TTI Forums

Raaz Satik wrote:

C Molten wrote:In practice too many lions have chosen indifference and Nancy Pelosi is leading the sheep.

Not sure if this is anti-goverment post or an anti-democrat post.

There's a difference?

How's this for an idea: Delay the forces of evil that are dominating the lawmaking process, by finding and attacking unconstitutional elements of legislation as fast as it's passed. Establish a legal foundation, like the "Civil Liberties Union", but with the simple charter of attacking all laws that go beyond the scope of the constitution, and vigorously plead the case with the judiciary. Certainly the current judiciary is more free enterprise and liberty minded than the current legislature. What are the odds that there is nothing unconstitutional in a 600 page piece of legislation, read by no one, that imposes restrictions on the states, businesses and individuals?

Alumina wrote:How's this for an idea: Delay the forces of evil that are dominating the lawmaking process, by finding and attacking unconstitutional elements of legislation as fast as it's passed.

The prospects of adhering to the constitution are looking pretty bleak…

In the US we can’t even adhere to simple constitutional principals like say preventing the seating as President of a man whose parents gave up his natural citizen status when they moved him as a child to Indonesia.

Indonesia required all children to be citizens as a condition for attendance in public school. And Barry Soetoro attended public school and a madrasa in Indonesia. When he returned to the US his status should have been changed from natural born to naturalized.

To further strengthen the case it appears the twenty-something Barry traveled to Pakistan during the Soviet occupation, at a time when Pakistan did not recognize relations with the United States. What the heck is Barry doing in a caliphate? How did he get into Pakistan as a US citizen? Some people think he did it with an Indonesian passport.

Much depends on what the Supreme courts decide. In Barry’s case they decided that naturalization was good enough (even though the constitution says it isn't), as long as Arnold doesn’t try it. The Courts are now converting to a more activist and socialist policy. I’m not sure how much traction a small government, limited constitutional scope effort could achieve.

BTW welcome back to the forums Alumina!

I certainly like the idea of having the judiciary perform it's duty to assert constitutional limits on government power. But it has largely abandoned that role. To get good results from the legal challenges you suggest, I think we'll first have to have reform in the system itself.

Perhaps an amendment reasserting the judiciary's vital purpose in limiting government and mandating strict interpretation of the constitution - to the extent it is possible to restrict something like interpretation.

C Molten wrote:In practice too many lions have chosen indifference and Nancy Pelosi is leading the sheep.

Nancy Pelosi is a special kind of fucktard isn't she.

The best way to change the culture for the better is through philosophy, which means you need to teach people the right philosophy, which means you can only do it when they are young and are studying, which means education.

What do we have currently in education? Liberal-leftist crap for over a century. The result is what you see around you. Thus, it needs to be taken over by pro-reason philosophy and education. How?

Get more Objectivist teachers, get kids to read Ayn Rand fiction. Example: Ayn Rand Center sends out free copies of Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged to middle/high-school teachers directly. So far Ayn Rand Institute have sent out over a MILLION books to teachers under this program. There are numerous Objectivist program starting in over 50 colleges across the US.

Imagine the results a few decades later...

Here's the video from awesome Yaron Brook on the above work done by ARI. (Yaron Brook is the current CEO of ARI.)

"Reasons to be Optimistic about Ayn Rand's Influence on American Culture"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yMpbisdfSo

"One Million Ayn Rand Novels in Classrooms This Year"
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... e&id=16658

etc., etc.

As an objectivist/individualist the idea of anyone pouring any kind of philosophy into my children's heads is frankly offensive. One of the state's primary weapons against free thought and political dissent is compulsory public education. As long as schools are state run the curriculum will hold the state as and absolute positive, a force for good, and the greater good will be its mantra. The only way for our kind of Ideas to flourish is an absolute separation of education and state.

I am certainly not advocating shoving philosophy down anybody's throat.

But what do you think can happen first: a century old public schools system removed and replaced with private system OR introduce tiny bits of Reason among the muck of crap that IS shoved down today in public skrewls to kids?

