Zenphamy, I wrote another more lengthy response to this "rant", but it seems to have gotten lost in the ether (went "poof" when I clicked reply). The short version:

Character assassination is not an argument and you know it (you don't know me from Adam). I'll let that and a lot of the rest of the baseless accusations against my person slide because I've read many of your other posts and this is not in your usual character. You're normally more civil and rational. You say "In No Way", but the emotional heat of your flaming response indicates you really don't like others traveling through and messing things up from what you expect them to be. Behind the flames you do make some rational points. Read my conversation with khalling in this thread to discern more of what I'm about here on this subject.

Touche, khalling, touche! :-) Yeah, I know db has taken some heat along with many others on this site. It is not your job or anyone's to educate me, unless I'm paying for it.

I'm traveling right now and my home library is over a thousand miles away, but I can see it's time to blow the dust off the Ayn Rand books when I get back in couple of months and refresh the volatile ram.

Thanks, dbhalling, for the explanation. One thing I'm learning here is I am not really a "Conservative", though I do share some conservative thinking. I'm definitely not a socialist or liberal (as defined currently in the US). I don't think I'm a libertarian, though I do share some libertarian thinking. I'm quite capable of rational thought, but would not call myself an objectivist because my data base has too many holes in it to make such a claim with a straight face (I read a lot of Rand a long time ago and have forgotten far more than I can remember at this time - don't get old, it sucks). I know a lot about a few things, a few things about a lot, and there's a whole lot more out there I don't know a damn thing about, but I'm always willing to learn.

I agree completely. . I just approach the opportunity to communicate
about rationality and objectivism differently, I guess. -- j
.

you're welcome. -- j

p.s. if I am a troll, trying to help guide a wider
audience to objectivism, I apologize. . I have
been a Rand devotee since I was 15, that is,
for 52 years, and have given away easily 100
copies of AS to friends and acquaintances.
the opportunity, here in the online gulch, to
have a positive influence on others, should
be taken both seriously and with relish, I'd say.
.

I think that we should welcome good-intentioned conservatives
and try to impress them with objectivism at every opportunity.
the friendlier the face of reason the better, I'd say. -- j
.

YES! Fighting with friends does suck! I have thoroughly enjoyed many of dbhalling's posts and have learned much from reading them as well. I've agreed with db virtually all the time on this site. I have purchased the Hank Rangar novels and can't wait for the third, if there is to be one!

On this one issue though, getting "flipped off" so quickly without a single rational sentence, really threw me for a loop. Whatever. I won't let it stop me from reading a good book or from getting involved in other conversations.

I hide AJ's comments and that is probably why you cannot find the comment. AJ was not really interested in the ideas of objectivism or in a rational discussion. His goal had become to disrupt the conversations and push a conservative agenda. His and other conservatives in the gulch are why I created this post.

wait a minute. do you realize how many " tantrum-like foot stamper calling me an idiot and flipping me the bird" responses we receive to thoughtfully and carefully applied reason to difficult topics and even the most basic in Objectivism principles. Put our shoes on for a moment. Is it our job to teach you the basics of property rights? If you search DB on this site, he repeats himself ad naseum on the property rights concept. Over and over and over and over. AJ has been in the Gulch as long as we have. When are we allowed to blow steam?

the country must declare war first. We have not done that. also-you want Obama to declare war? he can't run a McDonalds.
Dale's comment is still there. He is touchy this weekend. Fighting with friends sucks

OK, I may have baited this response from you in my reply to Zenphamy, but it is the same as your response to me above when I questioned your response to AJ (which has now disappeared for some reason). The first time you handed me this flippant line I figured I hadn't read Rand in many years and I'm not as young and sharp as I used to be so maybe I'm missing something. I was expecting a more rational reply from you and all I got, most amazingly, is this tantrum-like foot stamper calling me an idiot and flipping me the bird.

Thank you for the reasonable response. That is all I was looking for when I got into this part of the discussion and questioned dbhalling's response to AJ above (which seems to have disappeared for some reason). This is obviously an emotional issue that I find conflicted in my own thinking and wish to clarify my thoughts on the matter. Your words "Don't focus on the communists though (Islamists, Mexicans, immigrant de jour) focus on the the stuff that makes the country in the first place-the Constitution and its life. Same here in the Gulch, if the effective mission of the Gulch is not being upheld, scream bloody murder." holds more meaning to me than you may realize. I assume by extension this means when immigrant de jour violates the Constitution, then scream bloody murder as well, but not prevent their entry in the first place because they "might" violate the Constitution. This makes sense to me. However, AJ's argument that a nations borders are an extension of the citizens property (private property of the citizens as this site is private property) and requires protection from incursion as if it were the citizens front door also makes sense to me. HENCE, the conflict I'm trying to resolve in my own mind. I'm not getting much help here in the Gulch, but your response is much appreciated.

sam; I certainly don't think you should leave the site. And if you find issues with Rand or her philosophy, as long as you're willing to accept critiques and discussions of those issues, I don't think there's any problem. The site doesn't have nor advocate a 'Purity test, as far as I know. But it is a site for those that are fans of AS, and advocates of Rand and her philosophy, so you should expect some strong discussions and comments.

