Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[<Patrick>]

     I can't speak for others, but I will speak for myself. I want to make clear that I don't have a problem with anyone just because they do not agree with me on every issue. I have no problem with Geo-Libertarians.

     My disagreement with your ideas is just that: A disagreement with your ideas. I do not regard you as enemies, or think less of you just because I do not agree with you on the subject of land rights.
     
     Please do not take my debating with you to be antagonism. I debate with you because I enjoy the intellectual stimulation.

     As an Objectivist I was very disappointed when the "Is Objectivism a Cult?" thread was posted. I wanted to have a civilized discussion. This has gone too far away from that and too close to childish name-calling.    

     I don't know about other people, but I do not want to be abusive or confrontational. I just want to discuss and debate the topic of land rights--a topic that I find very interesting.

     I think of all of you as allies and fellow FSP members--not enemies. Other people here may be less tolerant, but that is their position, not mine. Do not make the mistake of lumping me with them.
     
     I just want you all to understand this.
     
     

Peace?

[S Michael Moore]

I agree.  If I can be friends with the MOST statist liberal I have ever met, then I can certainly be civil with geos.  In here, we discuss mearly theory.  Once we are all in NH and well on the way to our goals, working for the ideals upon which we all agree, there will be plenty of time to debate those which we do not.

[TMA68]

As an Objectivist I was very disappointed when the "Is Objectivism a Cult?" thread was posted. I wanted to have a civilized discussion. This has gone too far away from that and too close to childish name-calling.

Did you not see the context in which that message was posted in the first place? I was simply trying to see if there was a double standard at play with respect to the reckless use of the word "cult," which at the time was being directed at a Georgist-leaning libertarian in a separate thread. Note, they were not merely questioning whether this guy belonged to a "cult," but were insisting that he was one.

All I did in response to this was raise the question of whether Objectivism was a cult (a fair question to ask, I thought, in light of what Murray Rothbard himself had to say on the matter), and sure enough, those who said not a word when the word "cult" was being flung repeatedly at a Georgist-leaning libertarian suddenly had a problem with it when it was being mentioned in the same sentence as the belief system they happened to agree with. As a result, my suspicion of a double standard was confirmed. If you interpreted my method of confirmation as a personal attack on you, all I can say is that was not my intention. My intention was to get certain people to realize that they were employing the very sort of smear tactic they cry foul about when someone they admire (in this case, Ayn Rand) is on the receiving end of such behavior, and to thus think twice before using it yet again as a substitute for objective reasoning.

All that being said, I appreciate your effort to restore decorum, and hope those who share your opposition to my beliefs follow your lead in that regard, especially the individual who continues to conclude each of his posts with a signature containing a petty personal attack against Bill, me, and other geolibs.

Todd Altman

[<Patrick>]

Did you not see the context in which that message was posted in the first place? I was simply trying to see if there was a double standard at play with respect to the reckless use of the word "cult," which at the time was being directed at a Georgist-leaning libertarian in a separate thread. Note, they were not merely questioning whether this guy belonged to a "cult," but were insisting that he was one.

     Yes, I was aware of the context; I read those posts. But was the person who first used the term "cult" even an Objectivist? Isn't this kind of like attacking Paul to make a point to Peter?

If you interpreted my method of confirmation as a personal attack on you, all I can say is that was not my intention.

     Thank you for making that clear.

All that being said, I appreciate your effort to restore decorum, and hope those who share your opposition to my beliefs follow your lead in that regard.

     Like I said: "Can't we all just get along?"

     

[<Patrick>]

All I did in response to this was raise the question of whether Objectivism was a cult (a fair question to ask, I thought, in light of what Murray Rothbard himself had to say on the matter)

     We are not all intolerant and dogmatic. There is a major change going on in the Objectivist movement:

www.wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html

[Mike Lorrey]

All I did in response to this was raise the question of whether Objectivism was a cult (a fair question to ask, I thought, in light of what Murray Rothbard himself had to say on the matter)

     We are not all intolerant and dogmatic. There is a major change going on in the Objectivist movement:

www.wetheliving.com/boston/ios.html

The only real cult I am aware of in the Objectivist world are the Neo-Tech con-artists.

[RhythmStar]

FWIW, it may interest you big "O" Objectivists to note that, as a Deist, I believe that the entire Universe, since the First Cause, is the result of cause and effect, and is therefore able to be fully explained and understood using reason.  All that exists is natural, and thus there is no supernatural.  So, while we probably disagree quite a bit on our other assumptions and the conclusions we have come to as a result of our life experiences, in theory, if we had the same data, we should come to similar conclusions.



RS