Comments on: Stuff I Learned from the 2004 Preview Issue of Entertainment Weekly

By: jonny

jonny — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:14:53 +0000

jonny

By: buy viagra

buy viagra — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:57:27 +0000

viagra ViaT8898111-01-01-22

By: xenical

xenical — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:06:37 +0000

buy xenical Xen-770009122-345566

By: TOP HENTAI PORN

TOP HENTAI PORN — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:09:35 +0000

xxx comic porn xxx free anime hentai xxx porn kingdom hearts manga hentai doujinshi hentai xxx cartoon lilo stitch xxx I like interesting top young hentai. porn mega man hentai I like cartoon hentai porn pic and she does'n like top adult cartoon xxx. hentai gi hentai oh porn yu free hentai monster porn hentai clip free hentai movie porn It's just porn manga hentai xxx and manga hentai porn trailer. porn free hentai top manga cartoon hentai xxx sexy is everything but hentai free hentai gallery. porn hentai tit She is fan of free manga scanlations and best free hentai xxx movie pictures and top hentai porn clip videos. xxx hentai gallery Fice porn cartoon kim possible xxx pictures. cartoon comic free tgp xxx manga free hentai xxx movie galleries and movies. best hentai cum top manga erotico

By: Larry T

Larry T — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:26:22 +0000

Frankly, the pacifist foreign policy position of both the Libertarian Party and the CATO Institute is not only disappointing, but is contradicted by their demand for full Second Amendment rights at home. Is the right of self defense so limited, or are they just more interested in preserving duck hunting than protecting this country, its interests and its allies abroad, from harm?

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:41:37 +0000

I think it is important to realize that Rand’s views will often seem contradictory if examined out of context.

When she speaks of how a free society may act against a dictatorship, she is talking about an Objectivist society. And objectivist society would not have the same moral conflict that Bush has, that being that he is a semi-dictator himself (or the US government rather).

By: Gino

Gino — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 17:56:02 +0000

I spent about a year trying to understand the tension between Randians and Libertarians. I thought I had it figured out. It seemed to me the tension stemmed from an irrational fear of the politicization of the Objectivist philosophy, disguised as distaste for license. Then 9/11 happened, and while there may be some truth to my subjective assessment, the more pointed answer is that Objectivists are “shrieking pro-war hawks” and Libertarians aren’t.

By: Andrew Ian Dodge

Andrew Ian Dodge — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:27:53 +0000

TBC, do you honestly believe that load of bollocks you just wrote? Are you actually saying that President Bush is as bad as Saddam? What particular lies are refering to? It is a lie that Saddam was a vicious dictator? Is it a lie that he used WMDs, mass execution and torture on his own people? Is it a lie that he gave money to the families of Pelestinian suicide bombers?

By: The Binary Circumstance

The Binary Circumstance — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 05:27:41 +0000

Rand’s position on invading other countries is difficult to determine if you’ve read a lot of her work. She said that anybody could overthrow a dictator for reasons stated above. She also said in many more places the government should be completely separate from business and that taxation was a violation of individual rights. Saddam Hussein had no rights. The problem is that if the same standards are applied to George Bush, he has no rights either because he has taken the lives of thousands of innocents while both Bin Laden and Saddam still live.
In addition the Iraq war is financed with stolen property which is then shoveled into the pockets of private corporations, but human rights violations in Rand’s eyes.
Having violated human rights, and gone to war based on lies and fraud, Bush has made himself and our country vulnerable to attack.
Rand’s views about war are conflicted and often contradictory. In my view, it was one area were she needed to do more thinking.

By: Larry T

Larry T — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 17:54:28 +0000

Will,

Doesn’t Rand’s agreement with the first question say that free nations have the right to freely invade dictatorships? I think if you browse the objectivist websitesâeither the Objectivist Center or the Rand Instituteâyou will find that is precisely the foreign policy position they have adopted. It may be couched in conditions like the following, but the moral legitimacy is clear:

“a free country is justified in pursuing war only as a means to reduce the threat of harm to its citizens, to its legitimate government functions, to its commerce abroad, and to its allies.”âfrom William Thomas of the Objectivist Center
(http://ios.org/articles/wthomas_what-warrants-war.asp

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 07:05:22 +0000

Larry, Rand is making a logical mistake in the Playboy essay. I think all she intends is the last statement: that dictatorships have no right not to be invaded, which is of course true. But this does not imply a right by free nations to invade dictatorships.

By: tallan

tallan — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:48:37 +0000

I distinctly remember Rand appearing on the Johnny Carson show and stating there was no moral justification for the Vietnam war. Doesn’t sound like a shrieking war hawk to me.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:05:35 +0000

“Miller may have abandoned Rand in that he’s recently taken it upon himself to be President Bush’s self-appointed polyp inspector on all matters, domestic and foreign. . . ”

Poor guy, doesn’t he know Sean Hannity already has that job?

By: Larry T

Larry T — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:51:16 +0000

From the PLAYBOY Interview with AYN RAND:

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II…

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: …And that any free nation today has the moral rightâthough not the dutyâto invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other “slave pen.” Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorshipâa country that violates the rights ofits own citizensâis an outlaw and can claim no rights.

By: roach

roach — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:58:37 +0000

But she wouldn’t necessarily oppose it either. She had a rather sensible discussion of “outlaw nations” in one of her essyas, I can’t remember which. She basically said that nations that don’t respect basic human rights forfeit a sovereign’s normal right to complain when another takes over; instead it becomes the right (but not the duty) of any free people to liberate the oppressed.

By: Jon H

Jon H — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:06:19 +0000

“If we don’t protect our hard-won liberty from those who would take it from us, we will surely lose it.”

Ah, but Rand surely wouldn’t approve of a war against a nation which is not a threat, even if it liberates the people from a tyrant.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:12:38 +0000

Radley, Don’t think you’re being fair to Rand, either. Don’t project the shrieking pro-war views of some of her followers on to her. She was a much more subtle and unpredictable thinker about the events of the day than you might expect (or than some of her followers would lead you to expect), and I’m not certain that I can predict her opinion about the Iraq war. I’m sure Chris Sciabarra has written something interesting about this.

By: Larry T

Larry T — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:19:00 +0000

While I agree with your assessment that Rand would be a “shrieking pro-war hawk” if she were still with us, I wouldn’t so readily accept that her position was wrong-headed. As near as I can tell, Objectivists have still not accepted the peacenik position of the Libertarian Party, and they have a sound argument. If we don’t protect our hard-won liberty from those who would take it from us, we will surely lose it. Like altruism, the turn-the-other-cheek philosophy that we inherited from Christianity will surely cost us our freedom unless we can shake loose of it.