ewv

Who needs elections?

29 posts in this topic

Never mind Obama's "measured march toward power" so he can "take power and rule on day one" [1] [2], this New York Times columnist, Gail Collins, thinks Bush should abdicate now so Obama can take the throne immediately. Obama was not elected to "rule" until next January? That small detail of elections pertaining to terms of office limited to specific periods of time can be worked out by Chaney abdicating, too -- then House Speaker Pelosi can immediately take power as a front for Obama's every wish. Watch for this arrogant New York Times nitwit's columns in the future on the other end of the Obam reign, too -- why not just do away with elections, Chavez style, so the Messiah can stay?

What justfies such political arrogance? Bush, Collins snidely opines, is advocating the "glories of free-market capitalism" and no one "cares what he thinks". On what substantive issue might Bush not want to abdicate for the sake of the Messiah? "Last-minute regulations to issue. (So many national parks to despoil, so many endangered species to exterminate...)". Evidently, national parks are "despoiled" by not taking more private property to expand them, and entire species are deliberatel "exterminated" by not controlling private property for forced preservation more than it already is. Collins even blames Bush for "California's state government falling into the sea!". Only the Messiah can save us with "change".

Time for Him to Go

By GAIL COLLINS

Published: November 22, 2008

Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning.

Seriously. We have an economy that's crashing and a vacuum at the top. Bush -- who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks -- hasn't got the clout, or possibly even the energy, to do anything useful. His most recent contribution to resolving the fiscal crisis was lecturing representatives of the world's most important economies on the glories of free-market capitalism.

Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn't impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We'r desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she'd defer to her part's incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing...

Bush might not love the idea of quitting before he has a chance to light the Christmas tree or commute the execution of one last presidential turkey. After all, he still has a couple more trips planned. And last-minute regulations to issue. (So many national parks to despoil, so many endangered species to exterminate...) And then there's alll the packing...

An instantaneous takeover would also ruin the Obama team's plan to have the tidiest, best-organized presidential transition in history. Cutting it short and leaping into governing would turn their measured march toward power into a mad scramble...

Californi's state government is falling into the sea! The way we're going now, by the time the inauguration rolls around, unemployment will be at 10 percent and the Dow will be at 10.

Time for a change.

Full article

This is not a "mad scramble" for power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people have read the book The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression? The Obama story is looking more and more like Stalin's take over of Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many people have read the book The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression? The Obama story is looking more and more like Stalin's take over of Russia.

Russia was already taken over by the Communists when Stalin came to power. The Communists took over from the Czarists who weren't exactly individualists or capitalists either. Our current situation is not very comparable to Russia at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many people have read the book The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression? The Obama story is looking more and more like Stalin's take over of Russia.

Russia was already taken over by the Communists when Stalin came to power.

Comrade Lenin came before Stalin, but Stalin did "take over Russia".

The Communists took over from the Czarists who weren't exactly individualists or capitalists either. Our current situation is not very comparable to Russia at all.

The Czar at least allowed some semblance of private property (like Ayn Rand's family business) and did not require that Joe the plumber dedicate his life to the collective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... The Communists took over from the Czarists who weren't exactly individualists or capitalists either ...

No. Never forget the February Revolution, and the 1917 Provisional Government under Alexander Kerensky! Future novelist Vladimir Nabokov's father was very active in the Provisional Government (and had to flee for his life when the Communists staged their coup in October). From Who Is Ayn Rand, hardcover, p. 157:

Eleven months later [in 1918], from the same window, she watched the last rites of that revolution: the funeral procession of the delegates to the Constituent Assembly--chosen in the first free and general election in Russian history--who had been shot down by the communists at the Assembly's first meeting.

Russia's falling under totalitarian dictatorship was foreseeable. I'm currently studying Joseph Frank's massive 5-volume biography, Dostoevsky. In the 1870s, former political prisoner Dostoevsky was the most honored thinker in all of Russia. The royal family called him to the palace, to talk with and impart his moral influence to the next generation of Tsars. AT THE SAME TIME the monarchy's enemies, the Nihilists, looked up to Dostoevsky and countless radical students relied on his advice.