And finally, how is teaching philosophy based on reason is against freedom in education? Furthermore, how is _offering_ free books to teachers against freedom in education?

I think you are making a mistake of Subjectivism here.

Oleksandr wrote: Get more Objectivist teachers, get kids to read Ayn Rand fiction.

Many members may not know it but, 6 years ago I jumped through the numerous hoops to become a high school teacher in the California public school system (Olek knows about it). Three months on the job and done for me. The indoctrination system is entrenched, to the point where you kiss ass or crack. Philosophical change is a very long way off for the ivory towers, and even farther from the children’s classrooms.

I was always challenged by Rand’s use of sex in her stories. It didn’t seem like it was needed, and yet she put it in there. To me this element puts the stories out of the hands of children. In some respects it is a shame. I can only think that she had her reasons for this choice. Orwell’s Animal Farm works for kids, but to me it seems Ayn Rand didn’t want this audience.

Anthem works well for kids. And that's the books most commonly given out to Elementary schools under the program. The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged goes to high schools. On that level, I don't think there is any issue.

P.S. Ayn Rand books aren't targeted to 5-year olds and I wasn't suggesting that.

Oleksandr wrote:Anthem works well for kids.

I think Anthem is Rand’s most complex novel. I enjoyed the book, but I think it would be very challenging for an inexperienced reader. I know there are some children that are very strong readers, but as a generality it seems that youth correlates to under developed reading ability. I would expect Anthem to work well for kids.

And the sex is in there too at the end.

There are many great books like this: A Clockwork Orange; Ham on Rye; On The Road; Slaughter House Five all come to mind. Challenging writing, great work, but stylistically hard to chew.

I haven't read any of those books. Which of those books bring in the idea of selfishness?

Oleksandr wrote:I haven't read any of those books. Which of those books bring in the idea of selfishness?

None. It isn’t the topic - it is the writing style that makes Anthem difficult (for me).

Actually I’m not sure any of those books carry storylines that mesh well with Objectivism. I think Bokowski might be considered selfish … but the guy was such a derelict I don’t see much nobility in the work. He was sort of the anti-John Gault.

You might like A Clockwork Orange. It has a fair amount of invented language based upon Russian. It might make more sense for you early on than it did for me.

Err, sorry, I ain't going to read anything Russian/semi-Russian or weird books (that's what I heard of Clockwork orange). I had more than enough Russian reading in my original school.


Anyway, my point was that there is no shortcut or easy fix to change our culture for the better, though US is the only and the best place where that is still possible. And there only solution is to change the content in education which has been leftist anti-reason nonsense for a century in US.

In fact, given the current conditions, even changing the entire system to private won't work. If that was done, most schools would first add religion as part of everyday studies, and make them into Every-day-Sunday-school-aka-religion. Competition only works once decent ideas are common place. Nowadays, the only alternative to leftist subjectivism is religion, which current conservatives push very hard (Rush/Glenn Beck/others).

So the first step is to bring back some reason into our culture, without that you can't even change public school system. The majority simply won't accept it. If you try to change that before changing the common philosophy, the masses will rise up and you will hear altruist cries all over the place of "children left behind if you have to pay for education." It is more likely that banking system will go on gold standard first, then privatizing of the school system in US.

@ C Molten

Oh, and somebody asked Yaron Brook your question "Should we make a constitional amendment?"
Check out his response:

(skip to 0:55 where the question is being asked)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNJhPl_gwNo

Soooo much I wish to address here but I’ll try to keep it short as to not bore you to death.

C Molten wrote: Ideas I like:
1) A tax revolt...
2) Constitutional amendments...
To be honest, even though I like the ideas above, I do not yet sense either one has enough juice to succeed.

You are way over thinking this. It would take very few people in key locations of the government. Namely the presidency. Since the president has the authority to “close the doors” on any federal enterprise such as the I.R.S. it would be nothing more than a signature on a piece of paper. What would follow is serious pay cuts to Senators, Congress-people (being p.c. )and other frivolous “Czars” the government now employs due to lack of incoming “stolen” money. There is your solution to limiting the government. Yes, I agree that my solution is “far fetched”, however, no more unlikely than gathering 10-100 million people to revolt.

