Sunday, January 10, 2010

Objectivists are warmongers

On my post about John Stossel discussing Ayn Rand and Objectivism, I made the statement that Objectivists are pro-war. This sparked a comment from byafi questioning why I would think this. Some Objectivists might not be pro-war and I am certain that not all Objectivists are pro-war all of the time, but for sure some Objectivists are pro-war some of the time. They do not agree with me that all of the wars the US has ever been in are immoral and the US should have never engaged in them. I don't want to argue about any historical wars as it is tiring and serves no useful point, but the current and imminent wars are worth talking about. Besides either being in favor of or silently against Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Objectivists have taken a stand in favor of attacking Iran. None of which I can agree with.

Here are some statements by a few well known Objectivists posted on popular Objectists web sites, there are many more, but this is a good sample. Other Objectivists like Terry Goodkind have been vocal in their support of the Iraqi War.

This author supports the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the long-term commitment to rebuild that country that must follow. We need to be willing to use military force soon in Korea as well, if we cannot get a reliable settlement with North Korea—and provided that South Korea accepts the risks. -William Thomas

Eliminating Iran's terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation. But nothing less will "end the state" that most cries out to be ended. - Leonard Peikoff

French president Nicolas Sarkozy said that attacking Iran over its refusal to abandon its nuclear program would be "catastrophic."

Quite to the contrary, an attack on Iran that destroyed its nuclear program and regime is long overdue.
- David Holcberg

What we advocate for is a real war of self-defense, a war to protect the lives and freedom of individual Americans, and we advocate waging as ruthless a war as is necessary to defeat Iran's regime. - Yaron Brook

1 comment:

clay barham said...

America was founded on individual liberty and local government no more than one day’s horseback ride from the governed. The 19th century Democrat was the staunch defender of state’s rights, which, under Federalists, Whigs and Republicans was assigned the role of slavery’s justifiers. The civil war cost us local government, the laws affecting behavior rising to the states and then the Federal government, way outside the one-day horseback distance rule that worked so well. The vigilante movements in the West and South were remnants of local home rule, where citizens concerned with the way they were governed took action to right the wrongs. The Tea Party Movement is another example of citizen participation against the governing elite centered far, far from the folks. It demonstrates the founding ideals of America are still the dominant tradition. The 20th century Democrats have declared war on Tea Parties as vigilantes and on America’s founding traditions, as cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS, Our Lost Libertarian Roots on claysamerica.com.