[jonstreeter]

The lyrics for the two videos are great –

The Lord High Executioner:

Behold the Lord high executioner!
Our President a most impressive brother.
His actions are all constitutional,
but some are very much more so than others.

Defer, defer to the Lord high executioner!
Defer, defer to the noble lord, to the noble lord, to the lord high executioner.

Taken from my humble plight
Tele-prompted into power
People hoped I’d set things right –
But I changed my mind within the hour.

The Constitution I once taught,
claiming we should be protective.
Now as president I’ve got
to thinking that it is defective.

Never before had a dude,
under such like circumstances
with such power been embued –
who could blame my imperial advances!

Taken from my humble plight
tele-prompted into power.
Never before had a dude
with such power been imbued.

Defer, defer to the Lord High Executioner!
Defer, defer to the noble Lord to the noble Lord High Executioner!
Bow down, bow down to the Lord High Executioner!
Defer, defer to the noble noble Lord –

The High Executioner!

I’ve Got a Little List:

As someday it may happen that a conflict we must start,
I’ve got a little list! I’ve got a little list!
Of America’s detractors who might well be blown apart
and who’ll certainly be miffed! They’ll certainly be miffed!
There’s the oil owning foreigners whose skin is rather brown.
I push a button then a drone will blow up half their town.
All victims who are blown up too – ‘accomplices’ we’ll call.
No innocents – just terrorists – we’ll classify them all.
But wait – the army’s offensives to congress I must tell…
but not the CIA’s – the drones will fit there swell!

If the Army flies the drones, then congress he must sway
so he’ll hide the program deep – deep inside the CIA

There’s the radical inciter, and the others of great faith,
and the Pro-Life activist – I’ve got him on the list!
The whistleblower Wikileaking into cyberspace.
He can’t escape my fist – I’ve got him on the list.
The idiot who raises some objection to my plan
“The constitution guarantees due process” he’ll demand
“without a trial or a judge to keep the rule of law
you cannot act as jury judge and executioner!”
I’m sad to say but, little man, your theory isn’t true
due process is just this – a process that I do!

And now you’re on the list! And now you’re on the list!
‘Cause the process that he does – that is what due process is!

And that noncompliant nuisance who is just a waste of space
the nosey journalist! I’ve got him on the list!
And the bitter people clinging to their guns and to their faith.
They never would be missed – our drones just do not miss.
Those who approve my killing move on foreigners alone
will see the state expatriate then hit them with a drone.
And in the end it doesn’t matter what they think is true
the drones can kill you both abroad and in the homeland too.
For a nation who gives up their rights and has a monarchist
may well be on the list – you’re all there on the list!

He has put us on the list! He has put us on the list!
For the tyranny we bought, will rule with an iron fist!

[jonstreeter]

You bring up an interesting case – my take on that would be that if a criminal is caught and subject to the penalty of the law, then so far as the law is just, they are correctly subject to the punishment as the government has a just claim on them which should be proportionate to the crime. If, however, the government can see a means to bring a greater degree of justice by offering clemency to the first criminal in exchange for cooperation in capturing other criminals who represent a greater quantitative or qualitative ‘evil’ then that is a form of exchange which is not inconsistent with the idea of rational self interest.

It does put some mixed incentives into play which murkey the water a bit – I have heard of DA’s proposing much more serious sentences as a threat to the criminal in an effort to coerce them into cooperation. To the extent that there is an element of coercion involved, it cannot be considered a voluntary action. As the criminal is already subject to justice based on their prior actions, any negotiation that they engage in is not your standard voluntary fare.

[jonstreeter]

Taking the 20 bucks without receiving an agreed upon good at an agreed price would be considered theft or at least expropriation and as such would not be consistent with the morality of rational self interest.

The fact of the matter is that the 20 bucks are the property of the customer and represents the portion of labor or investment that the customer engaged in in order to produce it. Keeping it without the knowledge or consent of the customer is the very definition of looting – just done so without the helpful force of government.

Honesty is actually a key and important part of rational self interest. Do not fall into the trap that many people do of assuming that rational self interest means that you do anything that favors yourself – even at the expense of others. That is NOT rational self interest or objectivism. Selfishness as Rand defined it is different from the conventional definition of the term – there are specific limits summed up in the non-agression principle.

There are no instances that I can think of where you could describe a deceitful or treacherous or villainous act as being consistent with Objectivism. There will always be a root of force or aggression which renders the act inconsistent with rational self interest.

[jonstreeter]

The premise that you start with here that:

“it is in one’s best interest to do what best benefits oneself.”

is false, or at least incomplete.

One can act according to one’s best interest only so long as you do not effect violence or threat of violence upon another in doing so. This qualification is an essential part of rational self interest.

If you think about it, a society in which everyone is free to commit acts of aggression against each other in pursuit of self interest makes life safe for no-one in the community. Therefore a complete ability to act in self-interest without the boundary of the non-aggression principle is, in fact, not in one’s self interest.

[jonstreeter]

My experience with this term boils down to a simple observation. Any time you hear a politician invoke ‘American Exceptionalism’ check the context carefully. It invariably is used to justify some foreign policy that we would find threatening or reprehensible if done by another country to us.

The term has at it’s heart the idea that America’s morals are superior and it’s motives are pure – therefore it’s actions are beyond reproach. It is how we solve the dilemma of our national conscience. If we would be inclined to feel guilt for effecting the overthrow of a sovereign foreign nations government – American Exceptionalism tells us that we are justified because in our piety – we have no designs on claiming the territory for our own. If we sense the tinge of self doubt as to our status as the only nation that has employed a nuclear weapon of mass destruction, American Exceptionalism comforts us with the reassurance that our impeccable character and humane values justified our use of force then and reinforce our natural moral superiority as a nuclear superpower today.

The list could go on. Any aspect of American history which would be monstrous if done by another country to us will be whitewashed in our minds behind this concept that America is an exception among the world’s self interested and immoral nations.

While she is unique in her founding and nature, I am not certaIn that this gives her this form of license.

[Author]

Posts