Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

a-train

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2474

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by a-train

  2. but this is "good" fascism....

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by a-train

    We seem to be losing the war against murder and rape also. Why don't we legalize them and lower our nations violent crime rate.

    Just because prohibition didn't work doesn't mean it was wrong to try. We gave in to crime. Do you really think it was in the countries best interest.

    Perhaps you are right. We are also losing the war on obesity, we should implement federal restrictions on food consumption. In fact, each American should see a doctor every month and be given a "goodie ration" based on their weight and health grade. Those in better health will be able to get more rations for cake and ice cream. Energy drinks should be banned, as well as twinkies and a whole assortment of evil things. Maybe then we can finally get rid of these trashy fatsos that make America look so bad. After all, we are going to do all this out of love for them.

    It was not wrong to enact the Prohibition because it was ultimately unenforceable, rather it was morally wrong because it was a violation of individual natural rights. It was not the reluctant legalizers of the alcohol business in 1933 who gave in to crime, but the fascists who trampled individual rights in 1920. It is not those seeking the legalization of marijuana that are giving in to crime, but those who seek to prevent the individual's right to possess and use it as they see fit.

    Government has no right whatsoever to tell a man what he can and cannot take into his body. I do not have that right, you and I do not have that right, the whole of us do not have that right. The federal government does not have that power granted it by the Constitution. At least the prohibitionists had enough respect for the law to amend the Constitution to put in motion their fascist efforts. These modern statists simply ignore the Constitution.

    ALL drugs should be legal to possess and use. The drug war itself is a greater harm to mankind than drugs ever were.

    Murder and rape are violations of individual rights and we are morally responsible to protect the innocent. Why then don't those same individual rights that a man possesses with respect to his body apply constantly?

    It would be nothing but a whimsical and arbitrary government that would protect a man's rights over his body in only certain cases, but take them from him in others. Such is the modern American fascism.

    -a-train

  3. but this is "good" fascism....

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    If they want to ban something, how about alcohol? I say more "innocent" people die each year as a result of alcohol than second hand smoke, but you don't hear any crusade against that.:mad:

    Actually, they did that. They even amended the U.S. Constitution and everything. They called it the Prohibition. The whole thing was a complete failure and a nightmare. It created a giant black market that led to gang warfare and the enrichment of gang leaders like Al Capone. There were many deaths and a whole slew of adjacent crimes that were all created by the liberty crushing fascism of the Prohibition.

    In 1933 it was finally realized that Prohibition is worse than freedom. We are fast approaching the time wherein we will be compelled to acknowledge the same about other drugs, the business for which black market entities are fighting daily.

    In Kansas City, the smoking ban that was inacted last year gave an exception to the casinos. Thus, the only restaurants and bars wherein smoking is allowed are those on the grounds of the casinos. So, locally owned bars and restaurants lose the business of the smokers to the non-locally owned casinos (none of them are local, they are all national chains). As usual, the fascist do-gooders are out making sure they are an effective tool in the hands of the politically connected elite.

    -a-train

  4. but this is "good" fascism....

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Here's my concern: where does it stop? Obviously we are all for children living in a smoke free environment. But does that mean the government will soon ban smoking in a home with children? What about alcohol? There's no doubt that alcohol often (not always) plays a role in domestic violence--so shouldn't alcohol be banned from homes as well? Where will it end?

    I want children to be protected and, unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant or uncaring parents who don't take care of their children as they should. Should the government step in to protect the weak or defenseless? Yes, of course. But where does it end? I'm very concerned about the power the government (federal, more than state, but I'm seeing it becoming stronger in states). Power tends to corrupt.

    Unfortunately, many have fallen for the alluring lie that government intervention will raise the standard of living for these people. What people don't realize is that the cost of such intervention always outweighs the benefit and the overall effect is therefore a lowering of the standard of living of all. If we want to see children living in better households where parents are not drinking, smoking, and fighting, we need to go back to policies that allow Americans to prosper. Prosperous people tend not to engage in such activities. They are not as stressed. They are not as depressed. Free the people and teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.

    -a-train

  5. No more war on terror!!

    in Current Events

    Posted · Edited by a-train

    When no one lives in fear of another.. which means we'll need to eliminate drugs, pimping, and gangs. We'll need to put an end to abuse of all kinds, extremism of all kinds.. umm,what else is there.. oh yes the Government's secret mind-reading satellites because they cause terror amongst a certain part of the populace, even if they don't exist.

    And there you go. The 'war on terror' is nothing but the war on liberty. Grown men and women have a natural right to consume what they want so long as they inflict no damage on others. They have the same right with respect to mutually agreeable sexual activity. Our neglect to honor these rights leads to the usurpation of power and the loss of liberty. Such losses may at first seem to be for the public good, but always end in tragedy.

