the highest-income Americans. The only question is whether they do so before or after the government goes over the so-called fiscal cliff. First, many in the GOP do not believe that raising the rate on top earners from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (the rate before the Bush tax cuts) would seriously damage the economy. Second, they know that most Americans approve of higher taxes on the top bracket, and President Obama, having campaigned and won on that platform, seems dead-set on higher rates. Third, they fear that if the government does go over the cliff and Democrats propose re-lowering taxes for everyone except the highest earners, Republicans would be in the impossible position of resisting tax cuts for 98 percent of the country on behalf of the top 2 percent.

“….. ….”

A Republican offer to allow a top rate increase in exchange for entitlement cuts would turn the spotlight on the Democrats’ entitlement dilemma. If President Obama takes the position of many in his party — AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka, for example, has written, “NO to cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and YES to fair taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent”– there will be no deal. But that would not stop the Republicans from saying right now: While we do not support raising taxes on anyone, especially in this weak economy, we will accept the president’s top-bracket rate increase in exchange for trillion-dollar cuts in the big three entitlement programs.

“…. RRD: Being a Objectivist has its perks,such as knowledge of the term “The metaphysical vs the man-made”. Metaphysical vs. Man-Made — Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical_vs_man-made.html Metaphysical: You have cancer. Man-made: You cannot get treatment because the government has decided that you are “unfit” to live. Both are facts of reality,but the former is an amoral act of nature ,while the latter is subject to human volition (i.e. Free Will) & therefore has a moral dimension. It does not have to be. It is a man-made injustice. The appropriate response is outrage at the evil men making such a determination. Another example is when we are told that the desire of the voters for entitlement spending is a “reality” ,(while the fact that we are bankrupting our country apparently is not. ) Now we are being told that the Republicans WILL cave;as if it were a fact of nature rather than a immoral decision freely made by adults. The purpose of this is to absolve those RINOS of responsibility for their actions. But if it is a “fact” that Republicans will cave on taxes,then why is it not also a “fact” that Republicans will cave on spending? Experience has taught us that real,actual spending cuts either never arrive or are soon reversed. What’s more whether “many in the GOP” believe that raising taxes in a recession would not harm the economy or not, the fact is that IT WOULD HARM THE ECONOMY. That brings us to the third absurdity: That Obama will cut non-defense spending;ever. What on earth leads York to think this? What in Obama’s past indicates that he is anything less than a tax & spend liberal at best? (And likely something far worse) What Obama will likely do is to say “aha! Republicans concede that we should raise taxes on those who can afford to contribute more,so why are they holding the Middle-Class hostage to their mean-spirited desire to throw grandma off a cliff!” The only thing from York’s argument that will likely be adopted by the GOP establishment is the part that absolves the GOP of all responsibility. They will say :”look mainstream Republicans said that we didn’t have any choice about raising taxes”… Will they be selectively quoting him? Of course,what of it? These people don’t think about the long-term consequences of the debt. They do not think about our country becoming Weimar Germany economically (with the potential danger of a strongman taking advantage of the disaster to seize power),they think of nothing, other than their re-election. If Obama would agree to this proposal, fine. He won’t,and any concessions will simply serve to embolden Obama rather than to persuade him to make concessions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Economy

A sense of life is not a substitute for explicit knowledge. Values which one cannot identify, ….are not in one’s control. One cannot tell what they depend on or require, what course of action is needed …

A sense of life is not a substitute for explicit knowledge. Values which one cannot identify, but merely senses implicitly, are not in one’s control. One cannot tell what they depend on or require, what course of action is needed to gain and/or keep them. One can lose or betray them without knowing it.

“Don’t Let It Go,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 210

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sense_of_life.html

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Objectivism, Politics

Obama wrong on Lincoln as well as #Aynrand

image

RRD: We have already seen that Obama “misunderstands” Ayn Rand.

Obama, Unsurprisingly, Gets Ayn Rand Wrong

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/obama-unsurprisingly-gets-ayn-rand-wrong/

However he is also off-base on Lincoln as well:

Rolling Stone Mobile – Politics –

Politics: Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview

http://m.rollingstone.com/?redirurl=/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025?page=3 ….

Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we’d pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we’re only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we’re considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity—that that’s a pretty narrow vision. . . . Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a “you’re on your own” society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party. Of course, that’s not the Republican tradition. . . . You look at Abraham Lincoln: He very much believed in self-sufficiency and self-reliance. He embodied it—that you work hard and you make it, that your efforts should take you as far as your dreams can take you. But he also understood that there’s some things we do better together. That we make investments in our infrastructure and railroads and canals and land-grant colleges and the National Academy of Sciences, because that provides us all with an opportunity to fulfill our potential, and we’ll all be better off as a consequence. He also had a sense of deep, profound empathy, a sense of the intrinsic worth of every individual, which led him to his opposition to slavery and ultimately to signing the Emancipation Proclamation. That view of life—as one in which we’re all connected, as opposed to all isolated and looking out only for ourselves—that’s a view that has made America great. . .

