It's been hard to stay motivated to post anything. Still working on a new theme a little, so this is just a temp layout. I guess by playing with themes instead of producing content, I can lie to myself and say I'm 'blogging'.

I'd refer to the same model used by DVDs. If you own it, you can view it. As I stated, loaning to others outside of the household is morally suspect, but cannot be enforced as wrong. I would just prefer people acknowledge the wrongness of what they are doing and let their own conscious guide them. Why are DVD rental outlets required to negotiate terms with the publisher for compensation, while libraries are not? Or for that matter, I don't believe stores that rent Audiobooks are required to negotiate similar agreements.

Hi Terry! Good to hear from you. I'll try to lay out some thoughts when I have a little time. Check back please.

Awesome. I'll try to get some answers hammered out when I have a little more time. Welcome the questioning. A few quick answers.

3. Because I enjoy the flogging? Because I detest it so much? No, those aren't good answers, but it is AN answer. In all seriousness, I think it is because I keep hearing the echoes of Calvinism when I debate this stuff, because some of my exploration began with the utter insanity and evil of their Weltanschauung (which is German, for World View ;-) ). I find myself on what may be an irrational mission to expose them for what they are, and if it involves ridicule, scorn, and the occasional pissing on a grave, then I'm all in. Temporary insanity? Maybe. I also confess to a very powerful fear that they may infiltrate you based on some of your own recent statements. I honestly worry about that in a very active way.

4. Meant to be 'flingers', but I think 'fingers' might work just as well.

Anyway, I'll hash it out when I have a little more time. I am really inspired by Objectivism so far, and I would evangelically promote Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, if an Objectivist could be evangelical. Unfortunately, I fear the system won't work completely for you as there is no such entity as a Christian Objectivist. The two things really can't mix, and I understand the difficulties that would pose for you.

And I forgot to add to the above comment - "phileo non homo".

Sorry if it appeared I snapped at you. Yeah, nothing spikes my blood pressure like a brush with any aspect of Calvinism. So far, I am unwilling to consider Calivnism without tangling it up in contempt, scorn, and outright hatred. My cross to bear, so to speak, but I'm fine with it. Jerks.

Ahem...

To avoid taking the conversation in to areas that might be outside of your intended scope, I'll limit the answer to your question. The axiom 'existence exists' confirms the existence of existence. In Objectivist thinking, an axiom has qualities:

Not inferred from prior truths
A perceptually self-evident fact
Conceptually irreducible
Implicit in all knowledge and any statement
It must be assumed even in denying it

I submit that 'existence exists' meets these criteria. It affirms reality. We know existence exists because we have awareness of existence. There can be no 'prior truths' outside of existence, because they have no where to stand or exist. It is irreducible. Reality is real. Unreality is unreal. Unreality therefore is not a viable starting point for an axiom, as it does not exist. To even attempt to refute existence, one must incorporate existence within your attempt, affirming what you deny.

These three axioms are the foundation of the Objectivist philosophy.

One might claim that these are circular or tautological. A rhetorical tautology is a technique of using different words to say the same thing, appearing to add new meaning without doing so. That isn't the case here, as I am stating existence exists (same words, affirming a concept). A logical tautology is a construct that is always true regardless of circumstances. It is immutable, and therefore quite useful as a foundational element of philosophy. While a rhetorical tautology is trivial, a logical tautology is essential to testing truth. This is somewhat different than conversation we've had in the past when I wrongfully dismissed things AS tautologies and therefore, trivial and meaningless. My error has since been corrected with a more essential understanding.

I suspect that even, ahem, a Calvinist (*#&&$&%^).....would affirm that existence exists. But then again, they constantly surprise me in their willingness to disregard (remainder of tirade redacted).

Raging pessimism from Gidman. I understand it, I really do. I don't hold out much hope either, honestly. But the above proposal is the first thing I've seen that assembles a plan to salvage the country without tossing us into a monstrous 'French Revolution'. Once the cork comes off the bottle of violence, we aren't going to end up with a Constitutional state. The formation of the US is an aberration of history, and we need to do all we can to hold on to it. Ergo, the above proposal.

At least it is something worth fighting for.

