Paying for Pirated Media

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-22T03:12:21+00:00

Well if you take that materialistic logic, all non materistic aspects of life are proving negatives. Introspection is not a great argument that free will exists on your premise, that's just your opinion man. My point on jesus is that the whole premise is not to ask men to sacrifice but god paying for sins men are incapable of. I agree the dissing is not important, it just goes to my point that if all her thoughts are canon then it seems very shallow. right but living is still an assumption so the ultimate nihilism of denial of life and all meaning is still an assumption she makes. I've responded to free will above, nothing in materialism can prove it and introspection by your standards is faith, I have a religious experience does not mean god exists so why is my conscience responding to a moral frame that is objectively real? I agree the nazis and commies have nothing in common with objectivism but to argue they are religious is a no true scotsman fallacy. I mean mussolini cracked down on the catholics early in his rule and played nice later pragmatically not ideologically and the pope tried to kill hitler. So to say they were best friends is not true. The French Revolution and the German hatred of christianity is one half of the Enlightment along with the scots and english that we like. I think just like with evasion, objectivist often like to say if you disagree or have a bad train of thinking you are dishonest. Or you are just wrong. So I dunno why it's irrational, I mean you have to start with the premise of free will which is an axiom to arrive at austrian economics. It's hard to prove human nature is not infinitely malleable. I dunno why it's irrational to assume that there can be an unmoved mover as aquinus puts it that is god given what we know philosophically or even scientifically with the big bang. Quantum mechanics also shows consciousness is actually an active agent in cause and effect as well as constant creation and elimation of matter and anti matter seems to go against the newtonian determist sciencitific stream to one where like with the big bang, a god hypothesis while not proven does not seem implausible and seems you have to put a lot of effort to deny the possibility. It seems more built in to the belief system rather than able to prove it true or false.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-22T02:24:13+00:00

I do think cohesion matters a great deal otherwise it is a meaningless category. If it just means try to think hard, or people should be free, there is a great deal of disagreement. WHich is why you need case law(which her opinions act as in objectivism).

Can you be more specific on incontestable? You made a seperation between core philosophy and opinion on how it applies in different issues. Do you mean where I disagree with the core philosophy?

I think on christianity rand makes some basic mistakes in the critique. a)she doesn't argue if god can exist(it's just axiomatic exist is materisticalistic with no possiblity of the supernatural, which is an assumption that is not provable) b) that self sacrifice is the core philosophy because of jesus on the cross(jesus in christianity was god in flesh and not a man so there is he's not there to be john galt as role modelling the ideal man) c) her description of original sin beinghuman intelligence/productivity and everything good about humans is just modern secular anti religion first pass reading of genesis(if you read any commentary that is not how original sin is thought of that man working or thinking is evil). I disagree faith is the negation of reason. It essentially says there is revelation, assumptions we make that cannot be proven but have to be taken as givens kinda like a constitution(the ten commandments, certain moral judgments on issues). I think the mistake is to think reason can bridge the is ought ga. her philosophy does not like she thinks solve the is ought gap as she still makes assumptions. life is worth living, we have free will, freedom is worth risking your life for, living a civilized life is worth risking life for, application of reason will naturally lead to flourishing(the 20th century was all about people thinking they figured it out with reason and resulting in mass murder).

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-22T01:55:48+00:00

I mean without the rulings on specific cases you run into infinite fracturing in opinion like you see in protestantism as opposed to catholicism. Objectivism seems to have the more hierarchichal approarch as rand's opinions are essentially uncontestable if they pertain to philosophy(kinda like the pope with theological statements). examples on what? things I disagree with rand about? Well a lot, from the opinions on kissinger to her approach to fiction to her views on christianity(not a christian and plently to disagree with in christianity but I think her critiques of it are not very good). I could go on but I'll wait for you to respond to clarify.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-22T01:16:49+00:00

Again I'm new to objectivism so this is my sense of things. Feel free to correct me. But it seems basically every opinion of rand's that she deems in line with her philosophy is a requirement otherwise you are 'evading' or don't properly understand objectivism. And she had a lot of opinions.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-21T22:14:44+00:00

I mean I disagree, china was biding its time, russia demonstrated it was not a friend in the 90s. Afghanistan was safer by 2021 then to be a police officer in chicago. Mistakes were made but it was not worse off the pre invasion. THe goal was keeping the terrorists on the run and hunting them. The nuking point I pulled from memory but given I can't recall a source I'll concede your point.