Lincoln on Liberty & Tyranny #tcot #teaparty #aynrand |

Glory to man in the highest

https://gloryofman.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/lincoln-on-liberty-tyranny-tcot-teaparty-aynrand/

… “The world has never had a good definition of the word “liberty,” and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word, we do not all mean the same thing. With some, the word “liberty” may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labour; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men’s labour . Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name,–liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names,–liberty and tyranny.”….

Lincoln:The Free-Market vs. Slavery | Glory to man in the highest

https://gloryofman.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/lincolnthe-free-market-vs-slavery/

” FRAGMENT. WRITTEN ABOUT JULY 1, 1854 Equality in society alike beats inequality, whether the latter be of the British aristocratic sort or of the domestic slavery sort. We know Southern men declare that their slaves are better off than hired labourers amongst us. How little they know whereof they speak! There is no permanent class of hired labourers amongst us. Twenty-five years ago I was a hired labourer. The hired labourer of yesterday labours on his own account to -day, and will hire others to labour for him to -morrow. Advancement–improvement in condition–is the order of things in a society of equals. As labour is the common burden of our race, so the effort of some to shift their share of the burden on to the shoulders of others is the great durable curse of the race. Originally a curse for transgression upon the whole race, when, as by slavery, it is concentrated on a part only, it becomes the double -refined curse of God upon his creatures. Free labour has the inspiration of hope; pure slavery has no hope. The power of hope upon human exertion and happiness is wonderful. The slave -master himself has a conception of it, and hence the system of tasks among slaves. The slave whom you cannot drive with the lash to break seventy-five pounds of hemp in a day, if you will task him to break a hundred, and promise him pay for all he does over, he will break you a hundred and fifty. You have substituted hope for the rod. And yet perhaps it does not occur to you that, to the extent of your gain in the case, you have given up the slave system and adopted the free system of labour.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Politics

Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

”Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.”

“A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share
his racial origin.”

“Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).”

Racism The Virtue of Selfishness

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html

RRD: To this I would add that the word “racism” as it is used by the left today merely means any opposition to the left’s policies for any reason. If it meant anything even tangentially connected to the word’s actual meaning ” bias against someone or a group because of their race” than Bill Clinton who rationalized Robert Byrd’s joining the Klan & Harry Reid who said that Obama didn’t have a “negro accent” & Biden who said that Barack Obama was “bright, articulate & clean” would be excoriated & shunned. Instead these statements are brushed aside. Why? Because “racism” is merely a sound uttered by leftists to get their enemies off-message. Call them out as the liars they are.

