ACT, Atheism, Ayn Rand, Christian Libertarianism, Constitution, Cosmology, Evolutionism, Faith, Francis Schaeffer, Freedom, Justice, Materialism, Religious Toleration, Righteous Rants, Theism, There is a God!, Tool, Venting Spleen

God is the Font of Morality. Why Objectivists Hate Ron Paul. (updated)

3 Comments

Some surfers may wonder at the title of this blogpost.
Does it reflect malice on the part of the Author?
I would say it does! Some malice can be justified, and there are so many reasons to dislike the irrationality of the bulk of Objectivists… those whom emulate their Icon to the greatest degree.
I must take care not to collectivize all Objectivists into one lump, as this type of oversimplification is a great error to be avoided … way too mechanistic… and thankfully humans are not machines…and thus there are always exceptions which must be given the credit they deserve… Such Mechanistic irrationalism is endemic to Objectivism… most believing such Ideas that “All Muslims are Evil”… “All Christians hate Gays”… Etc, yet there is a moderate minority who avoid this error, and I give these Libertarians their due.

I am angry about the amount of effort the Objectivists put into undermining the Campaign of Ron Paul, whom was by Far the best hope for saving America from Economic ruin and for implementing Libertarian reforms across the board.
The source of this Irrational hatred has been hidden to a large degree and has left many people wondering why Objectivists hate Ron Paul..

Read what ‘Cornell’ has written on this subject on the Lindsay Perigo Objectivist Blog Solo….

Quote:
“It’s odd to me that so many Objectivists dislike Ron Paul. Of all the mainstream presidential candidates out there, his platform is by far the most consistent with Objectivist principles. The only points of major disagreement that I can think of between his politics and Rand’s and Peikoff’s politics are:
1. Abortion — he doesn’t see abortion as a right to be protected by the Federal government; although he does not stand for banning it outright (he takes the “leave it up to the states” stance), and
2. Foreign Policy — Rand and Peikoff take a much more hawkish stance.
However, (1) most states are not going to ban abortions, so I don’t see his stance on abortion changing much of anything, except that he will take away federal subsidies for abortion, which Objectivists would be for anyway, and (2) the truth is that we need to take a less agressive stance towards foreign policy, if for no other reason than that we simply can’t afford to be fighting all these wars accross the globe — we just don’t have the revenue to support it anymore; and I think that Rand would agree with Paul on his strategy, if not on his premises, with the possible exception of Iran.
So am I missing something, or does the Objectivists’ objection to Paul really just boil down to Iran?
If so, then I’m not that worried about Iran. If America leaves Iran alone, you can believe the Israelis will pick up the slack. And you can’t tell me that the American private security firms won’t help out the Israelis with weapons and man-power should all hell break loose; there’s too much to gain by Israel winning another war in the Middle East unhinged from American intrusion. “ End Quote.

Let me tell you Cornell what is Ron Paul’s anathema in the eyes of the Bulk of Objectivists…
He Breaks the First Commandment of Objectivism… “Thou shalt not love the Lord God in any way shape or form..”
This is the unpardonable sin in the eyes of Objectivism.
Objectivism is a Religion.
Atheism is it’s First principle.
And Objectivists willingly sacrifice the principles of Freedom for the sake of halting any Theistic champion of Liberty or justice taking the limelight… thus in spite of all their claims to reason.. they prove them selves to be irrational religious zealots/fanatics.
In their minds It is unthinkable for them to accept the Idea that a theist could be the champion of Liberty and justice.
To accept this they would have to abandon Objectivism because Objectivism is based upon Anti-theism… and it is this which attracted most of them to the faith.

Peter Creswell clearly indicates this *Here* when he says Ron Paul cant be a Libertarian because he’s a Creationist… who will not draw a line between his religion and the State.
Comming from a Randoid this is shear hypocracy… and not true, ie Ron Paul maintains a separation between his Religion and the state, and the fact that He is a Creationist whom rejects the theory of evolution does not render him irrational at all!
PC speaks from his own Bigoted Anti-reason superstition.

Thus The Title of my Blogpost and the Meme explains everything… why Objectivists helped the Powers of Evil in undermining the Greatest champion of Liberty in America today.