I'm not sure about your objection to #2. The unfunded mandate is a staple of Federal government crushing the states with requirements. It costs the Feds nothing to pass some insane law and leave the mess for the states to figure out. By stating the Feds would have to provide funding for every silly little law, it places the burden of funding back on them. And, thanks to the proposed repeal of the Income Tax, it leaves them with the need to pick priorities. I like it, again because it is very easy to explain to the average voter who might not be all that engaged in the nuances of politics. What is tough to understand about "the Feds need to pay for the laws they force the states to adopt"?

Look, I know that the enshrined political class of both sides won't accept this. They won't want it. They are all evil and corrupt. But at the end of the day, if this gathers momentum, they will have to take a stand. Either the politicians will bow to the idea that we are a nation of laws, or it will force them to declare themselves as outside of law and the law of themselves. Either way, that is a good thing (they bow, or we can stop pretending that our political class has any moral standing in our system). If they go the latter path, it's going to be hard for them to defend themselves as 'elected' royalty.

If none of the above is worth pursuing, then present an alternative that will restore what we've lost. I can't accept that 'blood in the street' revolution will gain us anything but a new set of demagogues and a new leash for our necks. Revolutions have a way of getting out of control.

Oklahoma came out today exerting their sovereignty, along with Texas a few weeks ago. The Tea Party protests were a few million voters, and for each of them, there were probably another four or five too busy working to demonstrate. The vapid middle aren't a bunch of pro-statist, they are simply going with the herd, rushing to where they think they are supposed to be.

If enough leaders rise up and offer alternatives, the mushy middle will go with the tide. Only your hardcore statists (ACORN) will really fight like hell, and I believe their very resistance will betray the things they are fighting to preserve. Right now, they can hide behind 'serving the poor' and 'helping the little guy'. That buys them a lot of sympathy. It is a little harder when you have to declare you are fighting to support a statist system for the sake of a statist system.

The tenth amendment is dead, and we've moved beyond being able to bring it back as itself. People look at it as old and dusty, and I don't believe you are going to be able to point back at it and effectively say 'this is what we should be doing'. The above proposal explicitly details the WHY behind the tenth amendment, and casts itself as a remedy to excess that any reasonable person acknowledges, even the mushy vapid middle.

Build a movement around this, and they can't ignore it. We don't need their permission to reform the system. We simply need enough people standing up and saying enough. If they want to cross that line and exert unlawful rule overtly, then at least we will have clear targets when the really bad things start happening.

Win-win.

Okay, let's review the founding statement(s) of Objectivism....

1) that existence exists (i.e., there is a reality),
2) that to exist is to be something (A is A, the law of identity), and
3) that consciousness is consciousness of something (the axiom of consciousness).

Would you wish to deny these? That would be a neat trick, because to deny these axioms is to endorse them, which is precisely what Calvinist poo-flingers accuse everyone else of doing.

To deny the axioms, you must stand within reality as a point of reference. You can't very well stand outside of reality, nor can you coherently deny your own existence.

Identity must exist or we would get quite confused regarding who is doing the denying and what is being denied. To deny identity is another incoherent act of self-abnegation.

Finally, to deny consciousness is to strip yourself of the very tools of argument. I'm not even sure where to go with that one.

So please, how are these simple axioms self-refuting? And can you refute them without borrowing them in the task?

Care to explain what you mean, or are you just trying to send me in to a rage this morning with more Calvinist fecal flinging?

I don't know. Certainly those that benefit from the corruption in politics and/or the exceedingly unsustainable entitlement system would agitate against this, but I think they might have a tough road there. So long as they are able to cast continued socialism in terms of 'compassion for the downtrodden' and 'standing up for the little guy', they will continue to win. The proposal above strikes at the root of what makes these programs possible without having to engage in the losing arguments and finding ourselves continuously fighting against the 'mean old heartless conservative' label. These ideas are very simple and clear, and it is difficult to muster a coherent argument against a prohibition on unfunded mandates, or preservation of state primacy et al. The Tea Party movement is the start of something, I believe. And the more Obama overreaches (we're 100 days in and the level of his ambition is breathtaking - in a very bad way), the great unengaged middle of the road voter who really doesn't understand the change they voted for in November are going to get buyer's remorse. This might be an opportunity to crystallize a movement around some doable concepts. This could be another Contract with America, but much bigger.

Or I'm just reaching for a dream and we're all so hosed it isn't even funny.