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Politics

Obama is not Mcgovern,he is more dangerous

How Obama is,& isn’t different from previous Democrats. Hercule Poirot once remarked that the difference between murder and attempted murder is not moral,it is that the attempted murderer is incompetent,whereas the murderer was successful. In this analogy Bill Clinton would be the attempted murderer and Obama would be the murderer. Some time ago I had a argument with someone who was urging us to vote for Romney. He was arguomg that,essentially,Obama would destroy the United States. (fn1) I responded to this by noting that Republicans had been proclaiming that “this time it’s different” at least since Bill Clinton vs Bush. They made the same argument against Clinton and against Kerry that they have made against Obama. I also noted that I knew some friends who had spelled Clinton with a K as “Klinton” to indicate that he was a Communist back during his reign. To this he replied that I was ”committing a horrendous injustice” against Bill Clinton, since Clinton “backed down” and “listened”. To this, I in turn responded :”No I really do not think that I have committed a ‘horrendous injustice” against Bill Clinton by saying that he is morally no different from Obama,Clinton proposed Hillarycare,and he wanted to install backdoors into our computers and into our phones via the Clipper chip. Cowardice is not a virtue,the fact that Clinton was not as driven,and as ruthless, and as competent as Obama made him less dangerous than Obama,but there was no moral distinction between the two”. And it was that very last sentence that gave me pause,not because I was in doubt as to whether there was a moral distinction between the two,but because I had inadvertently named the main,real,distinction between Obama and Clinton,and between Obama and Kerry and between Obama and Dukakis,hell for that matter between Obama and Mcgovern. Why do we call the Health Care bill Obamacare,instead of calling it Mcgoverncare,or Dukakiscare,or Clintoncare,or Kerrycare? “Why that’s obvious,Obama passed it” Exactly,for decades Democrats have lusted after a bill that would destroy private insurance and who passed it? Why did Obama not back down? For that matter,why did Obama get elected? Yes Bush and Mccain contributed to his victory,but Obama not only won, he won by large margins,at least part of this was due to the ruthlessness of David Axelrod (who should not be underestimated in 2012,see David Mendell’s: Obama from Promise to Power), but part of the reason was simply due to the fact that Obama is a charismatic demagogue. (Charismatic to me? No. To his followers,yes,even now when many have become disillusioned,one need only show up at a moderately liberal campus to see that some people, particularly women, still swoon over the man) And once Obama was elected,he was evidently prepared to sacrifice the House to ram through Obamacare,(hell if the claims about Fast & Furious are true,then he was willing to cause Americans to die to enact gun control). This is not ”Jimmy Carter’s second term”, Jimmy Carter,Clinton,Kerry etc were buffoons by contrast,(to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh) Nor is Obama Peter Keating. Long ago,back in 2008 ,Robert Tracinski remarked that Obama was a chamelon ”like Peter Keating”,that statement,though wrong,was at least somewhat understandable in 2008. This is not 2008. There is no justification for that belief now,none,(and so far as I know, Mr.Tracinski himself jettisoned that belief around 2009) Can you picture Peter Keating ramming through Obamacare? Comparing Obama to Keating,or Obama to Clinton ,is as absurd as comparing the Republican Guard of Iraq to the Revolutionary Guard of Iran because “just as people told us that the Republican Guard was fearsome,and it wasn’t,so they are now crying wolf about the Revolutionary Guard”. Ask the Israeli soldiers who fought both the PLO and Hezbollah in Lebanon whether Hezbollah–which was trained by the Revolutionary Guard–was “no different” than the PLO . Morally they weren’t. Hezbollah,however,at the height of the conflict,nearly inflicted a one-to-one casualty ratio against the IDF. They were that well disciplined,and that tenacious. They are not buffoons,and in the political realm,neither is Obama. People sometime forget that the last time the boy cried wolf, there was an actual wolf. And speaking of the Islamic Republic of Iran,those who see no difference between Romney and Obama on foreign policy should note that it is Obama, and not Romney,who has leaked operational information which could cripple the one program–the cyberwarfare program–that has slowed down Iran’s nuclear program. If that program is defeated, Israel will be forced to stage a strike alone,and absent American support, (indeed against ”American” opposition),it will be unlikely to succeed.

Who is Leaking About Cyberattacks? « Commentary Magazine

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/04/who-is-leaking-about-cyberattacks/

Also see

Obama, Gospel and Verse – NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/opinion/26brooks.html

Should that occur we may face a nuclear first strike on the United States, or on Israel. But Romney won’t stop Iran? Perhaps not,but I doubt that he will be trying to sabotage Israel’s efforts,Obama by contrast,IS DOING THAT RIGHT NOW. There is absolutely no reason why we must vote for Romney in 2016,certainly not if he betrays us,but it will take time to build up a alternative to the current choice of evils that we are offered. But back to Obama. Far from being Keating,if I had to name a Atlas Shrugged character that he is most like,it would be–at a minimum– Walter Breckenridge,& at worst,one of the Starnes heirs, or Ellsworth Toohey,or Floyd Ferris. ( And yes I am quite serious) Footnotes: fn1. I doubt that Obama will destroy the U.S., indeed the only possible way that I think that he could reasonably do so would be if he declared martial law after a terrorist attack ,or a nuclear first strike,and attempted to impose an Alien and Sedition like bill,that could be the trigger for massive civil unrest ( a “civil war” of a kind,though of “The Troubles” variety rather than the American Civil War) But I regard this as a improbable scenario.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Objectivism, Politics, US National Security

Why I will now vote for Romney in the 2012 election (after opposing him, previously) Obamacare must be repealed,a third party will take time to build

I have previously passionately argued  against voting for Mitt Romney ,even if Obama won as a result (though I also doubted that Romney could win). I had considered voting for Gary Johnson, or for skipping the Presidential ballot and just voting for Republicans in the House and Senate.

I have changed my position and will now vote for Romney in 2012 .

My  reasons are as follows:

1. The court betrayed us by upholding Obamacare. The only remaining option for repealing this obscenity is to get Romney into office and a Republican Senate into power .
”But Romney won’t repeal it?”
We were able to prevent any Republican defections on Obamacare in 2009 by means of applying massive political pressure,if we do so again,then there is a slim, but reasonable,chance that we will succeed in pressuring the GOP into repealing Obamacare.
This is not some open ended thing where it does not matter if it is repealed in 2012 or in 2016. Once the ”benefits” kick-in, in 2014 then it will become exponentially more difficult to repeal it.
But to do so will mean that we cannot accept the “lesser of two evils” as a standard,where we will vote for any Republican,even if he supports keeping parts of Obamacare.
Imagine what the result would have been in 2009, had we called the Republicans and told them “You must not pass Obamacare,do you hear! But we’ll vote for you anyway”.