Many Libertarian minded Kiwi will be gathering next Saturday to discuss the formation of a New Libertarian orintated Party to gather together the remnants of the Act Party, The Libertarianz, and others like the legalize cannabis party into an Electoral fighting force. It will not be an easy thing to achieve, esp if Objectivists hope to contaminate the constitution with their personal religion, and to put out Anti-theistic blogs and press releases in the name of the New organization. The only hope this New Paty has is that it establishes a true separation between personal beliefs and the constitution, and operates via a libertarian spirit of toleration… for mutual benefit.
I have my own view about how such a party ought to be constituted and I hope to produce a blogpost in this subject before Next Saturday.

Libertarianz

Can Libertarianz step up?

Leave a comment

This by Michael Hooton just appeared on the National Business Review website.

A new liberal bloc

Next weekend, the Libertarianz will hold their annual conference in Auckland.

The party has a record of electoral failure exceeding even where ACT is today, peaking at just 6000 votes in 1999.

In its defence, the party points out – with some justification – former National leader Don Brash, former Act MP Deborah Coddington and former United Future MP Marc Alexander can be seen as previous parliamentary torchbearers for its ideas.

This year, though, it is getting serious, calling its conference Towards a True Liberal Bloc in parliament. Its doors are open to anyone who believes there needs to be a new political party in parliament advocating small-government, liberal solutions to economic and social problems.

It believes next year’s local body elections will provide a proof-of-concept opportunity, claiming some rural and provincial New Zealanders are facing rates rises of up to 40%, largely because of parliament’s idiotic 2002 decision to grant local government general competence.

Libertarianz representation on councils and parliament would undoubtedly be good for New Zealand, but achieving it will require discipline which classical liberals and libertarians are programmed to resist.

Historically, like the far left, the movement has suffered from regular schisms.

While all libertarians agree that self-interest, individual rights and capitalism are the ethical, political and economic systems of objectivist philosophy, some insist the political wing must also insist, for example, on romantic realism in art.

Others believe broadly in classical liberalism but would be quite happy with, say, vouchers for all schools rather than wholesale abandonment of the state system.

There are potentially as many different opinions as there are libertarians over matters from tolerance toward Islamism or creationism being taught in schools to defence.

Without destroying the very nature of libertarianism, a way must be found to accommodate different views while achieving the degree of political discipline necessary to win the 100,000 votes to get into parliament.

The good news for everyone who would like to see the Libertarianz succeed is that all matters of political strategy appear to be on the table, including perhaps even the party’s name.

If they do get into parliament they will not see themselves so much as a coalition partner for Mr Key but a faction to give his government a kick up the bum.

Justice, Kim Dotcom

Greens call in the cops over illegal GCSB spying

Leave a comment

The Green Party has lodged a complaint with the Police over the Government Communications Security Bureau’s illegal interception of Kim Dotcom’s communications, Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.

Well done Green Party and Russel Norman.

… one more thing… everyone is labeling this Government action as “illegal” or “unlawful” – which is true but minimises the action. We need to change to calling it “criminal” because the government’s actions were criminal.

Cannibal Corpse, Keep it Metal!

I HAVE BEEN HIRED TO KILL YOU

2 Comments

Muhammad sadik muhammad_sadik@live.com via angel.estarr.com
to me

Hellow

I am a Murder Agent, am from Kuwait i’ve no other job than to kill to survive…

you have been betrayed by some one very very close to you.he payed me to kill you.and i don’t know what you did to him and i don’t care to know..but the person wants you dead and right now your life is in your own hands now..you have just 7 days to live after that me and my men shall come for your life..

My men monitors all you movement in and out.

my men are well surrounding your house right now watching you and if you do anything stupid you shall receive a gun short from them.. but i can help you if you will pay me double of what he payed me………and i can also tell you who ordered us to kill you..but that will be after you have payed to save your life..your life is as stake now….

I await your immediate response as i do not have time to waste.

BE WARNED DO NOT TELL ANYBODY THIS…..

Justice, National Party, Privacy

Government’s Criminal Surveillance Blunder

2 Comments

The Crimes Act 1961
Section 408 Act to bind the Crown
This Act shall bind the Crown.

In theory the Crown is subject to the Crimes Act – being a Crown representative acting for the Crown can not excuse anyone from being prosecuted under the Crimes Act.

The Crimes Act 1961
Section 216B Prohibition on use of interception devices
(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally intercepts any private communication by means of an interception device.

