Atlas Shrugged and so did I...

[Pure]

on shamicus,

since the advent of GWB in 2001, there has NEVER been a measure restricting liberty-- either proposed by GWB or the social conservatives-- to which amicus has stated opposition, at least here in AH. i refer to such things as a "man-woman marriage" amendment to the constitution.

neither ayn rand, for all her dislike of gays, nor any other real libertarian, would propose that the federal government override states and individual rights, regarding gay marriage.

i could name a dozen other measures restricting liberty and/or, on the face of it, violating the Bill of Rights, which Amicus has voiced (or indicated) support for. 'extraordinary rendition,' and torture being examples.

 

[Pure]

thought for the day

The fundamental theme of Rand's philosophy of law is that "force should be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use". This is consistent with — and indeed implies — two other ideas:

(1) individual human beings own their own bodies and have a right to do with them as they will (self-ownership);

(2) all relationships between human beings should be based on consent obtained without duress, fraud, or misrepresentation of material facts (informed consent). The first of these principles is common in the libertarian literature, the second in the literature of medical ethics; while they may sometimes be misapplied there, the fundamental ideas are both valid.

 

[Pure]

question

should the law forbid a step mom or adoptive mom from marrying her stepson/adoptive son, where both are adults? (NO blood relationship)

 

[xssve]

The question is meant for amicus, I'm sure, but I can't resist: no, but it's still gonna be rife with white trash undertones.

I've actually considered initiating a long term relationship with a stepsister whom I have great affection for - I probobly know her better than any other woman in my life, and logically, it makes logical sense that whatever the attraction between our parents is might be operating similarly between us.

Still, the fact that I need to rationalize this way indicates that the taboo is still operative to some degree, blood relation or no.

 

[SlickTony]

should the law forbid a step mom or adoptive mom from marrying her stepson/adoptive son, where both are adults? (NO blood relationship)

Well, it's true that there's no consanguinity, but it still seemsp/i] wrong...

I knew a woman once, who married her stepbrother. In the long run, it did not work out; she met another man to whom she's been married for years, AFAIK. That just means that there was no more likelihood of that relationship working out than any other one.

 

[Pure]

relevance of incest.

to xxcve and slick,

i think the point here is that the true libertarian does NOT wnat the government interfereing where there is no real need, and cashes out the "need" in terms of illegitimate force and fraud.

many of us feel odd about a mom and step son. the 'maximum liberty' person says, "no demonstrable need for a law, here." Rand is pretty good about this, e.g. on 'choice' and porn.

amicus, of course, is a hot-air libertarian only. he wants human laws to reinforce natural laws, just as the pope, or Dobson does. and of course he believes he *knows* those natural laws, e.g. that they say, a man doesn't fuck another man's butt; a man doesn't fuck his step daughter or his mother's half sister.

amicus, though not himself proposing it, would *go along with* and not publically state his opposition to a constituional amendment decreeing that marriage is man-woman only. i'll bet. he'd vote for a huckabee over a hillary or obama without blinking an eye.
--

question for xssve and slick: do you favor eliminating, as per most libertarians, all (or most) laws in the area of morals?
(meaning laws where there is no immediate demonstrable injury to others).

 

[amicus]

to xxcve and slick,

i think the point here is that the true libertarian does NOT wnat the government interfereing where there is no real need, and cashes out the "need" in terms of illegitimate force and fraud.

many of us feel odd about a mom and step son. the 'maximum liberty' person says, "no demonstrable need for a law, here."

amicus, of course, is a hot-air libertarian only. he wants human laws to reinforce natural laws, just as the pope, or Dobson does. and of course he believes he *knows* those natural laws, e.g. that they say, a man doesn't fuck another man's butt; a man doesn't fuck his step daughter or his mother's half sister.