We would have lost all leverage .

This is not “practical”,it does not “buy us time”. It accelerates the decline,since the Democrats will set the standard, and the Republicans will know that we will vote for them irregardless of what they do.

You think I’m mistaken?

You think that the Republicans are ”good fellows, who just need a philosophy?”

But they have a philosophy: it’s a combination of mee-toism/second handedness (”what will the pundits say”), pragmatism (” we have to violate free market principles to save the free market”), & altruism (”people are hurting”)
And as to the claim that Republicans won’t take the voters for granted, let us look at one of the “well meaning but confused folks” who just need to be given a shot of courage;Mike Murphy on Sarah Palin :

“Most pundits thought I was wrong. Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told.
She “excites the base.”Phooey. Every presidential election
year brings forth some new nugget of conventional
wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real
picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion
that base voters have somehow become the new swing
voters. We are now told the party base – those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it – must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.Unfortunately for McCain, the actual swing voters, the independents who do determine the winner of the election, didn’t buy into this fantasy at all.”

To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell – Daily News

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.428766

Or as Mccain snickered: “where will they go”.

No,if we are to actually slow down this monstrosity then we must draw certain red lines:

1. Repeal Obamacare,completely

2. Oppose Cap and Trade.

3. Defend the U.S.

4. Oppose censorship.

If a candidate does not actually do any of these things, then we must be prepared to vote him out of office.

We must also work to have a fallback plan should Republicans betray us. We must look into the Libertarian Party as a possible alternative,or perhaps create a new party to replace the GOP (a “teaparty party” perhaps?) .

“But third parties can’t succeed!”

Google:”the Whigs”.

However neither a third party nor the Libertarian Party can win in 2012.

It will take time to build up a alternative.

I therefore would offer this advice (HT to Stephen Bailey)

Unless you live in a solidly red or blue state, vote for Romney.
If you live in a solidly red or blue state vote for Romney,Johnson,skip the presidential part of the ballot etc ,use your own judgement.

The U.S. has a electoral college system,it DOES NOT matter who gets the most votes. The election is determined by who wins enough electoral votes. If you live in one of the deepest red states, your state will go for Romney whether you vote for Romney,Johnson,Obama, John Galt,or stand on your head or don’t vote in the Presidential election at all. The same holds true for solidly blue states. (But make sure that your state IS actually solidly red or blue,check Realclearpolitics )
If you live in anything less than a solidly red or blue state ,vote
for Romney. And even if you live in a solidly red state ,you should attack Obama online ,and speak with any of your friends in swing states,and present the reasons I’ve given here for why they should vote for Romney . Do not lie,just explain your reasoning .

I plan to address this at greater length in future posts.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Obamacare, Objectivism, Politics

Argument from Intimidation — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argument_from_intimidation.html ”Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.” “The Argument from Intimidation,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 143

RRD: I should note that I believe that it is possible to say something that is–in its effect–a argument from intimidation, but to do so without a malicious intent.

Leave a comment

Filed under Objectivism

Don’t let it go unheard #objectivist ( #aynrand )podcast:DOD bans criticism of Islam while Egytian pres. wants to conquer Jerusalem #tcot #jcot

Don’t Let It Go Unheard 06/24 by amypeikoff | Blog Talk Radio

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amypeikoff/2012/06/25/dont-let-it-go-unheard

….”PLANNED TOPICS: Just as a Muslim Brotherhood candidate wins the Egyptian Presidency, and his supporters call for a renewed drive to establish an Islamic Caliphate with Jerusalem as its capital, here in the U.S. our Department of Defense suspends a military instructor for including, in a course, material that crticizes Islam. Why you should vote for me (or yourself) instead of Gary Johnson. Disturbing evidence of Obama’s desperation to win. And more.”….

Disclaimer:Reposting does not imply agreement.(Nor does it constitute a political endorsement of Mitt Romney).

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Arab Spring, Current events, Egypt, Human rights, Islamism, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Objectivism, Politics

Ayn Rand and #freespeech

Free Speech — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_speech.html

The Objectivist Calendar, June 1978

…”The communists and the Nazis are merely two variants of the same evil notion: collectivism. But both should be free to speak—evil ideas are dangerous only by default of men advocating better ideas. ”…

“The Cashing -In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 258

….”The difference between an exchange of ideas and an exchange of blows is self-evident. The line of demarcation between freedom of speech and freedom of action is established by the ban on the initiation of physical force.”…

Leave a comment

Filed under Free Speech, Objectivism, Politics