Rational Ryan

The Peikoff Endorsement

113 posts in this topic

...I agree that cultural and ethical issues will ultimately prevail over anything in the Constitution.

Then we're in agreement about the most fundamental, and important (in my opinion), issue of this entire thread. Although, I personally would expand (clarify?) that to say that cultural and ethical (i.e., philosophical) issues will ultimately prevail over politics. Which, really, is compatible with what I see as Dr. Peikoff's point: that philosophy is primary, that the most dangerous contemporary philosophical movement in the country is religion, and thus the Republican Party should be punished for its affiliation with the religious right--with the implicit purpose of causing it to distance itself from that influence and become a Party with more rational principles.

But, really, I think this poor horse has been beaten to death, pulverized, liquefied, and poured down the drain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Dr. Peikoff's argument was not just the religion is a growing threat, but that it was an imminent threat and that the Evangelicals within the Republican Party were trying to establish a theocracy within the next 20 - 50 years, or sooner.

He stated that the Republican Party stands for medieval theocracy. He stated that free speech is threatened to be gone because of religion in four years. He said that four years ago.

You state that Betsy has argued "against theocracy solely on the separation of church and state inherent in the Constitution is equally mistaken, and yet that seems to be the argument." I don't think that has been her argument. She clearly states "so far, and for the most part, it's been able to protect us from theocracy." (my bold)

The Constitution would still prevent a change in the form of government no matter who wins an election because no person or group has the means to do that in the forseeable future. No one could substitute theocratic edict for the system of checks and balances in three branches of government. The most an elected "theocrat" could do would be to follow the current form of government to impose whatever he could within the current framework.

The threat that the Constitutional procedures of government itself are rendered meaningless is much more difficult to carry out, but is already incrementally occurring over time by redefining and "agreeing" on what it no longer means. In this the worst threat is from the viro progressive left, which wants rule by bureaucracy and an end to the limits on government power (as Obama said). They already control the bureaucracy entrenched from within and are operating under vague laws that give them enormous power. This is already happening. It is past "imminent". No one has argued that a piece of paper is a permanent defense against tyranny, which is a straw man along with the straw man that those who know enough to see a difference between candidates in an election don't acknowledge that government and the political culture are declining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Dr. Peikoff's argument was not just the religion is a growing threat, but that it was an imminent threat and that the Evangelicals within the Republican Party were trying to establish a theocracy within the next 20 - 50 years, or sooner.

He stated that the Republican Party stands for medieval theocracy. He stated that free speech is threatened to be gone because of religion in four years. He said that four years ago.

You state that Betsy has argued "against theocracy solely on the separation of church and state inherent in the Constitution is equally mistaken, and yet that seems to be the argument." I don't think that has been her argument. She clearly states "so far, and for the most part, it's been able to protect us from theocracy." (my bold)

The Constitution would still prevent a change in the form of government no matter who wins an election because no person or group has the means to do that in the forseeable future. No one could substitute theocratic edict for the system of checks and balances in three branches of government. The most an elected "theocrat" could do would be to follow the current form of government to impose whatever he could within the current framework.

The threat that the Constitutional procedures of government itself are rendered meaningless is much more difficult to carry out, but is already incrementally occurring over time by redefining and "agreeing" on what it no longer means. In this the worst threat is from the viro progressive left, which wants rule by bureaucracy and an end to the limits on government power (as Obama said). They already control the bureaucracy entrenched from within and are operating under vague laws that give them enormous power. This is already happening. It is past "imminent". No one has argued that a piece of paper is a permanent defense against tyranny, which is a straw man along with the straw man that those who know enough to see a difference between candidates in an election don't acknowledge that government and the political culture are declining.

Very good points. But I don't remember Dr. Peikoff saying that about free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very good points. But I don't remember Dr. Peikoff saying that about free speech.

"If this goes on for even four more years, how long do you think intellectual freedom and freedom of speech can last?" He also called Bush an "advocate of totalitarianism" and the "equivalent of a Puritan theocracy". This was all on leonardpeikoff.com as of Sept. 2004. It does not appear to be there now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then we're in agreement about the most fundamental, and important (in my opinion), issue of this entire thread. Although, I personally would expand (clarify?) that to say that cultural and ethical (i.e., philosophical) issues will ultimately prevail over politics.

Of course, since ethics is more fundamental than politics.

Which, really, is compatible with what I see as Dr. Peikoff's point: that philosophy is primary,

True.

that the most dangerous contemporary philosophical movement in the country is religion,

False.

and thus the Republican Party should be punished for its affiliation with the religious right--with the implicit purpose of causing it to distance itself from that influence and become a Party with more rational principles.

Unless all your premises are true, your conclusion doesn't follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very good points. But I don't remember Dr. Peikoff saying that about free speech.

"If this goes on for even four more years, how long do you think intellectual freedom and freedom of speech can last?" He also called Bush an "advocate of totalitarianism" and the "equivalent of a Puritan theocracy". This was all on leonardpeikoff.com as of Sept. 2004. It does not appear to be there now.

