humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 27, 2:50 pm, Charles Bell wrote:
> Sure, it is bound to have cost more than the impact of 9/11;
> therefore, by cost-benefit analysis, it and the War in Afghanistan are
> mistakes.  We could withstand 9/11 attacks every so often and never
> have to expend a dime on any war.  Besides, such attacks are not
> invasions, so we can safely ignore them as having any Constitutional
> significance. Sound good to you?

Not at all. But I *never* argued against the war on Afghanistan, and
you never argued that Iraq was likely to generate "9/11 attacks every
so often" so this line of argument, and what you're trying to stick on
me, won't work.

> Evidently "squandering of resources" on social welfare programs is not
> something on your political mind very often or at all.

I'm unclear about the usage of the word "evidently" here. It is indeed
something that concerns me a great deal.

Perhaps you can
> progress onto pseudo-libertarian leftist, having exposed any hidden
> feature of your libertarianism as completely false.  Like Obama,
> perhaps you think all that Reagan-esque negative talk about welfare is
> just an attempt by The Man to keep the black folk down.
>
> > I have to
> > also factor in the likely *consequences* of giving power to someone
> > with certain desires.
>
> What are you talking about?  I am talking about taking from some
> people by taxation for the sole purpose of benefiting others
> (excluding FICA) to the tune at the federal level of $1 trillion
> dollars a year.

I don't like that either. But I didn't plan on voting for Ron Paul
because I figure he's unelectable. You've basically repeatedly avoided
addressing my clearly stated point over and over again, because then
there'd be an actual empirical discussion of what new spending is
likely to be enacted given various candidates, on available
information. Instead, you speculate that I must want the same spending
Obama has announced because somehow you know that when I say I don't
think he'll be able to get it, I must be lying. Why not explain to me
how foolish or dangerous it is to not take people at their word, even
when they are politicians running for elective office? Why are you so
much more convinced of Obama's integrity than mine? See, I just don't
get that.

> > Now I emphatically agree with you that as a rule
> > the best way to figure out what someone *will* do is by ascertaining
> > what they *want* to do. So far so good. The problem with politics,
> > especially national politics, is that the menu always consists of a
> > massive, and massively complex, package deal, in a very complicated,
> > highly constraining environment.
>
> If you are saying we Americans as a nation have crossed that bridge
> and burnt it behind us, perhaps.

No. I repeatedly said that he *won't* be able to get massive amounts
of additional spending enacted, because his situation resembles in
various ways Clinton's in 1992, and Clinton was unable to get what he
wanted. But instead of saying *why* that's wrong, you just keep
repeating your line that *I* want additional spending, and that the
only way I can prove it is by voting for John "Never Saw a War
[including the oh-so-useful for our national security war on
Yugoslavia] I Didn't Like" McCain, even if I think that bad and
unnecessary wars are, like, a bad thing. Guess I just don't have the
cojones to kill people needlessly. Damn.

So let's hire a bridge burner like
> Obama to keep the fire to any replacement bridge! He can hold hands
> with our socialist allies in Europe and sing Give Peace a Chance under
> the banner of Burn, Baby, Burn.

I give up. You don't have that whole "I see. Well, here's where we
differ, and reasonable people can differ on this particular point, it
being an empirical prediction in a complex world" thing. Oh I see.
You're an Objectivist. I knew it was something.

Sigh.