To each side he gave the same advice: morality consists of subduing and sacrificing the ego--a view that thoroughly permeated Russian culture.

In that respect, our current situation is ominously comparable to Russia in the 1870s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many people have read the book The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression? The Obama story is looking more and more like Stalin's take over of Russia.

Russia was already taken over by the Communists when Stalin came to power. The Communists took over from the Czarists who weren't exactly individualists or capitalists either. Our current situation is not very comparable to Russia at all.

You are correct, I meant to name Lenin but incorrectly listed Stalin. But, I disagree with your assessement. Land grabs, power grabs, hatred of the productive class (bourgeois), failing economy, inflation, if this items do not resemble what is going on now in America, then I need a pair of glasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Land grabs, power grabs, hatred of the productive class (bourgeois), failing economy, inflation, if this items do not resemble what is going on now in America, then I need a pair of glasses.

There are concrete similarities between the US and Russia but an enormous philosophical and sense of life difference that Ayn Rand wrote about in her essay "Don't Let It Go" in Philosophy: Who Needs It?

Given the power of ideas, we should seek out and support the Americans who hold fast to the American sense of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Land grabs, power grabs, hatred of the productive class (bourgeois), failing economy, inflation, if this items do not resemble what is going on now in America, then I need a pair of glasses.

There are concrete similarities between the US and Russia but an enormous philosophical and sense of life difference that Ayn Rand wrote about in her essay "Don't Let It Go" in Philosophy: Who Needs It?

Given the power of ideas, we should seek out and support the Americans who hold fast to the American sense of life.

I agree that those are the type of people one should seek out. But, to win a war one must also know the facts of reality and one's enemy if a proper strategy is going to be applied to win the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the power of ideas, we should seek out and support the Americans who hold fast to the American sense of life.

I agree that those are the type of people one should seek out. But, to win a war one must also know the facts of reality and one's enemy if a proper strategy is going to be applied to win the war.

That is important, especially when defending our position, but I would rather go on the offense.

Observe that Ragnar was the only one who did battle with the looters. Galt and Francisco sought to reach out to and win over the producers. That's my preference too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the power of ideas, we should seek out and support the Americans who hold fast to the American sense of life.

I agree that those are the type of people one should seek out. But, to win a war one must also know the facts of reality and one's enemy if a proper strategy is going to be applied to win the war.

That is important, especially when defending our position, but I would rather go on the offense.

Observe that Ragnar was the only one who did battle with the looters. Galt and Francisco sought to reach out to and win over the producers. That's my preference too.

I would offer that both aspects might be needed, but at different times within a strategy. I would also add that without the warriors that are willing to go out and defeat the enemy that the intellectuals will not have the time to reach out and win over the producers, if it gets to that point. I, like I think many here, would rather be doing many more things than fighting wars (intellectual or otherwise) but in the whole recorded history of man there is not a time that has been without some type of war and I would be willing to state that there never will. If you have read the book that I mentioned earlier or other books on Russia and Lenin (who was elected also) you should have seen that those people were willing to take power by force if needed, which they did. If the power hungry in America attempt to do the same, such as the title of this thread hints toward, all the rational diplomacy and discussions will be thrown out by the group using "hard power." And unless another group uses "hard power" backed by reason, the first group will surely win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, to win a war one must also know the facts of reality and one's enemy if a proper strategy is going to be applied to win the war.

That is important, especially when defending our position, but I would rather go on the offense.

Observe that Ragnar was the only one who did battle with the looters. Galt and Francisco sought to reach out to and win over the producers. That's my preference too.

I would offer that both aspects might be needed, but at different times within a strategy.

It is more than an issue of "both." There are more than two things needed to win the war and more than two ways a person can get involved. We need intellectual and military warriors and defenders. We need intellectual munitions makers (intellectuals). We need financiers (contributors to ARI). We need scouts and spies to figure out what's going on in the enemy camp and where they are vulnerable.

There is a lot that needs to be done and each person can fight for his values in a way that suits him best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is more than an issue of "both." There are more than two things needed to win the war and more than two ways a person can get involved. We need intellectual and military warriors and defenders. We need intellectual munitions makers (intellectuals). We need financiers (contributors to ARI). We need scouts and spies to figure out what's going on in the enemy camp and where they are vulnerable.