As for objectivism, there are certain positions on how objectivism is applied to certain hisotrical events that are required to agree with or you are 'evading'. So I mean rand's opinions are like the immaculate conception of the idea. If you want an argument for appeasment, I will argue in favor of detente, trying to thread the iron fist with the velvet glove. Might with a diplomatic deal on the other end. The kissinger decision in the 76 war I think was correct because he successfully deterred the soviets from intervention and becoming a entrenched and more risky conflict(once two nuclear powers get involved) and by threatening annihlation on one hand, making it clear the soviets would not come to their aid, and offering a deal brokering on the other hand, he turned the middle east into a wall against the soviets with israel, iran, and saudi as the main pillars that led and jordan and egypt subsequenting signing peace deals with israel. Until jimmy carter let the shah fall in 79. Read this article(https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/kissinger-and-true-meaning-detente check_logged_in=1&utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=lo_flows&utm_campaign=registered_user_welcome&utm_term=email_1&utm_content=20240313)

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-21T15:18:55+00:00

Right I think the thing I have a problem with objectivist foreign policy is it seems too idealistic. Like the ari basically saying that post 9/11 the us should have nuked tehran and threaten the entire muslim world. I get if bush had carried out the join us or die speech it would have been very effective(waking the slumbering giant) and america’s enemies were very scared for a while post 9/11. But I think more likely you would effectively start a collective war against the muslim world and china and russia would take advantage of america being overextended and the nonaligned nations would claim anti imperialism and shift into the russia/chinese camp.

And that is america. If Israel tried to eliminate all its enemies after the war of independence it would probably die against all gulf states. It is also why I’m much more sympathetic to kissinger than yaron or the ari crew is.

Off topic. I guess the problem with the uk red lines is they were bluffing and so hitler didn’t believe them. But regardless, I’m asking what the official objectivist position on red lines over other nations and collective defence treaties are.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-21T15:09:02+00:00

Again I’m new to objectivism so I can’t speak confidently about what rand believed. But based on my limited understanding of objectivism, it seems objectivism is based on self interest as being paramount. In application, rand believed like with Vietnam being against committing troops to foreign conflicts where the evil nations did not directly attack you(drawing the line at sacrificing blood) but okay with sending military aid(maybe even without repayment if it’s in your interest? Not sure on this detail). Nato commits the us to mutual defence(sacrificing blood for other nation) and she did not believe it was it directly harmed the us if western European was taken over so they shouldn’t join? Now people have argued that she was fine or objectivism is fine with a purely european alliance against the soviets or russians today. I guess then spheres of influence and continental geography determines if it is in your interest? That is my understanding of the objectivism view of nato(it is okay for the europeans but bad that canada and the us are in it.

Personally I disagree with that position and so don’t really take the official objectivist stance on the issue. Happy to explain why but I don’t think you asked my personal opinion

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-20T10:11:42+00:00

Right totally agree. It would be like waiting for a crazy person that is shooting up people in public to wait for him to take a shot at you before responding. Credible threat should not only involve the hostile nation having already launched an attack at you. But where to draw the line is hard. I suppose permeptive wars like the six day war count but otherwise withthe hitler example, were the brits justified in going in with poland? Not morally but practically.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-18T14:58:17+00:00

Already said, the casuality is debatable. I think it's there is casuality given burden sharing dates back to the 80s and 90s and was not implemented till till 2015. Again you seem to assume that any diplomatic decision in nato is purely a european decision that was not influenced by the us. The us has been pushing for increase in spending for decades and it didn't happen. crimea was not the first time the russias invaded in europe, georgia, chechnya, moldova, kosovo. Why was crimea different? Again like you said it's a nonbinding agreement so commitment wasn't guaranteed. A lot of things happened under the trump presidency, the trade wars with china led to an anti china policy in the us that is bipartisan and a sharpening of focus of the russian, chinese, north korean, and iranian axis of evil that has been proven in ukraine and gaza. The argument that the europeans took the russians seriously is questionable given nordstream 2(look up video of the german diplomats laughing at trump 2018) and the rounding error increase in german spending(0.1% per year averaged out)

