Setting the Record Straight

Earlier this week I found myself bummed out by the perception that many American’s didn’t recognize the clear choice of visions for our country that are laid before us in this presidential election. I began writing a post that sought to lay out these visions on either side in hopes that it might help some make this important decision based on the vision that they want for America rather than the narrative that Mitt Romney is a  bigot who “wants your father to take away your free birth control then impregnate you and force you to carry the child to term even if it kills you”[i]or that he is a sleazy rich guy who wants to make sure that the “47%” can never get an education and will all die of cancer while he and his rich friends roll around in pits of money and eat the souls of children. However, in light of last night’s debate, I think that the Governor made a clearer and more persuasive statement for his vision than I could have. It doesn’t mean that I will never publish that post, but it just means that it has become less urgent. In the meantime, there are some misconceptions that have been bothering me and I want to set the record straight.

Note: I started writing these and the first one was long enough to be its own post. Accordingly, I have made them each a unique post, with the link below. I won’t finish them all tonight, so make sure you check back for the others as I finish them. You could even subscribe to my blog, then you will be notified as I post the others.

The Lack of Specifics on Romney’s Plans/Policies

That Man was not the Real Mitt Romney



5 thoughts on “Setting the Record Straight

  1. Justin says:

    i was reading that article you linked but then stopped when I saw the giant photo of Atlas Shrugged. Let’s be clear about one thing: Ayn Rand is NOT a philosopher. No serious philosopher thinks she is, and only lunatic worshippers glorify her with that label. What you’re doing with these blogs is an honest attempt to uncover some truths or at least get clearer about certain issues, using rational means and appeals to evidence. In this respect, you, Curtis, are a philosopher. Ayn Rand is not — she has no pretense of doing anything that you’re trying to do in your blog. Rand is a demagogue.

    • csspackman says:

      I don’t know that I fully agree with your assessment of Ayn Rand. I will agree that she is a bit of a demagogue and that there is a cult-like worship of her from libertarians. I am sure that many “serious” philosophers take exception and umbrage to her work. However, the assertion that any of those points makes her philosophy of objectivism illegitimate is a fallacy. I do want to say that the idea is pretty extreme and not something that I think is practical, especially in our current political and economic environment, although a move in that direction (if calculated and implemented rationally and reasonably) would not be unappealing to me.
      In regards to the linked article, it is pretty funny that you went to read it. I apologize if I implicitly set a false pretense of the fairness of that article. The article is written by a hard-core libertarian directed at a target audience of hard-core libertarians. I agree with the overall premise of the article, which is that it is irrational for a libertarian to vote for Gary Johnson in this election, but I don’t agree with most of the argument used to make that point. I just thought the sentence the author used as a satirical spoof on the left’s demonization of Romney was funny and wanted to use it. However, I didn’t want to use it without giving credit to the real author.

      • Justin says:

        Just to be clear: it’s not Ayn Rand’s views that discredit her from being a philosopher, it’s the fact that she isn’t engaged philosophically. That is, she doesn’t provide arguments for her claims, and, in the cases that we can discern an argument, it is clearly invalid (or unsound). Furthermore, there’s no sense that she is bothered by this. She simply does not seem to want to do philosophy or think philosophically — instead, all we find are a series of unsupported controversial claims.

    • csspackman says:

      Haha, I can see that. Like I said, there are components of objectivism that I like, but Libertarians (including their mother, Rand) didn’t always think realistically or practically.

      • Justin says:

        For a more philosophically sophisticated defense of libertarian principles, you should check out Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, Utopia”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s