    -a-train

  7. Atlas shrugged

    in Current Events

    Posted

    I am fairly familiar with Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, having read her fiction and most of her non-fiction books, including "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff. I understand her view of faith vs. reason. I contend (with a-train) that her definition of faith is naive and circumscribed, amounting to more of a strawman argument, rather than a threatening intellectual or religious attack. I view faith (a la CS Lewis) as one blade of the scissors, the other being works. Faith is demonstrated by works imho. Rand simply defined it in a way that it is unbelievable.

    I think the definition of faith, the dogmatic acceptance of the unreasonable and mysterious, which Rand spoke against was not her own. Indeed, the misdefinition of faith came centuries ago. Religious parties 'took God on faith' long before Rand. Rand would call what Joseph Smith called faith, confidence to avoid confusion.

    I recognize atheism is fundamental to her philosophy

    I'm not so sure it was. She simply believed their was no evidence of God. But if taken to its logical end, Objectivism would compel one to believe in God if real evidence appeared.

    -a-train

  11. Atlas shrugged

    in Current Events

    Posted · Edited by a-train

    You say you know, based on faith, that the sun will come up each morning.

    But it isn't faith; rather, it's an observed fact that takes no faith to believe it was rise.

    See, this is what I am trying to point out. Joseph Smith's use of the term 'faith' was different from most religious teachers. I do NOT say that one "knows based on faith" that the sun will come up each morning. A person can NOT know anything by faith! That is ridiculous. That is nonsense. That is completely incongruent with Joseph Smith's teachings (see the lectures on faith).

    A person believes the sun will rise because of objective observation. This takes no faith whatsoever, just as you said. Acting in anticipation of the rising of the sun is faith. Driving to a location to watch it rise is an act of faith. Suppose it does NOT rise, this does NOT make the act of driving to watch it any less an act of faith.

    It takes no faith to admit that planting a corn seed will yield corn. One can deduce this through the application of reason upon objective observations, but to plant the seed in anticipation of such a yield is faith. If it doesn NOT so yield because of bad weather, the act of cultivation was no less faithful.

    I know my wife exists. I don't need to muster up some 'faith' to believe she is out there. I have through objective observation long ago determined that she exists. But when she calls me and asks me to meet her somewhere, my drive to that location in anticipation of seeing her there is faith, faith in my wife. It is also faith in my car and a host of other things.

    Faith is the means by which man acts. Every single action man has ever done, was an act of faith.

    One of the foolish fallacies put out about faith is that real faith can never amount to failure. That is utter nonsense. You can extend your hand and stroke the keys of your keyboard in good faith that you are sending me a message through the lds.net forum. But this act of faith does NOT gaurantee that I will get that message. A server failure, a power outage, a computer freeze, or any number of things could prevent your post from posting. This does NOT mean your typing was any less an act of faith.

    Another ridiculous claim is that faith alone alters reality externally. The idea would suggest that if I truly believe in my heart that a troll is under my bed, there will be one. This foolish idea would make every lie true so long as someone believes it. Outrageous!

    However, faith does shape the world in which we live. Our computer was built by the works of faith. Likewise was every item we possess. Every act of man is done by faith.

    Faith is a function of a time-bound being. You cannot know the future, not even by one second. Each step you take is an act of faith that you will realize a movement forward. However, your faith and your effort do not gaurantee this movement.

    James E. Talmage said that belief is to faith as knowledge is to wisdom. To know something, but to not act accordingly is unwise. So also it is unfaithful to not act upon our beliefs.

    Suppose you see something that looks like a coin in a parking lot. From your position you cannot determine with certainty that it is a coin. You approach it and pick it up. This is an act of faith. But not an act of faith that it is a coin, rather that your actions will determine whether it is a coin or not. Upon holding it in your hands and examining it, you discover it is a quarter and you put it in your pocket. Your act of faith brought knowledge and your reaction to this new knowledge is your wisdom.

    I don't think Rand argued against any of this. She argued against the kind of foolish notions of 'faith' that Joseph Smith disavowed just the same.

    Do you see the difference? Am I clear as mud?

    Frankly, I think you could have God visit her to prove He exists, and she would think she was hallucinating or something, rather than admit it was God. I don't necessarily disagree with her, but I would be willing to look at the evidence.

    Ah, but if she truly practices Objectivism, she would be compelled to have objective observations to support reason that would suggest the appearance of God was a hallucination. By the Objectivist philosophy, the appearance and communication of God would be viewed no differently than the appearance and communication of President Obama or any other.

    -a-train

  12. Atlas shrugged

    in Current Events

    Posted

    I found another interview of Rand. It is from 1959, and Mike Wallace is interviewing her.

    It's hilarious to see Wallace light up a cigarette on television.

    The interview is in three parts;

    discusses her basic philosophy that faith has no part in Objectivism, and that only reason can be relied on to be successful.

    discusses the issues people have brought up here on the board, no government intrusion, laissez faire, etc.

    is a little of both.

    Elphaba

    I watch this interview every couple of months or so. Love it! There's a Donahue (he's antimormon) one also.

    -a-train

  16. Atlas shrugged

    in Current Events

    Posted · Edited by a-train

    Conservatism and liberalism were not defined by moral thinking, one being so and the other being not so. They both claim to be moral. Classical conservatism arose in response to the rise of liberalism. Liberalism rejects the notion that government is necessary to upkeep the welfare of the individual. Classical liberals wanted LESS government MORE individual freedom. Conservatives rose to defend the monarchical state. Liberalism sees the moral policy in the liberation of the individual from oppressive government, conservatism sees a need to protect the individual from their own propensity to evil and self-destructive behavior.

    The United States never had the monarchy. The whole system was based on liberalism. Hamiltonianism which advocated a stronger central government, a central bank based on the English model, a national debt, protective tariffs, a standing national military, and a sort of mercantilist nationalist mindset became known as American conservatism. It was essentially England without Great Britain.

    The first major party associated with American conservatism was the Federalist party. The liberals, known also as Jeffersonians (after Thomas Jefferson) rallied around the Democratic-Republican Party (which evolved to the modern Democratic Party which is baffling).

    In the Jacksonian era, liberalism dominated the American political scene. The Federalist Party evaporated. The Jacksonian liberals abolished the Bank of the United States and bridled protectionism. The Republican Party came into being later with Abraham Lincoln, a staunch federalist thinker following in the footsteps of Hamilton.

    The liberal South resisted the growing power of the federal thinkers. It was not until the Civil Rights era that the South, the backbone of the Democratic Party, converted to the Republican Party. It is said that when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act he said: "We have lost the south for a generation".

    It was somewhere at the turn of the 20th Century though when liberalism became known as conservatism and conservatism became known as liberalism. George Bush was a true conservative. He liked a big expensive government that marches around the world inflicting the will of the White House on foreign nations while intruding deeply into the lives of the people at home. That said, President Obama is not much different from that. The movement they are in is more commonly called "neo-conservatism".

    -a-train

  21. Does God want members of His Church to prosper financially?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Wouldn't it be nicer if the poor person had a little more so they could go to the temple as often as they would wish?

    YES! And that is why capital improvement is so important. The poor must save and use their savings to buy income producing assets. Only then will they become able to afford to go as often as they wish. But if they continue to live up to or beyond their means, they will be perpetually poor.

    The rich must also save and use their savings to buy income producing assets. They must use these savings to enhance productivity. By so doing, goods become less expensive to all, thus easing the strain of the cost of living for everyone including and especially the poorest entities in the economy.

    Perhaps through saving the family will move closer to the temple. Perhaps they will buy a car. Perhaps they will rent one or afford a cab ride. Perhaps the cab company, through capital improvements, will be able to lower their rates.

    To some it seems harsh to live a life void of movie rentals, dining out, road trips, vacation time, dance lessons, and so forth. But the reality is that much of this actually prevents an even better lifestyle down the road. More consumption today costs us a great deal more consumption in the future.

    -a-train

  23. Atlas shrugged

    in Current Events

    Posted · Edited by a-train

    Faith that the sun will rise is based on sound reason, it is not dogmatically arrived at. This faith is based on experience and objective observation. One acting on behalf of their own self-interests may plan to watch the sunrise from a cliff overlooking a beach. He/she drives to the location before dawn and positions him/herself in anticipation. This act of faith would be completely congruous with Objectivist thinking and lifestyle.

    Name any champion of the Enlightenment who put Reason on a pedestal. They were not athiests. Reason can lead one to believe in God. Even Thomas Paine believed in God. The faith Rand spoke against is blind faith, faith arrived at through unreasonable means. This is not the faith of the 4th Article of Faith. This sort of belief is not what Mormons seek, but what we hope to avoid.

    The Book of Mormon teaches that the beginning faith is hope, or a desire to believe (Alma 32). Faith comes through experimentation (verse 27,33,36) and objective observation. Only by an objective witness can one have true faith. The basis of the faith in God among the enlightenment thinkers was such objective observation.

    For a fantastic study on the subject, I highly recommend the Lectures on Faith. Look at the lecture sixth. It is clear that a knowledge of God and his will obtained through objective means is necessary for the faith in him unto eternal life.

    "Having treated in the preceding lectures of the ideas of the character, perfections, and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of the knowledge which persons must have that the course of life which they pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation."

    The faith in Christ of which Joseph Smith taught was not the sort that defies reason, but the sort that rests on it. The lecture second makes that quite clear as its subject is the object upon which faith rests.

    -a-train