According to the law – whoever intercepted Kim Dotcom’s communications committed a crime. Whoever that was they should be prosecuted under the Crimes Act. It’s hard to imagine a greater breach of this section.

It’s already been admitted publicly that the interceptions were illegal (Although I see the preparation work being done to argue that no devices were involved so therefore it was not a breach of section 216B of the Crimes Act… From the Herald:- Spying on the group began on December 16 last year and ended on January 20 but did not involve installing devices).

The Police have all the information they need to start a criminal investigation and should start investigating shortly… I feel another Tui Billboard coming on. The Police are probably asking themselves “How long can we avoid this and how long is the statute of limitations for illegal interception?”

Socialism

The grey economy

Leave a comment

The Sydney Morning Herald reports

The grey economy: how retirees rort the pension

ELDERLY Australians committing welfare fraud on a massive scale are behind the extraordinarily high number of $100 notes in circulation, a former senior Reserve Bank official says.

Yesterday the Herald revealed there are now 10 $100 notes in circulation for each Australian, far more than the more commonly seen $20 notes.

One popular explanation is that they are used for illegal transactions as part of the cash economy, something the former Reserve official, Peter Mair, rejects as a “furphy”.

In a letter to the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, dated July 4, Mr Mair laid the blame squarely on elderly people wanting to get the pension and hiding their income in cash to ensure they qualified for the means-tested benefit.

“The bank is basically facilitating a tax avoidance scheme by issuing high denomination notes,” he told the Herald. “They are not needed for day-to-day transaction purposes, or even as reasonable stores of value.”

His best guess is the average pensioner couple could hold up to $50,000 in undeclared $50 and $100 notes to get access to the pension.

Mr Mair said that in 1996 when the green plastic $100 note replaced the grey paper note, the Martin Place headquarters of the Reserve received regular visits from retirees wanting to withdraw large quantities of the new notes. He said the commercial banks had sent them to the Reserve because they did not have enough $100 notes on hand.

Mr Mair said the return for an Australian close to getting the pension who held $10,000 in cash, rather than declaring it, was “enormous”.

“If putting it under the bed or in a cupboard means you qualify for the pensioner card, you get discounted council rates, discounted car registration, discounted phone rental – in percentage terms the return is enormous,” he said.

Mr Mair used comparisons of the holdings of large-denomination currency in Australia and New Zealand to back his argument. “In broad terms the average value of notes held by New Zealanders is about one third of the $2000 held by Australians – almost all of which by value is in the $50 and $100 denominations,” he wrote in his letter.

“An obvious explanation for the difference is means test-free age pensions in New Zealand.”

I’m not at all surprised to read this. Examples of the Law of Unintended Consequences appear in the news on a daily basis. Why? Because unjust laws create perverse incentives. It’s that simple. But not quite as simple as Mr Mair, who really has no freaking clue.

His letter to the governor proposes phasing out the $100 and $50 denominations.

“Cards and the internet have delivered a body blow to high-denomination bank notes. They are redundant,” he said. “There is no longer any point in issuing them except to facilitate tax dodging. The authorities would announce that from, say, June 2015 every $100 and $50 note could be redeemed but no new notes would be issued. After June 2017 every note could only be redeemed at an annual discount of 10 per cent. It would mean that after two years, each $100 note could only be redeemed for $80, and so on.”

The letter acknowledges the proposal would be contentious and says it should not be done “in any way precipitously”, but as payments become more electronic it will become inevitable.

“What would remain in circulation are coins and a modestly expanded issue of currency notes in the $10 and $20 denominations. There is every reason to expect that a national currency issue of this character would soon be adequate.”

How thick is Mr. Mair? How thick is a bundle of bank notes? $10,000 in cash in $100 notes is 100 notes. That’s half an inch. $10,000 in cash in $20 notes is 500 notes. That’s two inches more.

Give ’em an inch …

Uncategorized

The Blind Men And The Elephant

2 Comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC2XzTKqsQk

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach’d the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -“Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
(John Godfrey Saxe)

Dispensationalism, Keep it Metal!, Luke, Matthew, Slayer

One of them

5 Comments

Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”

He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’

“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’

“Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’

“But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ (NIV)

There are two kinds of people in this world. Are you one of them?

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (NIV)

I just found this Slayer fan video. (Warning: extreme content may offend.)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, but what about the Great Commission?

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!