Francis Galton

I am an objectivist and will do as you wish. Regards, Francis Galton

The following is from http://www.amconmag.com/ March 24, 2003 issue Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. by Patrick J. Buchanan The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers ... that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?” Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so. Complete text at http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Religion HAD to have been at least reproductively useful, otherwise humans would not have evolved an instinctual behavioral inclination for religious thought. Are you familiar with the theory of natural selection?

You should read Libertarian candidate Harry Brown's latest article on the cause of Islamic attacks: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/TerrorismReason.htm Good article.

The problem is that it is Israel that is the aggressor, not the Palestinians. Israel first of all is both an expansionist state as well as an ethno-state (a land for and only for ethnic Jews). This is nothing like objectivism.

When discussing if capitalism "works" or not, we must first define what we mean by "work." What objectives are desired? Once we know this, we can see which economical and/or political system brings those objectives to fruition. Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations RICHARD LYNN University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland TATU VANHANEN University of Helsinki, Finland SUMMARY. National IQs assessed by the Progressive Matrices were calculated for 60 nations and examined in relation to per capita incomes in the late 1990s and to post World War Two rates of economic growth. It was found that national IQs are correlated at 0.757 with real GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita 1998 and 0.706 with per capita GNP (Gross National Product) 1998; and at 0.605 with the growth of per capita GDP 1950-90 and 0.643 with growth of per capita GNP 1976-98. The results are interpreted in terms of a causal model in which population IQs are the major determinant of the wealth and poverty of nations in the contemporary world. Complete text at http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/1.htm

That this is off topic. Someone responded to me that eugenics is unethical based on their objectivist morality system. So I responded that morality is subjective and that many ethical systems exist. According to some systems, eugenics would be unethical, while other systems would consider OPPOSING eugenics to be unethical.

Take the test: http://www.transtopia.org/quiz.html My score: "MEMETIC SHOCK LEVEL 03 (0-4): borderline Enlightened. Purgatory; the countercultural realm. The more interesting Atheists, Libertarians, Transhumanists, and Modern Satanists dwell here, together with other freethinking and politically incorrect types. Congratulations, you're just a couple candles short of Enlightenment! Keep honing those clearly present rational, taboo-smashing instincts, and one day you too might become an Enlightened Transtopian Master."

I disagree. But thanks for your input.

The following is from http://www.thebirdman.org/ The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments By John "Birdman" Bryant: The World's Most Controversial Libertarian Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, as we shall demonstrate below; but on the other hand, because religion in one form or another has been around as long as recorded history -- and in fact has played a central role in man's social and personal life -- it is almost certain that religion is useful in the sense that it has helped men to survive. The real dilemma of religion, however, is that it must be believed in order to be useful, yet this is impossible when people know that it is false. The obvious solution to this dilemma -- if indeed there is a solution -- is to discover what is useful about religion, and to try to make use of this knowledge. This I have attempted to do in my book The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered. But we will be stymied in our attempt to accomplish this task -- or at least to bring it to fruition in the sense of teaching others -- if we do not first and finally sweep away the foolishness of religious belief by making a plain and clear statement as to religion's literal falsity. Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false. Complete text at http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Relig/Relig-Atheist.html

I too once used to be a die-hard Libertarian and thought that Libertarian morality was absolute and that all non-Libertarians were evil who deserved to be administered the death penalty by the American Federal Government. But I then realized that morality is subjective and Libertarianism was simply one of many morality systems. I still retain many Libertarian ideals, but also many non-Libertarian ones as well.

Hi , I was wondering if anyone believes eugenics, if applied in a manner most would accept as humane and ethical, would be a good idea. A few years ago when searching the internet for why I personally was not really that bright and had to stuggle in school and in college right now, while my sibling was extremely intelligent and quickly and without difficulty earned a Bachelor's Degree in science, I came across the site of http://www.neoeugenics.com/ I read about IQ, psychometrics, personality types, eugenics/dysgenics, genetic engineering, cloning, and similar topics. I found out that IQ is mostly genetic and that this is why I personally was not as successful as many others. So, I ask myself, why not try to help future children by making sure they all get the best of genes available? I, from personal experience, knew what it felt like to have learning disorders and just an average IQ at best, and felt resentful at how smarter people took for granted their higher intellect without really appreciating it. The consensus among the smart is that it is good to have stupid people and that they deserve to be as such and that they are needed to clean the toilets and take out the garbage of the smart people, so thus it would not be in the best interest of smart people to support eugenics. The problem of course is that eugenics is often tied to stories of genocide and greatly inhumane acts. But, if we look at the history of religion, medicine, and the like, everything can be taken to extremes, but it does not have to be. Eugenics can be mild: we can encourage brighter people to have more children and the welfare class to have fewer children. Also, with the emerging genetic engineering technology and cloning, all parents can have bright children. As a non-White person, I of course don't support race-based eugenics, but rather one in which smart people, regardless of race, is valued, and less intelligent people, regardless of race, is something people would wish they could help to become more intelligent, if technology would allow. What are your thoughts? Regards, Francis Galton