amicus, though not himself proposing it, would *go along with* and not publically state his opposition to a constituional amendment stating marriage is man-woman only. i'll bet.

~~~

If you have ever had the occassion to visit a law library, especially one within a state government capitol building, or even your attorney and browse through the 'statutes' and the wall of books of 'revised' statutes, laws, as they apply to every thing under the sun it seems, you might have a glimmer of just what the practice of law entails.

In my reportorial career, I did have occasion to do all of the above and to have some very interesting conversations with astute legal minds who escorted me, gently and with patience through the maze of laws and their histories.

I even struck up an acquaintance with a law professor who studied constitutional law and the origins of our legal system, all to better report and comprehend the legal process as it applied to state and local elections and ballot meaures, mind you, but still, it did, as most things do, accumulate and give me a wider foundation to at least ask the proper questions concerning legal matters.

On a general basis, laws affecting moral and ethical questions are largely rooted in theological tenets and precepts upon which most legals systems in the western world were founded.

When it was finally realized that moral laws were not carved in stone and handed down to Moses, or whatever the myth says, it began a long process of attempting to discover a rational and logical basis upon which to legislate those areas of human conduct that were deemed to be in the public interest and thus the province of government and the law.

So, basically, Pure, you are as blind as a bat when it comes to determining the morality of any human action. You and most of your cohorts simply are in favor of any thing that feels good.

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

it began a long process of attempting to discover a rational and logical basis upon which to legislate those areas of human conduct that were deemed to be in the public interest and thus the province of government and the law.

on rand's view and yours, explained many times, 'public interest', like 'general welfare' or "common good" are illegitimate concepts. rather there are *individual interests* and 'good for the individual'. 'collective good, is not a legitimate concept, sicne individual good is subordinated.


that's stalin talking: it's in the 'public interest' that citizens 'donate' time to the motherland.

the libertarian and somewhat Jeffersonian view is towards 'minimal government', which means that individual choices are honored-- e.g. though religion may be in "the public interest", it's not to be legislated, hence 'no religious test for office.'

marriage and children are 'in the public interest,' but to have the government take measures towards this is like Hitler and his lebensborn program. for example, the promotion/protection of rapist's fetuses, so as to honor 'life', produce children, and further the public interest is fascistic.

there is no rational basis for laws: against homosexual marriage; against porn; against incest between consenting adults (where children are not going to issue), etc.

 

[amicus]

You simply have a mind inadequate to deal with self evident truth, Pure. I was tempted just to say a small and petty mind as you seem to seek a recipe to guide your actions and I still think that, but for benefit of the doubt I shall henceforth simply accept you are just unable to think beyond the mundane act of following a leader.

My last exposition was simply to illustrate that 'laws', are a long process of thought and trial and error and application that apply to all gatherings of people at all times.

Your superior, know it all attitude, precludes you from actually considering the basic issues involved and your thoughts are no longer of any interest to me.

Have a good year.

Amicus....

 

[xssve]

Take me to your president Hoover baby.

 

[xssve]

I'm gonna do you a favor amicus, all you have to do is ask the right questions.

First question: what is the flaw in capitalism?

 

[amicus]

I'm gonna do you a favor amicus, all you have to do is ask the right questions.

First question: what is the flaw in capitalism?

~~~

Better first question for you...with a small preface...assuming, if only for the sake of conversation, you can rise above your hatred of mankind, his self evident interest in his own survival and comfort...

What is the flaw in human existence?

Since the free exchange of goods and services is merely an extension of the existence of the individual and his desire to survive, name that flaw, m'dear?

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

simple question for amicus

there are a number of proposed constitutional amendments that try to set up "marriage" as 'man/woman' only. they would presumably override states' attempts to recognize same sex unions with the same rights and privileges.

i could reproduce the words, but for now, would you state your support or opposition to such an amendment?

 

[amicus]

Naaaah...pure, let us place the onus on you.

Marriage between a man and a woman is and has been the standard all over the world, approved by church and state alike, everywhere.

You want to change that.

Why?

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

note that fake libertarian shamicus is apparently advocating that the state decree which freely chosen adult relationships will be called 'marriage.' (he's in bed with the Pope, on this one.)

if you choose your step sister, the state will say, "this cannot be a marriage,' it's on our prohibited list.


i think it's pretty clear that he has no problem with the federal gov telling the state of Mass and its citzens, 'you may not establish same sex marriages.'

 

[Pure]

do you favor this 'marriage amendment'?

yes or no, amicus.

S. J. RES. 30

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 22, 2004


JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,

`SECTION 2. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

 

[SlickTony]

yes or no, amicus.

S. J. RES. 30

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 22, 2004


JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,

`SECTION 2. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

It's depressing to contemplate discrimination being written into the Constitution. Anybody who believes that the State should stay the hell out of people's private arrangements should repudiate it.