As to the issues of ISIS and refugees, I won't try to speak for anyone else, but for myself an Objectivist viewpoint is that the Muslims are not the real issue, even though I find no support whatsoever for religionist of any form. It's the welfare state that beckons those to this country and I abhor that. In an Objectivist and free country, those that wish to live a mooch/looter life would find no welcome or success which would prevent them from coming in the first place or to come and fail in such a lifestyle. That principle would also address the issue of refugees, with no support available to those except the ability to work and support themselves and to respect everyone's rights in regards to religion and gov't..

As to the danger from ISIS, again I abhor their actions and beliefs, but in the real world just think about how many Americans' lives have been destroyed, even killed by our own gov't compared to the real impact on us of terrorism. They don't compare in any realistic way.

As to bastardation, you shouldn't expect that Objectivists won't respond strongly to compromise of principles and values, particularly of individual rights and freedoms or gov't intervention in any of the areas of our lives.

john; I have no problem with the 'rules' of the gulch you reference. In fact I contributed in a small way to the current listing in some detail. I don't see any of this conversation having anything to do with limiting anyone's Posting privilege. If you will read further of the FAQ's and CoC, you'll find an admonition that (paraphrased) this is a site for fans of AS and advocates of AR and the philosophy of Objectivism and that you can expect strong responses in defense of those Issues.

My chief concern I've attempted to discuss on this issue is the following:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. ....
and:
"A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."

I'm not making any direct allegations, but I will note that there are some (avowed Conservatives and Conservative defenders) on the site who seem to seldom post topics that have much if anything to do with the declared point of view of the site. And although they profess an Objectivist point of view, they seem to be very unfamiliar with the premises and principles of the subject when they do comment on Objectivist postings. I'll also note that several involved Objectivist Posters and commentor members left the site at about the same time that this type of behavior began to be expressed which I take to be a direct corollary.

You've mentioned to me in several different posts that you have pointed me up in some of my comments, I could care less about that, more than you might imagine. If you imagine me to be concerned about the points I might accumulate, you're sadly mistaken. I take those points to only mean that I'm communicating something of Objectivist value and that my thinking and expressions mean something to the Objective readers of a particular Post or Comment.

john; Faith is not just about religion. Religion is an easily recognized case, but the largest and most dangerous case that we face is that of faith in gov't and leaders. After that is faith in our fellow man. Faith in anything believed rather than derived from cold, hard, prickly rational, logically reasoned selfishness and a separate from us reality, is like a ticking time bomb.

Warm, soft, fuzzys is what the socialist/communist side of politics has given people. The philosophy of Objectivism, while providing the cold, hard, pricklys offers only individual happiness.through hard, but rewarding effort, and pride in self. I can't think off the top of my head of a situation in which Rand offered anything but the cold, hard, prickly facts of reality, particularly the damage and danger of warm, soft, fuzzy altruism that might have been introduced to humanity by religion, but is the basis of the gov't being all things to all people and today's Conservative offer of safety if we only accept a loss of individual rights and gov't tyranny.

Continued compromise of Objectivist principles and values can only lead to more and more tyranny.

Yes, and if we can't come up with our own lies to tell ourselves why we should be practical, I'm sure Wesley can always give us some more to use.

Indeed

In No Way am I saying that. In the first place, dbhailing didn't invent the right to travel' freely, just as you didn't invent your conservative feudal mentality and tribal collectivist viewpoint of 'others. Neither are you anywhere near the first to attack the principles of individual liberty, rights, and freedom as the result of 'fear mongering' based on 'boogeymen' in the dark. Nor are you the first to desire and argue for 'elitist' rights at the first "never let a crisis go to waste" opportunity and agree to the gov't unilaterally reducing the Constitution's protection of individual rights of all in order to take that protection away from others.

Personally, I detest what this country has become under the faux rubric of protecting this country and freedom, Nor do I favor spending this country's limited wealth to import and support a large group of refugees from a country several thousand miles away, particularly when this country's meddling started and supported the war the Syrians are refugees from.