Oleksandr wrote:I am certainly not advocating shoving philosophy down anybody's throat.

Children are virtually sponges, so you wouldn’t have to “force” children to believe a teacher.

Oleksandr wrote: But what do you think can happen first: a century old public schools system removed and replaced with private system OR introduce tiny bits of Reason among the muck of crap that IS shoved down today in public skrewls to kids?

This is a false dichotomy. There are many alternatives to just public or private. For one you can home school, private tutor or even send your kid to a charter school. Although most options still have their own small flaws the choices are out there to educate your own children as you see fit.

SIDE NOTE:
Objectivism is based on the principle that the "rules" apply to EVERYONE. If you are allowed to teach your philosophy then Rainbow Flower Sun Sherbert is allowed to teach her philosophy along side yours and to impressionable children who want everyone to be happy. And in that scenario who wins out? Ms. Rainbow Sherbet and her happy happy special snow-flake philosophy will win!!!!!!!

Oleksandr wrote:Competition only works once decent ideas are common place.

I don’t even know how to respond to this without being completely condescending. I’m hoping you’ll reread what you wrote and think about it for a moment. The logic used to come to this conclusion is flawed.
It's based on a false premise

Oleksandr wrote:changing the entire system to private won't work...

and a false dichotomy

Oleksandr wrote: the only alternative to leftist subjectivism is religion...

Oleksandr wrote:In fact, given the current conditions, even changing the entire system to private won't work.

I’ve often thought private would be the best alternative. Give parents actual choices about the particular from of indoctrination programming their children.

You are right on with the whole influence of Religion though. In the US it seems that Religion’s grasp on the population is slipping, as evidenced by the reduced numbers of witch-burnings. Yet Religions are transferring their money into these schools in an attempt to grow more cult members. Its an interesting question, should Religions be permitted to subsidize education? What wealth-transfer restrictions should religions suffer. Some people (Black Helicopter types) might claim that the Saudi Arabian Suni Muhammadens funded a little known candidate named Barry Soetoro in his political ambitions - that aint right.

Private w/o some form of government support and regulation, I think would be excellent for some kids and abysmal for others (gee doesn’t this hold true for our current system?). If we did have regulation and support, perhaps we could take Religion out of the education business (as in no external subsidies from the Church to the school). If we could do that maybe private could work.

musashi wrote:
You are right on with the whole influence of Religion though. In the US it seems that Religion’s grasp on the population is slipping, as evidenced by the reduced numbers of witch-burnings. Yet Religions are transferring their money into these schools in an attempt to grow more cult members. Its an interesting question, should Religions be permitted to subsidize education? What wealth-transfer restrictions should religions suffer.

Do you really think children educated in religious schools are the cause of our greatest social evils, because I just don't see it that way at all.

Look at our public schools, they've been stamping out religion from them for years and yet many would argue the system is a mess. Perhaps there's some other ideology that's really causing the problems in them, and not any untold influence from religion.

One problem with trying to promote Ann Rand's philosophies is unless you tackle it with the zeal of a religion, (and some of its organizational structure) you're never going to pull it off.

Torrstar wrote:Do you really think children educated in religious schools are the cause of our greatest social evils?

Not at all. In fact some of the best schools around are Religion-based. And generally I think Religious schools do a better job than the gulag err… public school system. But I do believe more strongly in the need for separation of Church and State, than I do in Religion. If private schools were to receive some type of government voucher, then yes I do have a problem with the government taking my life force (in the form of taxes) and giving it to a Madrasa.

Likewise I have a problem with Saudi Arabia throwing money at public Universities in the US in order to further its religious/foreign agenda. Have you seen some of the crap they are pulling these days? If Saudi Arabia wants to completely fund its own school, great! Join BYU and Notre Dame. But comingling the Religious agenda within publicly financed schools? I don’t like it.

Religions in general seem illogical to me. I’m ok with that. Compel me to pay for Religion? I have a problem.