It's here (link).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then we're in agreement about the most fundamental, and important (in my opinion), issue of this entire thread. Although, I personally would expand (clarify?) that to say that cultural and ethical (i.e., philosophical) issues will ultimately prevail over politics.

Of course, since ethics is more fundamental than politics.

Which, really, is compatible with what I see as Dr. Peikoff's point: that philosophy is primary,

True.

that the most dangerous contemporary philosophical movement in the country is religion,

False.

and thus the Republican Party should be punished for its affiliation with the religious right--with the implicit purpose of causing it to distance itself from that influence and become a Party with more rational principles.

Unless all your premises are true, your conclusion doesn't follow.

There are also missing premises, such as the means required to take power "imminently" from those who have it and who already institutionally control education, the kinds of choices that people make over time, the claim that "punishment" of a contemporary political party takes precedence over everything else, the claim that the Republican Party stands for what Leonard Peikoff says it does, etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If this goes on for even four more years, how long do you think intellectual freedom and freedom of speech can last?" He also called Bush an "advocate of totalitarianism" and the "equivalent of a Puritan theocracy". This was all on leonardpeikoff.com as of Sept. 2004. It does not appear to be there now.

It's here (link).

I urge anyone who agrees with Dr. Peikoff to listen to this audio of him speaking -- especially the last few minutes -- and compare what Dr. Peikoff predicted would happen if Bush were elected in 2004 with what actually happened. Considering how his predictions turned out, some serious premise-checking is in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If this goes on for even four more years, how long do you think intellectual freedom and freedom of speech can last?" He also called Bush an "advocate of totalitarianism" and the "equivalent of a Puritan theocracy". This was all on leonardpeikoff.com as of Sept. 2004. It does not appear to be there now.

It's here (link).

I urge anyone who agrees with Dr. Peikoff to listen to this audio of him speaking -- especially the last few minutes -- and compare what Dr. Peikoff predicted would happen if Bush were elected in 2004 with what actually happened. Considering how his predictions turned out, some serious premise-checking is in order.

Here are some of the issues I heard, listed below.

1. Politically, the entire fundamentalist movement is Republican and supports Bush.

2. Bush has the popular following he does because of the Christian vision that he champions.

3. Bush is trying to ram into law and values his religious beliefs.

4. He has unleashed persecution of big business on religious grounds.

5. Bush is much worse than Democrats according "Obectivist CEOs".

6. Bush is to the religious state what FDR was to the welfare state.

7. 60% of the voting public is Evangelical.

8. There are no longer any crusade or a mass base for big government except among the religious.

9. Hillary Clinton is not a threat at this juncture to the foundations of this country.

10. Bush is working to achieve a massive entrenchment of the fundamentalists into our government system.

11. Bush is the equivalent of an advocate of a Puritan theocracy.

12. If this goes on for 4 more years, how long will intellectual freedom will last?

Four years later, Bush's popularity is at an all time low. 60% of the population who wants theocracy apparently no longer support him. Which religious laws have been approved by Congress at Bush's behest? Bush appears to be not only worse than FDR, but he may be classified as worse than Lenin: he may be considered as the first socialist President of the US, forget about theocracy. The crusade for big government is ready to be unleashed by the Democrats starting Jan. 20, 2009. Obama will get rid of whatever appointments and executive orders Bush made that pertained to abortion and sexual reproduction. We are not a Puritan theocracy, nor is it even on the intellectual radar. We still have intellectual freedom, but its greatest challenge will be from the big government leftists, not the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists are now abandoning the Republican Party and are looking for a new home in the environmentalist movement in the Democratic Party.

The major justification for Dr. Peikoff's analysis was his DIM hypothesis, comparing M2 vs. D1. Such analysis leaves much to be desired. I'd like to see evidence from reality, not from a hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, really, I think this poor horse has been beaten to death, pulverized, liquefied, and poured down the drain.
But if we're talking about a Christian theocracy, doesn't the dead horse come back three days later? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, really, I think this poor horse has been beaten to death, pulverized, liquefied, and poured down the drain.
But if we're talking about a Christian theocracy, doesn't the dead horse come back three days later? :)

And then gets mistakenly celebrated yearly on a Pagan fertility/Spring holiday?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, really, I think this poor horse has been beaten to death, pulverized, liquefied, and poured down the drain.
But if we're talking about a Christian theocracy, doesn't the dead horse come back three days later? :)

And then gets mistakenly celebrated yearly on a Pagan fertility/Spring holiday?

Do not blaspheme against the holy horse, or thou shalt be stoned to death, in his mercy..

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, really, I think this poor horse has been beaten to death, pulverized, liquefied, and poured down the drain.
But if we're talking about a Christian theocracy, doesn't the dead horse come back three days later? :)

Only if he has holes in his legs. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites