Replies

"I don't make moral judgements, right and wrong are your esoteric hobgoblins, your idolatries of personal conceit... "

Yes you do. You made the moral judgment that homosexual sex is perverted. "Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy." There is no way to gain from biology the conclusion that homosexual sex is perverted (wrong). Biological facts only show that homosexual sex will not result in propagation. It does not say that propagation is the only legitimate use for sexual acts. The fact you have come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong and needs to be prohibited is because your feelings told you so. It is irrational. You have nothing rational to guide you.

"Oh, and by the way, even your false analogy (false cause, non-causa) by invoking the term "Fascism" is innaccurate. The National Socialists weren't Fascists. Another Leftist trick exposed by Ayn Rand, the art of the smear (or schmear if you know what I refer to)."

Your are the one who is smearing. You are smearing the ideas of Ayn Rand. I NEVER said you were a Nazi. I said your ideas were consistent with both communism and fascism, That they are, they are statist and collectivist to the core.

I know the works of Ayn Rand, and unlike you, I understand what she wrote. In the chapter of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" called 'Extremism, or the Art of The Smear', she said that fascism was falsely being defined as the opposite of communism. It was being said that capitalism's advocates were *fascist*. She showed how fascism and communism both were collectivist. The real dichotomy was between collectivism (fascism and communism being just variants of the same principle) and capitalism.

I said to you, in regards to your philosophy,

"In other words, it is the same thing that drove both Communism and Fascism. Pure, naked, power lust."

I didn't say you were a Nazi. I know the Nazis were mostly socialist. You invented an imaginary attack against you as a way of evading the topic. I was calling you a collectivist, because you said in regard to the powers of government,

"So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong...Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly. "

There is no such entity as society. There are only individuals. Society can evaluate nothing because there is no such thing as society, only individuals.
Fascists call for private ownership of property, but leave the control of that property in the state. Communism advocates both the ownership and the control of property in the state. There is essentially no difference; the idea of *owning* property and not being able to control it is an oxymoron.

The most basic axiom of private ownership is the idea that we own ourselves. All other property rights flow from that. According to you, we don't own ourselves, because you say the state has the right to control what we can or can't do even when it does not affect someone else's rights. That is frankly closer to fascist than communist, but the distinction is not important. Both systems deny the right to private property.

Your philosophy is might makes right. Ayn Rand despised people like you. You stand for everything she fought against, especially the notion that there can be no rational morality. She passionately argued for a rational morality, and the need for such a morality. I quote from "The Virtue Of Selfishness",

"Is the concept of value, of "good or evil" an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality-- or is it based on a metaphysical fact, an an unalterable condition of man's existence?"

She argues that it was indeed based on a metaphysical fact of our existence, namely that which is required for a man's survival. She said,

"Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival- not by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life...The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics- the standard by one judges what is good or evil- is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival; qua man... The men who attempt to survive, not by means of reason, but by means of force, are attempting to survive by the method of animals... by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction, the destruction of their victims. As evidence I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship."

Or she could have been talking about you. You believe, "If you are powerful enough, you get to do what you want." You have said in your profile, "The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law", yet you don't believe in any rights at all, except the right of the strong to crush the weak. You speak of the individual but you only mean yourself; everybody else is just a mean to your ends.

You have been incessantly talking about *idolatries* of this and that. You have no problem with idolatry. You just can't stand the fact that YOU aren't the object of worship.

You represent everything that is against the idea of the individual and of capitalism.