But I absolutely abhor the continued support for the enemies of freedom by those that call themselves Conservative while they justify the gov't's continual whittling away at what little freedom and common sense is left in this country under the rule of Conservatives and Liberals both. It won't be more than a few months from now before I have to hear that we should vote for the least worse candidate. And in just ! !/2 months from now, I'll have to provide gov't approved papers in order to travel on a plane or bus (implemented by Conservatives), just so you can feel protected from the boogeymen of the world..
.

I am a simple man and like to keep things simple. Skepticism and Relativism are not dirty words. Being a skeptic has served me well over the years. Also there are, in my mind things, at our level of evolution, that cannot be known. And yes because of variables everything is in a constant state of change. I am not the same person I was 40 years ago or even yesterday. Adjustments have to continue to be made.

I cannot call myself a Libertarian, Conservative or an Objectivist. As there are ideas in all those labels I cannot through reason subscribe. So I would guess I am more of a misfit. I see all of those as being pertinent in “a perfect world”. But the fact is we do not live in a perfect world.

It appears that some of us who happen to be less cerebral cause some consternation in many of the group. Again we do not live in a perfect world but we must always strive to somehow create that world. Referring to comments by dbhalling in answer to you and to RosemaryL. I also believe in most of the items he mentioned. But the immigration and ISIS are not part of that. I agree that everyone has “the right of travel” however millions coming here is NOT immigration it is an invasion. An invasion which puts undo stress on OUR economy. To allow such happenings, in the world we live, is not only irrational but it also destroys the lives of many who have worked hard for what they have set out to accomplish for THEIR lives. Sacrificing ones right for the sake of another is not sound reasoning. And the ISIS question, by reason is lunacy, since they are fanatically religion driven and their religion states all must follow them or die. You do not fight that by saying they have “the right of travel”. They can practice whatever they wish in their country. It is not up to me to go to the aid of their women and children. It is up to the more rational among them to fix what they don't like about how they live.

In the two plus years I have been with this group I have learned much and hope that some of what I say is of value to others in the group and have enjoyed all of the discussions that time permits me to partake. Having said that, I will end by saying I noticed someone in the group lament that she does not spend as much time on the group as she believes that it could be a “Limbaugh” group. Your reply was to say you do not want people to bastardize the “Philosophy of Ayn Rand”. If any of my comments or ramblings have been seen as bastardizing the “Philosophy” or if the function of the group is to simply have a single voice of like minded in all things Rand I would request that you remove me from the group since I have accomplished nothing and that single voice does not need or deserve the distraction.

A country is defined geographically, by where its legal authority extends. While this information below is about ISIS and islam it applies generally.

a) Natural rights apply to all people
b) The 4th and 5th amendment apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the US. These constitutional rights do not end (are not surrendered) if you cross the border (a border). Only in time of war and only for people who are the enemy are these suspended.
c) People who practice islam are still people. We are not at war with all of islam or the middle east.
d) A free government can only detain someone (use force) if they have probably cause they are a criminal. (Innocent until proven guilty) Note this means that we cannot play Minority Report and stop people because they might be criminals or because they have thought something criminal. This can be suspended in times of war.
e) Thus the only legal and moral way we can stop muslims from crossing into the US is to declare war on them.
f) Rand was clear that any free country has the right to declare war on any non-free country at anytime, but they do not have the obligation to do so. I agree with Rand, so I am not opposed to declaring war on say ISIS in principle, however I am opposed because I do not think it is in the US’s interest in general, nor do I think it is in the interests of anyone on this email chain as I will explain below.
i) One of Rand’s qualifications was that only a free country could declare war morally and I find it problematic whether the US is a free country at this point.
ii) War always increases the power of the government. I do not want to give more power to Obama or any likely future president.
iii) A war with Islam is unlikely to be successful under the present circumstance. The US could easily win any military war with any Islamic group or all of them, but since we do not even believe in our own values – we did not require freedom of religion, speech, and assembly when Afghanistan’s or Iraq’s constitutions were rewritten – then we will lose the peace as has happened already in Afghanistan and Iraq
iv) The muslim’s do not pose a threat to the US militarily
v) The terrorist threat is overblown. They have caused a small number of deaths, miniscule compared to other causes of death in the US. The biggest damage caused by 911 was caused by the Patriot Act, the TSA, Homeland security.
vi) Islam is less of a threat than the environmental movement to our life, liberty, property and our constitution.

Thanks you Mama. This site and the people I've met here mean a great deal to me. But even more, Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I don't appreciate others that want to bastardize it, particularly in my (cyber) face.

True, but it is amazing the number of people who segregate their life and use reason in professional life, but reject it in other areas.

Perhaps I misunderstood this statement "I am trying to face today's situation
head-on." But that sounds like the let's be practical and ignore principles particularly common to conservatives.