Well then ,seems I misinterpreted what you said and we're in agreement.

I like to think of myself as a fairly logical religious person but agree government (foreign or domestic) shouldn't fund schools with a religious orientation.

Torrstar wrote:Do you really think children educated in religious schools are the cause of our greatest social evils, because I just don't see it that way at all.

In principle, I do think so. Religion is the only modern philosophical alternative to most people. Nothing else can tell them what is good, what is bad, what is the standard of value, why you should be good, etc.

When people get tired of left subjectivism they turn to faith, since religion offers the only available fundamental answers. No other common philosophy exist todays in US. Objectivism is still a tiny and mostly unknown minority on the philosophical scale in US.

I envision this issue to be the coming struggle: as people get more and more disillusioned with subjectivist ideas of political correctness, being called a racist for anything you do, etc. - there will be more and more movement towards religion. The question will be if Objectivism can make any inroads or if it will become too late.

You can already see religious issues springing up: "pro-life", proving Capitalism by appeal to faith, etc.

Oleksandr wrote:When people get tired of left subjectivism they turn to faith, since religion offers the only available fundamental answers. No other common philosophy exist todays in US. Objectivism is still a tiny and mostly unknown minority on the philosophical scale in US.

While I will agree that this dichotomy exists, I also believe that our culture as a whole is becoming more rational. While religion is alive and well here, it is not your grandfather's religion, it is open, tolerant and a little smoother around the edges, (at least mainstream religion.) Despite many disheartening limits on our freedom as of late I tend to believe human culture is becoming more logical and logic is our ultimate ally. The problem with the pushers of the 'greater good' is that ultimately their logic is flawed and it is only a matter of time before human culture fleshes this out entirely.

Of course there is the very real possibility that I am just deluding myself, but this delusion is how I sleep at night.

Oleksandr wrote:

Torrstar wrote:Do you really think children educated in religious schools are the cause of our greatest social evils, because I just don't see it that way at all.

In principle, I do think so. Religion is the only modern philosophical alternative to most people. Nothing else can tell them what is good, what is bad, what is the standard of value, why you should be good, etc.

When people get tired of left subjectivism they turn to faith, since religion offers the only available fundamental answers. No other common philosophy exist todays in US. Objectivism is still a tiny and mostly unknown minority on the philosophical scale in US.

I envision this issue to be the coming struggle: as people get more and more disillusioned with subjectivist ideas of political correctness, being called a racist for anything you do, etc. - there will be more and more movement towards religion. The question will be if Objectivism can make any inroads or if it will become too late.

You can already see religious issues springing up: "pro-life", proving Capitalism by appeal to faith, etc.

Are all religious values bad? You mentioned pro-life (which certainly hasn't just sprung up), is it really bad to be against the killing of human beings? (because that's how I look at at it, lets not sugar coat what's really happening)

I'm not saying there isn't some things that aren't good, but overall I'd say society can do a whole lot worse than to follow the values espoused by most mainstream religions.

That's not to say Objectivism isn't better, just saying, the alternative you fear doesn't sound that scary to me.

Also, IMO people won't turn to religion because they are tired of another agenda, people turn to religion when they are scared. The saying goes, there are no atheists in fox holes, and that's pretty much how people's faith goes.

When events in the world get out of mans control people tend to become more spiritual looking for assistance, salvation or what have you when the chips are really down.

Could the US become a theocracy? Very easily I think, and its not a place I would want to live.

Torrstar wrote:Are all religious values bad? You mentioned pro-life (which certainly hasn't just sprung up), is it really bad to be against the killing of human beings? (because that's how I look at at it, lets not sugar coat what's really happening)

...<snip>...

Could the US become a theocracy? Very easily I think, and its not a place I would want to live.

In a word, the answer is "yes." That would really get us off-topic, though. If you wish, we can start a separate thread on this.

As far as anti-abortion goes, I don't see any values in discussing it, since the argument for abortion has already been presented by Ayn Rand in multiple very well written articles:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html

No reason to start another thread, as I don't really discuss things rather just antagonize.