There is a lot that needs to be done and each person can fight for his values in a way that suits him best.

I understand all that and that is not what I am attempting to get at. What I am trying to say is that if you think you can have a rational discussion with a person that wants to enslave you and is willing to use force to achieve their desires, then I disagree. Force must me met by force backed by reason or all your talking will not do you nor anyone else any good. Although I do not think we are at this point yet.

Obama and his ilk seem willing to use force to achieve their desires and you can keep talking to those with the right sense of life, but for the most part those are not the people with the power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am trying to say is that if you think you can have a rational discussion with a person that wants to enslave you and is willing to use force to achieve their desires, then I disagree. Force must me met by force backed by reason or all your talking will not do you nor anyone else any good. Although I do not think we are at this point yet.

I agree 100%.

Obama and his ilk seem willing to use force to achieve their desires and you can keep talking to those with the right sense of life, but for the most part those are not the people with the power.

Yes they are! Obama and his ilk can't do a damn thing without the sanction of exactly the kind of people I am reaching out to. If I can convince the good people that they are right, their "No!" will stop Obama & Co. dead in their tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama and his ilk seem willing to use force to achieve their desires and you can keep talking to those with the right sense of life, but for the most part those are not the people with the power.

Yes they are! Obama and his ilk can't do a damn thing without the sanction of exactly the kind of people I am reaching out to. If I can convince the good people that they are right, their "No!" will stop Obama & Co. dead in their tracks.

When a thug has a gun to your head your lack of "sanction" doesn't stop him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama and his ilk seem willing to use force to achieve their desires and you can keep talking to those with the right sense of life, but for the most part those are not the people with the power.

Yes they are! Obama and his ilk can't do a damn thing without the sanction of exactly the kind of people I am reaching out to. If I can convince the good people that they are right, their "No!" will stop Obama & Co. dead in their tracks.

When a thug has a gun to your head your lack of "sanction" doesn't stop him.

Quite true. That's another thing we have to make clear to the better people as well as what they can do about it.

Even when faced with force, there are things that the victim can do. Just exposing that force is the issue, as Rearden did in his courtroom speech and Galt did at the banquet by exposing the gun, can be very effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama and his ilk seem willing to use force to achieve their desires and you can keep talking to those with the right sense of life, but for the most part those are not the people with the power.

Yes they are! Obama and his ilk can't do a damn thing without the sanction of exactly the kind of people I am reaching out to. If I can convince the good people that they are right, their "No!" will stop Obama & Co. dead in their tracks.

When a thug has a gun to your head your lack of "sanction" doesn't stop him.

Quite true. That's another thing we have to make clear to the better people as well as what they can do about it.

Even when faced with force, there are things that the victim can do. Just exposing that force is the issue, as Rearden did in his courtroom speech and Galt did at the banquet by exposing the gun, can be very effective.

If you think "Rearden's courtroom speech" stops a thug in the IRS or viro agency from taking your property you are very naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama and his ilk seem willing to use force to achieve their desires and you can keep talking to those with the right sense of life, but for the most part those are not the people with the power.

Yes they are! Obama and his ilk can't do a damn thing without the sanction of exactly the kind of people I am reaching out to. If I can convince the good people that they are right, their "No!" will stop Obama & Co. dead in their tracks.

When a thug has a gun to your head your lack of "sanction" doesn't stop him.

Quite true. That's another thing we have to make clear to the better people as well as what they can do about it.

Even when faced with force, there are things that the victim can do. Just exposing that force is the issue, as Rearden did in his courtroom speech and Galt did at the banquet by exposing the gun, can be very effective.

If you think "Rearden's courtroom speech" stops a thug in the IRS or viro agency from taking your property you are very naive.

I think Betsy means 'when they understand the issues, they won't grant the power to be exploited'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think "Rearden's courtroom speech" stops a thug in the IRS or viro agency from taking your property you are very naive.
Calling Betsy "naive" doesn't prove your case. Do you wish to give an actual argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think "Rearden's courtroom speech" stops a thug in the IRS or viro agency from taking your property you are very naive.