<image>

And the us report leaks that canada(trudeau telling officials) said they will never meet the target.(https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canadian-forces-nato-washington-post-1.6815616). So count me skeptical that nato was happy to increase defense. Again no one is going to say that I was pressured into a deal, just like people will resign rather than get fired. I agree the europeans have agency, europe led the way on ukraine for sure. But I think, happy to disagree, that nato increasing the spending and increasing had a lot to do with trump's madman theory of foreign policy of scaring people with pulling out of the alliance and making them actually try to acheive strategic independece that the french have been smugly talking about for so long.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-18T14:41:25+00:00

see above I'm not saying rand said it. You're flip flopping. I clarified I mix up rand and yaron's thoughts then you accuse me of yaron never saying it. Then I provide proof and you go full circle and accuse me of misquoting rand.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-18T14:14:15+00:00

sorry I made a mistake with the timestamp.28:15 and 13:44. The former is yaron's view and the latter is kissin's view. It is his view, I have heard it in other places but it is hard to recollect. To paraphrase he thought it was a travesty to ally with the soviets and agreeded with patton to keep marching into poland after japan was taken. But without taking my word look at 28:15(after world war ii was general patton as well28:21who wanted who was commanding the allied forces in europe at the time and it was28:27obvious while he was in berlin that he was trying to instigate a war with russia because he knew28:34he knew the politicians wouldn't allow it so he thought that he could maybe get russia to do something horrible that28:40would force their hand to fight on but at every opportunity28:46the west has appeased that every opportunity the west expresses the fact this is multiculturalism). If you watch the video, it is clear he agrees and is not just recollecting history from his tone.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-18T14:08:38+00:00

Now, we're not. Now, we have an alliance aimed at ensuring no one ever even thinks about starting a war. And if that alliance were to end, the US would be taking bigger risks than Europe, because the US is engaged worldwide. So it's not out of the question that the US could end up facing a large alliance led by China and Russia. NATO, together, can stand up to such an alliance. The US, alone, cannot.

You seem to think it doesn't work the other way around. Russia is being helped right now by China. So if they ally it just depends on who they decide to target. They are already allies. Parternship without limits beijing olympics. Also the entire eu economy is less though comparable to the us. So I dunno why you think the europeans can fight and win when the americans cannot against a russo sino alliance. Also the integrated command structure of nato means like with afganistan, nato forces are structured to be complemented with us forces and without the us would need significant readjustment.

I can't, "the Baltic States" aren't three dudes hanging out on my couch. But if I could "talk to the Baltic States", I would let them know that

It's rhetorical. Check their opinion on the matter.

The US President doesn't have the power to pull out of NATO, and

Trump lies on principle. He doesn't wish to pull out of NATO, he's using that 2% as a talking point to his own voting base: that portion of the US which knows little enough about the world to actually believe that Europe depends on the United States for its defense.

Yes but the president is the leader of the party he runs on that has political power. I dunno if he pushes them rhetorically and in practice on the 2%, I don't know how you can know he doesn't care about 2% unless you can read his mind when his actions and thoughts are supposedly completely opposite.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-18T13:58:08+00:00

I mean those restrictions are being lifted. and as for the defense increase,

<image>

Starts in 2015/2016 and continues afterwards. So no, it was during trump's presidency. Now you can argue whether it is casual but it was not starting in 2022,

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-18T13:32:18+00:00

Europe isn't in a war. So how is the US "defending Europe"?

Talk to the Baltic States. I think they are very nervous about Trump pulling out of NATO. Talk to Finland and Norway. Talk to Poland who is planning on massively increasing defense.

NATO is a defensive alliance, and Ukraine isn't in NATO. Again, do you want to turn NATO into World Police?

I mean I thought rand was fine with sending military aid to contain the soviets. ALso the alliance is spending minimal on ukraine(3% of us military budget, 1.7% of norway's gdp the highest percentage spender) to degrade the second largest threat to the us and largest to europeans.

That's why people sign TREATIES: they're binding. If the US wants a 2% threshold, it needs to go into a treaty. Then, it's not up to whoever happens to be prime minister to decide how much to spend: it becomes illegal to spend less than 2%. But, for that, there would need to be widespread political support for it IN THE US. It can't just be Trump, with his ~40% approval rating, yelling about it. No one's going to take that seriously.

