NIJamesHughes

What specifically is flawed in the US Constitution? Please include Article Section and Clause, if applicable. What would a completely rational and capitalistic Constitution look like? Has anyone ever written one up?

I understand. What I was refering to is that I can not condone the statement as an expression of those particular metaphysics, and can not morally justify distributing anything with the phrase on it. I think that not doing anything about it is the same as promoting it.

I understand the legal situation. What I was refering to is the metaphysical situation, dealing with the rights of children. What besides law puts a child into a situation where they can not act on thier rights?

I agree, but i think that it would be immoral for me to pass out a moral statement that i do not agree with. If i did such a thing, it would be as if i was silently sanctioning the statement by not contesting it existentially.

As an Objectivist, I can not tolorate passing out slips of paper with this slogan on them. However, in the US every piece of currency states as much. An easy way to solve the problem is to simply take a permenant black marker and mark out the words "In God We Trust." If you can't reconcile yout morality with this phrase, join the effort to mark it out and wait for the first time you get one back . Over all, I don't see how this can go wrong, there can be no retaliation for it. They can print more money, but we can keep marking it out. Think about how much money you handle each day.. and where it all goes.

"Who is Ayn Rand?"

What is the situation?

Why? Also, Why seven people? Why not eight? Or six? So only if you have seven friends can you vote? I currently do not have seven friends that would endorse me. Why would your life be put in others hands?

"the virtue of selfishness," page 29, talks about moral perfection.

The term moderate implies that you are still playing by their rules. Moderate is the middle of the left (communists) and the right (fascists). I am not an advocate of either of those views so could not be discribed as moderately communist or moderately fascist

Actually, Socialism is realizable. It was realized by the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, Vietnan, Cuba, England, Italy, Germany, etc, all with the same results, depending on their consistency. The realization of socialism is, starvation, misery and death.

In that case, the ARI should still have a position; that government should have nothing to do with marriage certainly includes not having the right to ban any kind of marriage. that would be the position right? that the ban on gay marriage is unconsitutional and morally wrong, because the government shouldn't deal in marriage at all.

Here is another email response ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: RE: Response Medialink Feedback Date: 7/23/2004 4:48:17 PM Central Daylight Time From: [email protected] Reply To: Re: Response Medialink Feedback To: [email protected] I am not aware of the particular reason for ARI not taking a stand on this issue. Sorry. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:35 PM To: David Holcberg Subject: Re: Response Medialink Feedback Is there any reason why the ARI doesn't have a position on this issue? Thank you James Hughes

Why does the gov. involve itself in marriage?

This is an email that i received, when I asked why the ARI hasn't said anything about the amendment, in op-eds, or editorials, or press releases. It actually bothers me a lot. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARI has no position on this isuue. -----Original Message----- From: The Ayn Rand Institute [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:54 PM To: David Holcberg Subject: Response Medialink Feedback Medialink Feedback Date: 7/22/04 6:54 PM James Hughes 1.) Personal Information Name: Mr. James Hughes E-mail: [email protected] E-mail Opt-In: Yes E-mail Format: 2.) Comments: Why isn't the ARI saying anything about the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How can the the ARI have no position on this issue?? How can an objectivist not be against a constitutional amendment that violates individual rights?

notice the ads at the top of the page as you view this topic

A few nights ago on MSNBC there was a program that was celebrationing Sesame Streets 35th anniversery. The show was credited with teaching millions of children how to read, count, and "social skills." The makers of the show explained how individuals would approch them and tell of how their child watched as much as 5 hours a day. The news reporter was especially thrilled by the was the show handled the topic of death, in fact she said it was brilliant. They played the scene. One of the long time actors had dieded and Big Bird whined: "Why does it have to be this way? Just give me one good reason!" The adult on the show replied "Its just the way it is, it just happens." then big bird said "ahhhh" like that made it all clear.

Its a government owned library. That should be the end of the story. Also there is this: From piekoff.com "Some time in the 1960s, I believe, the Library of Congress invited Ayn Rand to will the manuscripts of her novels to them. She replied that she was happy to do so. Subsequently, they sent her a form to fill out, in order to make her intention legally binding upon her death. She refused to fill it out, then or later, expressing various doubts about the Library which she had since come to entertain."

"A contradiction is when at least one of the premises does not correspond to anything in reality." Or in the case of some "concepts" they refer to referents incorrectly: would that be an antu-concept or a stole concept?

What I want to know is why he was donating the manuscripts to the government and not to a private institute: i think Miss Rand would have much prefered that, rather than having her works in the hands of the Moochers and Looters. Does anyone know what the deal is? Once i read that i lost a lot of respect for him. I mean he was gripping about the government totalitarianism with one hand and feeding them with the other. It doesn't make sense to me. That he is old and thought he was dying isn't a valid excuse to me either. Its like saying "I was drunk."

I would also like to hear what Miss Rand has to say about roads and speed limits; if you don't mind sharing.

I give Iraq 5 years before recollapsing into despotism This time instead of one Dictator, there is a whole council of them.

The point i was trying to make is that the question is irrelevent because there is no rational, selfish Reason that a company would produce nuclear weapons. The market wouldn't allow the existence of such a company. Mainly because they would have no market. But for the sake of arguement suppose that there was a compnay that produced nukes for sale. Suppose that you are the CEO. When Syria comes to purchuse one of your weapons, will you sell one to them? Not if self-interest is one of your motivations. Free to do business also means Free not to do business.

The Gulch was for strikers: of what consequence would it have been for eddie to go on strike after Dagny had?

Everyone should make nations and move them Here: to the United Capitalist States. (the game isn't time consuming) http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index....n=utopiaofgreed you can get there from here. Its a region where only free nations are allowed unlike the other "capitalist" regions.