And so what's your alternative? What would you do to stop such a thug from taking your property?

If you don't think it's Rearden's courtroom speech, or its contemporary equivalent (which is to say, in general, philosophy), that stands between you and the looters, what do you think possibly could? Politics? The Republican Party?

And you call Betsy naive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think "Rearden's courtroom speech" stops a thug in the IRS or viro agency from taking your property you are very naive.

And so what's your alternative? What would you do to stop such a thug from taking your property?

If you don't think it's Rearden's courtroom speech, or its contemporary equivalent (which is to say, in general, philosophy), that stands between you and the looters, what do you think possibly could? Politics? The Republican Party?

And you call Betsy naive...

With all due respect, you missed the point. The point is not that rational speeches or discussions never work as they do in certain circumstances. The point is that when dealing with people that are willing to use force against others, those others must also use force backed by reason if they desire to remain free. When a thief comes to your door with a knife how long do you think he will listen to you before he slits your throat and takes your money? Whom is being naive? So, to answer your question, rational force is what will stand between oneself and the enemy that is attempting to use force.

Have you read the book that I mentioned in my first post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think "Rearden's courtroom speech" stops a thug in the IRS or viro agency from taking your property you are very naive.

And so what's your alternative? What would you do to stop such a thug from taking your property?

If you don't think it's Rearden's courtroom speech, or its contemporary equivalent (which is to say, in general, philosophy), that stands between you and the looters, what do you think possibly could? Politics? The Republican Party?

And you call Betsy naive...

With all due respect, you missed the point. The point is not that rational speeches or discussions never work as they do in certain circumstances. The point is that when dealing with people that are willing to use force against others, those others must also use force backed by reason if they desire to remain free. When a thief comes to your door with a knife how long do you think he will listen to you before he slits your throat and takes your money? Whom is being naive? So, to answer your question, rational force is what will stand between oneself and the enemy that is attempting to use force.

Have you read the book that I mentioned in my first post?

I was responding specifically to what I quoted from ewv.

But, now that you reiterate the concept of using "rational force," I do have to ask: what exactly are you proposing? I can think of no act of force that one could take in our current context that would be productive or, perhaps, even moral. I can, on the other hand, think of any number of philosophical activities that one could take to positively impact the culture. And, I believe that the underlying philosophy of the culture needs to change (dramatically) before ANY meaningful political change is going to occur.

Obviously, if a thief comes to my door with a knife, I'll respond appropriately (or, I'll let my German Shepherd dog do it for me). However, that's very different from speaking of force, today, in a political context. Until we have outright dictatorship, which would mean literal censorship, I don't think any sort of force is called for. And, I can't imagine what it would be like were things to progress so far. With police and military technology as it is today, I'd not hold out much hope for a modern Ragnar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is more than an issue of "both." There are more than two things needed to win the war and more than two ways a person can get involved. We need intellectual and military warriors and defenders. We need intellectual munitions makers (intellectuals). We need financiers (contributors to ARI). We need scouts and spies to figure out what's going on in the enemy camp and where they are vulnerable.

There is a lot that needs to be done and each person can fight for his values in a way that suits him best.

I understand all that and that is not what I am attempting to get at. What I am trying to say is that if you think you can have a rational discussion with a person that wants to enslave you and is willing to use force to achieve their desires, then I disagree. Force must me met by force backed by reason or all your talking will not do you nor anyone else any good. Although I do not think we are at this point yet.

Obama and his ilk seem willing to use force to achieve their desires and you can keep talking to those with the right sense of life, but for the most part those are not the people with the power.

Yes they are! Obama and his ilk can't do a damn thing without the sanction of exactly the kind of people I am reaching out to. If I can convince the good people that they are right, their "No!" will stop Obama & Co. dead in their tracks.

When a thug has a gun to your head your lack of "sanction" doesn't stop him.

Quite true. That's another thing we have to make clear to the better people as well as what they can do about it.

Even when faced with force, there are things that the victim can do. Just exposing that force is the issue, as Rearden did in his courtroom speech and Galt did at the banquet by exposing the gun, can be very effective.