When my daughter was coming up, she went through what for some girls is an obligatory phase of reading sword & sorcery stories, and in this genre you can find Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover books. Darkover was a colonized world, consisting of the descendents of earth people and some indigenous species with whom they were compatible, and their social arrangements evolved to where they had two types of marriage: di catenas, involving the ritual exchange of bonding bracelets, commonly used in cases were property and (intended) kids were involved, and freemate, used in other liaisons and somewhat easier to get out of. I always thought it made a good deal of sense.

 

[Pure]

hi slick,

i agree that a position on the 'marriage amendment' seems like a 'no brainer'. it's hard to imagine that the most Rand admirers and libertarians would do other than oppose it. our home grown self-said "freedom loving" amicus is obviously in the quirkiest corner of these groups.

his 'problem' seems to be that it's hard for him to imagine the governments, state or federal, standing aside while something less than moral or proper occurs (which doesn't injure anyone). he does not conceive of someone saying "i despise sodomy" and "i don't want any laws criminalizing it."

what's going on. i'd say it's classical liberalism [e.g., Mill] vs. old style catholic [Pius IX]and aristotlelian views of the state. according to the former, the state stands aside for a number of thing from consensual sodomy, consensual incest, "speech" in the form of sexually graphic writing [obscenity], no matter how offensive some may find it.

according to the latter, the state is supposed to be a force for good; it must exercize its power and authority directly and indirectly to promote the good. an example is GW Bush's 'pro marriage' efforts, i.e. official propaganda encouraging marriage. [CORRECTED:] Roxanne, too, seems to favor the promotion of marriage, in some form or other. according to the Catholics and Aristotelian's it's *wrong,* if not sinful, for the state to avoid doing what would promote the good, and hinder evil.

this has been called a 'theocratic' position, and is found in the old Popes' writings, Calvin, and lately in the Ayatollahs of Iran, the Sunni far-right of Saudi Arabia etc. it was put into practice, in the US, under the Puritans in New England; examples that lasted till the 20th century include the 'blue laws,' e.g., the Connecticutt law banning sale of contraceptives.

whatever his love for 'free market', it's stunning that alleged libertarian amicus sides with the theocrats on a not-small number of "freedom" issues: the marriage amendment; forcing women to bear a rapist's child; outlawing sodomy; preventing homosexuals from a number of jobs, e.g. primary and secondary school teaching. disabilities of woman in having a right to vote, etc.

I believe the Pope has a term for this: he says he favors "Christian liberty". Like Amicus, he argues that 'true liberty' can NOT be to do wrong, but rather must agree with 'natural law.'

---

here's an interesting article by a fellow named Cline, probably an atheist, about the Catholic position re 'gay marriage' and natural law allegedly prohibiting such relations:

http://atheism.about.com/od/catholicismandgays/a/gaymarriage.htm

 

[SlickTony]

Ah. I hadn't read what Ami said, except where it was quoted and I couldn't avoid it. I didn't want to take those Lisinoprils I'm paying for each month to no avail.

this is a position of Roxanne, too. according to the latter it's *wrong,* if not sinful, for the state to avoid doing what would promote the good, and hinder evil.

If she's opposing such things as anti-discrimination laws and a social safety net for the non-rich, but proposing the the intrusion of the state into our bedrooms and medicine cabinets, then it should be easy to know what category to put her and Ami both.

 

[Pure]

hi slick,

i have slightly altered the wording that attempts to give Roxanne's position. from what I remember it's based on Murray's. it's clear she favors the promotion of marriage, since she admires those who attribute poverty to the lesser frequency of marrying, among the poor. hence i've corrected the posting to read:

Roxanne, too, seems to favor the promotion of marriage, in some form or other.

i'm not sure, that is, whether she favors direct action by the fed'l gov to preach the virtues of marriage and make it esp. attractive to poor people. generally she differs with ami as to 'theocratic' tendency, e.g. she has no problem with the gov't staying away from regulating women's wombs and their contents.

 

[amicus]

Ah, the Soma enhanced world of the present and the past, Brave New world indeed...

..."...Ah. I hadn't read what Ami said, except where it was quoted and I couldn't avoid it. I didn't want to take those Lisinoprils I'm paying for each month to no avail..."

Any thing, chemical included to avoid and evade reality, such a deal~

ami

 

[xssve]

~~~

Better first question for you...with a small preface...assuming, if only for the sake of conversation, you can rise above your hatred of mankind, his self evident interest in his own survival and comfort...

What is the flaw in human existence?

Since the free exchange of goods and services is merely an extension of the existence of the individual and his desire to survive, name that flaw, m'dear?

Amicus...

Haha, you accuse me of hating mankind, a guy who respect for no one other than himself and never ceases to remind everyone of the fact.

The flaw is indeed self interest, which is why it's a system built around it's essential flaw - as long as the flaw is out in the open where everyone can see, discuss it, and match it with their own flaw, self interest, it works, and it increases group fitness.

When you allow it to be concealed behind institutions, ideologies, and rhetoric, then the flaw destroys everything it touches, and throws everything into chaos, vastly diminishing group fitness.

You are clearly in the fascist camp, your rhetoric and the desirese it revels are designed to supress discussion, to silence opposition, to destroy the freedom of thought, language and action that allows men to be free.

I suspect you imagine that you'd be the big dog in this sort of world, but you and your type have ever been nothing but cannon fodder and breeding stock in that system.

You don't know what your self interest is, you 've bought the lie that the self interst of your heroes is your self interest, you live vicariously through the mythical triumphs of your father figures - in other words, just another deluded Reagan republican, cherry picking among any self serving philosophy that rationalizes your hatred of competition.

You dumb fuckers hate and fear the thing that forms the very foundation of capitalism, and will not rest untill you've destroyed it - it isn't morals you have, it's the exact opposite, it's an infantile self centeredness, it's idol a senile fool, a puppet, a prop.

You fuckers need to get grow up and get some backbone, people are watching.

 

[Pure]

interesting xssve.

as you know the far right *talk* about a nubmer of political systems, including democracy. but in practice 'fascistic' solutions croup up.

the strong moral views are once thing that does it. here how incensed ami is over 'gay marriage' or whatever.

he can't, like Mill, leave that alone.

like St. Paul, even 'fornication' of the young gets him going. hence 'no condoms' for them.

busybodyism. can't leave wombs alone. if if they bear a rapist's child, he, like the Pope, wants control.

---
note the US had its fascist times, in the South 1850--1965. a feature of it was these weird moral obsessions; which were used as a cloak for violence.

you mention Reagan. he used the Southern Strategy, one that's still alive. hence the fascistic element in their membership... now amounting to 30%

 

[amicus]

A curious mixture here on this thread about Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, that has become an exposition for the guerilla's in the jungle lobbing mortar shells into the bastions of human freedom and liberty from all directions.

One rather unspoken, underlying tenet of the left is that they simply do not trust a democratic system, wherein free people cast free ballots in free elections for those to represent them in the halls of government, nah, the elite intellectuals, who all know better than the masses, truly believe they, shoul enact and enforce all laws.

Would Pure of Xssve either participate in the democratic process and expose their agendas for public perusal, they would all be humiliated and soundly defeated, which is why they become parasites and yuppie larvae, feeding at the public education trough.

I watched again, a film, from a novella by Isaac Asimov, The Positronic Man, called, "Bi Centennial Man" with Robin Williams, a story about a robot, an android, seeking individual recognition as a separate entity amongst the human community.

There was a line that caught my attention:

Andrew: One has studied your history. Terrible wars have been fought where millions have died for one idea, freedom. And it seems that something that means so much to so many people would be worth having.

The neverending quest for freedom by man has overcome God and King, Dictator, Fascist and Communist and will face down the Muslim fanatics and any other thread to human individual freedom and liberty.

I know that, beyond a shadow of a doubt for I know the basic nature of the human individual, to strive always for individual freedom and liberty and the means to survive and express those desires.

So, let the 'usual suspects' carry on in the usual manner, rain drops off a duck's back, nothing more.

Amicus...

 

[gauchecritic]

Bored MiAmico? All your fights lost or surrendered?

Now you have to invent the intent of the left?

One rather unspoken, underlying tenet of the left is that they simply do not trust a democratic system, wherein free people cast free ballots in free elections for those to represent them in the halls of government, nah, the elite intellectuals, who all know better than the masses, truly believe they, shoul enact and enforce all laws.

It's tired and stale. Thought police won't be available until thoughts can actually be read. (although your president is making a darn decent attempt)

Oh and PS. The thread wasn't actually about the greatness of Ayn Rand as you keep on insisting, it was actually begun as a 'so what' kind of enquiry.