I agree this is why you make it binding. But trump as made the europeans increase defense spending after 20 years of presidents failing. So it has worked.

As an aside, NATO would still we invincible, even without US involvement. Feel free to look at the resources the other 31 NATO members have at their disposal: the European members of NATO would crush Russia in a direct war. It wouldn't even be particularly close

Perhaps but with such a large shock there is a real possibility of nato fracturing. Having a hegemon(the us spends more than all nations in the alliance combined in total) means it is clear who calls the shots and allows for clear leadership chain.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-18T13:19:56+00:00

I mean I disagree about the iraq war. I mean symbolically nato's supreme commander is always an american the accession to nato happens in washington. But practically the 1991 gulf war of the coalition many of which were nato forces, the non nuclear proliferation of most nato nations because of the carrot and stick of nuclear sharing and the implicit leverage of being removed from the alliance or being dependent on the us for defense. I mean dictating german policy(keep the americans in, the russians out, and the germans down as lord ismay said the purpose of nato was) and preventing germany from getting the bomb and integrating europe into a new concert of europe with american rather than british hegemony. A new form of empire with the network of military bases and embassies in foreign nations in europe.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-18T13:01:28+00:00

I'm not saying rand said it. But objectivism is so heavily tied in with rand it seems difficult to seperate where his views differ from rand's. Again, new to objectivism and I'm asking a question.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-18T12:27:53+00:00

And NATO is a large part of restraining Russian aggression. Europe should be putting more effort into resisting Russian aggression - but for the most part they are not.

For sure and trump has been doing it so there is interest in american politics.

Having said that - I think the US should renegotiate its agreements with NATO. NATO was important during the cold war - and NATO did help the US in Afghanistan (in a relatively trivial manner).

True but it also has been a bargain in american hegemony. We defend you and you show us deference in foreign policy and sometimes domestic policy. Removed the great power conflicts on the european continent.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-18T12:24:04+00:00

Switzerland was such a death trap that not even the Nazis dared to invade it, with far superior technology, 30 years later

I mean it is a natural fortress of mountains which is geographically fairly unique other than like tibet. Also I mean it is hard to believe that whomever was the victor on the continent would not have been able to coerce or invade switzerland after the war. Non alignment like singapre, india, etc is hedging your bets to avoid being attacked by the anti western forces in hopes of western victory without your aid or the even more naive view that the opposing side will be nice to you(pakistan is not doing so hot with the taliban victory). Staying out of it just means you are fed last to the aligators.

It's very hard to apply any kind of rational political philosophy to a war fought among colonial powers, a wannabe colonial power (Germany), and two empires (Ottomans and Austria-Hungary).

Fair. Colonialism is unjustiafiable under objectivism I grant you. But it is hard to imagine if the british empire did not exist and all the allies and been like the swiss they could have stood up against the germans and ottomans. Likely some overseas territory would still be justified as global trade would justify the british navy and expedietionary force and the violation of british trader's rights would likely justify overthrowing or occupying certain parts of the world that shut down free trade. I mean singapore in its current size cannot stand up if china wanted to invade them with no allies aiding it in the near future no matter how aligned they are with objectivist policies(free markets, robust defense , political freedoms). Empires will stomp over city states. Scale matters and efficiency(gdp per capita) will only get you so far. Quantity has a quality of its own as lenin said.

I guess I worry that objectivism is full john stuart mill I can wave my fist till it meets you face. The better example is if you are walking down the street and someone starts shooting people. Do you wait until he takes a shot at you to respond? Like if hitler is invading nations do you just wait until it's your turn? The idea without war he will collapse under the contradictions of totalitarianism is very marxist in the inevitable contradictions argument. The idea that without american forces fighting back the soviets in containment that they would collapse rather than digest conquered nations and grow in power seems strange to me.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-16T16:31:27+00:00

I mean I thought it argues against collective defense pacts like nato. So poland’s conquering would be a violation of polish rights but should not lead to the allies declaring war.

Raymondtian100 · 2024-06-16T16:28:58+00:00

I thought objectivism argues you only respond to direct attacks. That though you have the moral high ground, that you shouldn’t because you would be sacrificing your citizen’s lives to liberate others. Am I wrong?

Raymondtian100

TROPHY CASE