If you think "Rearden's courtroom speech" stops a thug in the IRS or viro agency from taking your property you are very naive.

I think Betsy means 'when they understand the issues, they won't grant the power to be exploited'.

Thugs already have the power. They don't require their victims to grant it to them. "Exposing" the fact that they are using force does not revoke it.

Calling Betsy "naive" doesn't prove your case. Do you wish to give an actual argument?

Understanding this presupposes only that you know what the concept "thug" means and have the experience to know how they behave in reality, not imagined in fiction with dramatic speeches. Do you need examples of thugs in government bureaucracies like the IRS and land acquisition agencies?

And so what's your alternative? What would you do to stop such a thug from taking your property?

If you don't think it's Rearden's courtroom speech, or its contemporary equivalent (which is to say, in general, philosophy), that stands between you and the looters, what do you think possibly could? Politics? The Republican Party?

And you call Betsy naive...

You don't have any experience with these things, do you? That is also why you don't know that it makes a difference who is power in government when you disapprove of all the candidates "philosophies". Contending with these threats, if it is possible to stop them in any particular case, is in fact very much political. And more often than not, if someone in office is willing to help with a property rights problem he is a Republican, not a Democrat. With progressive leftists running the government it is increasingly not possible to stop these egregious abuses by government thugs. That is the situation Ray was referring to.

Before you dismissively sneer at "Republicans" as doing nothing to stand between us and the looters and huff that those who don't rely on dramatic philosophical speeches as the solution to every problem are naive, you should learn something about the reality of these situations. Republicans have in fact stopped many abuses perpetrated by government under Democrat (and liberal Republican) policy. They cannot do that when progressive New Leftists are running the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was responding specifically to what I quoted from ewv.

But, now that you reiterate the concept of using "rational force," I do have to ask: what exactly are you proposing? I can think of no act of force that one could take in our current context that would be productive or, perhaps, even moral. I can, on the other hand, think of any number of philosophical activities that one could take to positively impact the culture. And, I believe that the underlying philosophy of the culture needs to change (dramatically) before ANY meaningful political change is going to occur.

Obviously, if a thief comes to my door with a knife, I'll respond appropriately (or, I'll let my German Shepherd dog do it for me). However, that's very different from speaking of force, today, in a political context. Until we have outright dictatorship, which would mean literal censorship, I don't think any sort of force is called for. And, I can't imagine what it would be like were things to progress so far. With police and military technology as it is today, I'd not hold out much hope for a modern Ragnar...

I am proposing that if the time comes when free speech has been outlawed another strategy, which rational force most likely will be a part of, will have to be applied if one wants to gain back their freedom. I can also think of many different activities that might impact America's culture/sense of life. But, I attempt to not overestimate nor underestimate our culture's sense of life and instead look at it objectively. If we look at history and understand principles we can come to a rational conclusion on what might happen if a culture keeps going forward in it's corrupt direction. As of yet America's move toward destruction is not set, but to deny that we are moving in that direction is to evade (or at minimal, to overlook) the facts of reality. Look at the youth and who holds the power to educate them and look what type of principles most of them now agree with. Take an objective look around at our culture and tell me what type of sense of life you see, how does it compare to the time during our founding fathers culture? Once again, as of right now I am not proposing that force be used. But, if the time comes I must agree with Patrick Henry when he once said, "Give me liberty or give me death." And in the same speech Patrick Henry also stated the following:

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."

So, please explain to me how defending your right to life could be considered immoral when our founding fathers were willing to; "...mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor?" I also ask if you think that your freedom can be defended without some type of cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am proposing that if the time comes when free speech has been outlawed another strategy...

Then we're in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the youth and who holds the power to educate them and look what type of principles most of them now agree with.

The biggest tragedy is that we will have a generation even less able than the last to think independently and to pursue their happiness, and even more dependent on the State to feed them and tell them what to think. The dumbing down of America is possibly the most threatening consequence of the Left's policies. It makes the people...receptive.

On the bright side, this dumbing down effect produces even more incompetent ideologues, and only a few out of millions have the ambition to run for office to force their evil ideas on others. We don't need to defeat all of them, only the ringleaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites