RayNewman123
-
Posts
25 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RayNewman123
-
-
We know that if man acts against his nature, he has committed an immoral act. We know certain obvious aspects of his nature: capacity to contemplate, conceptualize, choose. He is physically vulnerable to certain diseases, etc. He has free will. He is a composite of mind and body. But many of us, I think, know not much more about it.
For example: Prove to me that homosexuality, or benevolence, incestuous love, is or is not in harmony with man's nature.
-
I was drafted into the US Army and sent to Korea. I asked a sergeant what I was doing there. He said "Fighting for freedom". I said "Do you see a contradiction in my being forced to fight for my freedom. He answered: "No".
The nature of man is the same in Norway, Israel, Hackensack. He must be free to live as a human.
-
Supreme Court justices appointed in the 18th century served an average of 8 years.
The Supreme Court justices appointed during the past 40 years, excluding those still serving, served an average of 25 years. If we include those still serving, including 3 appointed in the past 5 years, the average is 18 years...enlarging every day. If we exclude those 3, the average is 23 years, and growing.
Poor judges, by rational standards, remaining in key judicial position for longer periods of time, exert greater influence, impact, power, on our lives.
I didn't say ALL old people are senile...I said we COULD wind up with some senile people on the Supreme Court...and that is so.
Justice is part of philosophy, politics is part of philosophy...you can couch philosophy in any term you want, but it's all the same...we each have one philosophy...and it is either right or wrong. At root, what makes your politics wrong makes your sense of justice wrong.
We haven't seen any teenage Presidents either, but the Founders saw fit to set a minimum age...and for Senators and Representatives, too.
-
Let's stop the argument about taxes...all taxes are acts of force and ought be outlawed. The Founders were wrong in this regard when they gave Congress the power to tax.
Arguing over what would be a "fair and equitable" tax is like arguing over how long a lynch rope should be.
-
Our Constitution needs to be amended. Articles II and III dealing with the appointment of judges to the U. S. Supreme Court. Here's why:
1. The growing belief that the Constitution is a "living document", to be seen not as a statement of enduring principles but as to be interpreted by the sway of changing times, places undue and inappropriate importance on the subjective beliefs and attitudes of individual members of the Court.
2. The appointment of new judges by the President and the consent of Senate members has become a politically-based, rather than a judicially-based, matter. Particularly true when, as now, the President and majority of Senators are of the same political party.
3. The appointment of judges for life was likely meant to keep them independent of political pressures by excluding them from the need to be re-appointed after a period of years. That may have made sense in 1776 when life expectancy was 35 years, but no longer true today with life expectancy is at 75(M)-80(F) years. And the pressure can be avoided by simply setting a specific period for service on the Bench (eg, 6 years, 10 years), with no re-appointments possible.
Judges appointed today can be expected to remain on the Court for decades...too great a power to give the President and Senators in a separation-of-powers government. And because of the for-life appointments, we can anticipate having some senile, doddering, dotards sitting as judges making vital decisions. Have some now and they aren't even all that old.
4. No requirements for service on the Supreme Court is required. No minimum age requirement, no educational requirements, no prior experience as a judge required. Odd. Few of us would hire someone who has never repaired one before, to fix that clogged and leaking toilet bowl in our home. But experience as a jurist for a Supreme Court nominee? Nah!
-
Our Constitution needs to be amended. Articles II and III dealing with the appointment of judges to the U. S. Supreme Court. Here's why:
1. The growing belief that the Constitution is a "living document", to be seen not as a statement of enduring principles but as to be interpreted by the sway of changing times, places undue and inappropriate importance on the subjective beliefs and attitudes of individual members of the Court.
2. The appointment of new judges by the President and the consent of Senate members has become a politically-based, rather than a judicially-based, matter. Particularly true when, as now, the President and majority of Senators are of the same political party.
3. The appointment of judges for life was likely meant to keep them independent of political pressures by excluding them from the need to be re-appointed after a period of years. That may have made sense in 1776 when life expectancy was 35 years, but no longer true today with life expectancy is at 75(M)-80(F) years. And the pressure can be avoided by simply setting a specific period for service on the Bench (eg, 6 years, 10 years), with no re-appointments possible.
Judges appointed today can be expected to remain on the Court for decades...too great a power to give the President and Senators in a separation-of-powers government. And because of the for-life appointments, we can anticipate having some senile, doddering, dotards sitting as judges making vital decisions. Have some now and they aren't even all that old.
4. No requirements for service on the Supreme Court is required. No minimum age requirement, no educational requirements, no prior experience as a judge required. Odd. Few of us would hire someone who has never repaired one before, to fix that clogged and leaking toilet bowl in our home. But experience as a jurist for a Supreme Court nominee? Nah!
-
The comparison to a Doberman is exactly the point. A Doberman is an animal, a dog, not a rational human. Good generals ought be efficient, but not dogs enjoying the kill.
It is a spiritual thing which I do not hear in most of the comments. Human life begins as a glorious value. America uniquely recognized that value and gave it the best environment in which to thrive and attain its potential. True, killing evil may be required, but the fact that we need to kill ought never, from my vantage point, be more than brutal necessity. I may have to burn a Rembrandt painting to survive, but I would feel sad to have to do so because I value great painting, as I value life, even if it is not mine.
-
Yes there is a point to this post. We are in a serious state when killing is an enjoyable human activity...killing may be necessary at times, but never fun and a hoot. That attitude expresses a disdain for human life that denigrates humanity.
Gates says Mattis is a "deep thinker" and he is, in the toilet. To imply that America has no one more capable, more noble in spirit, to command our forces, is shameful...and if true, heralds our heading over the abyss.
-
HA HA HA
"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!" Adolf Hitler
"Why does the world shed crocodile’s tears over the richly merited fate of a small Jewish minority?" Adolf Hitler
"It's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot.... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." General Mattis, Obama's pick to head the Central Command of American Forces in Middle East
-
The defense of individual rights is not properly made by examining the consequences of having versus not having them. We have individual rights because the nature of our species requires them. There is no "better" society if we abandon our rights...because that would no longer allow us to live as humans. When we are all free, the choices we make will likely determine our lives...for better or worse. It is not in anyone's authority to control my choices, and "good" results cannot be predicated on enslaving me...or you...or all of us.
-
If her belief in God merely affects her belief about what happens after death, then you certainly could have a loving enduring relationship. If it also affects how she lives here on Earth, probably a problem, since her beliefs would undercut any serious intellectual conversations. Could you be happy with that? I couldn't.
-
Regarding Elena Kazan and Supreme Court nominations, read the need to reform the nomination process in The Unfunny Joke at stampedingherd.blogspot.com.
-
My mind
One of a kind
I cannot find
Do as we say, my parents did remind
Do as we all wish, it has been signed
Do as God commands
And divines
Our lives are intertwined, they opined
They must be wined and dined
And I resigned
Or I left behind
So I was benign
To those who would my arms bind
I surrendered what I mined
Smiling under the grind
My vision declined
My spirit confined
My being misaligned
With Hell's despair entwined
My mind
One of a kind
I cannot find
I...who?
-
Go to Stampedingherd.blogspot.com, download the Ayn Rand Interview and listen to Miss Rand herself give you the essential principles of her philosophy and then elaborate on them for an hour.
-
Whoa! What is wrong with doing things for money? We need things to survive, we have obligations we have undertaken, and they virtually cost moolah. Ideally, you would find work that satisfies other aspects of your being, but let's not put that young lady down.
And, ain't nothing wrong or degrading about stripping...society has a warped view of it and just about everythinh else sexual. The human body can be beautiful and a joy to behold...beauty reflects the ideal and is evidence that there is perfect order in the Universe, a critical pillar to our self esteem...(there is an order and we can know it).
Rather than restrict, restrain, fence in, the scope of our interests and attention, and the joys they evoke, let's set them free.
-
You should attend Harvard for what you can learn there, and not for the favors it will get you from others. That places your life in a secondary position to the values of others. What did Howard Roark do when he was told that accepting a commission from the Manhattan Bank company would make him famous, on the condition that he compromise his values? He said of course...not.
-
The amount of water and sunlight a plant needs to flourish is determined by the nature of the plant, not the florist...the way to treat an animal is determined by its nature, not its owner...the way to treat human life, including the way one treats oneself, if it is to survive and be happy, is determined by man's nature, not society nor its government. Nature, reality, is the only standard for right and wrong, good and evil, life and death.
Primal Spark.blogspot.com
-
I have been pondering over this for a few days, now. I am getting increasingly hesitant to believe that duels should be legal, especially since Peikoff talked in a podcast about a similar case and declared it should be illegal. Now, it seems that the only way to infringe on other's rights is by force or fraud (fraud is basically force, but I wanted to make sure no one brings up that case; let us assume both parties to the duel know the terms beforehand and are independent adults). If the government's only purpose is to protect individual rights, and the government is only justified in punishing those who have infringed upon the rights of others, then it seems that dueling should be legal. This is because duels are mutually voluntary contractual agreements. Many people in the chat room who have disagreed with this idea stated that it is not the proper purpose of the government to protect those people who "abandon" their rights. However, it seems that in this case, just like euthanasia, someone is not "abandoning" their rights, but in fact exercising them. The principle behind the legality of euthanasia and dueling seem to be the same: In both cases, one is giving another permission to kill them; the main difference is that death is only a 50% possibility in dueling (depending on your shooting accuracy
) and euthanasia always entails death. Now, those people that disagree with me (including Peikoff, apparently) assert that someone who has killed someone in a duel is objectively a threat to society. But this does not seem to be the case, since that person was engaged in voluntary interaction, and even if this means that they possibly might have an inclination to kill people (outside of contractual agreements), we all well know that we should never equate the potential with the actual. So, what is the answer to this problem, and why (if at all) does dueling constitute a violation of rights?To be clear, I am only referring to lethal duels (i.e. duels that end in the death of one person), but any responses can additionally discuss duels in which people are only injured, not killed. However, if anyone does so, it would be helpful if they made the distinction clear. I am also assuming that the duel takes place on private property, there is a written contract, two witnesses are present, and both pistols are cleaned and checked for any possible functional issues.
Life ends in death...living is not immoral because of that. If two people value life in general and find excitement in the challenge of facing death, fine. If a duelist engages in dueling because he hates (the other guy's) life, and wants too end it, he is immoral.
Stampedingherd.blogspot.com
-
A cursory look over the "Ethics" forum and this one yielded no similar threads, and in attempting to search for it I found that there were simply too many ways to phrase the question.
Since ethics is based on the choice to live, what if respecting rights ended my life?
Let's say, for instance, that I were to get lost in the desert and came upon a man with several water bottles. If he refused to give them to me, and my death were certain otherwise, should I respect his rights, or would that be unethical in that it would kill me?
I guess I could phrase it this way: Should I hold another man's rights superior to my life, and if so how would that be ethical?
I imagine this question's been asked before, I just can't seem to find it. Apologies if I just didn't look hard enough.
I think you may be looking at it ina limited way. My right to life is not antagonistic to your right to life. The "right" to life is predicated on the valuing of life in general...I value life the way I value a Rembrandt painting, whether I own it or you do.
If the other guy has "excess" water and you need it to live, he ought properly respect that and benevolently give you some. He cannot, if he doesn't need that water. claim the right to life and not help you save yours. That is a contradiction. And perhaps the words "help you" is misleading...it is not his responsibility to help you, that is not what he is doing...he is being consistent and helping himself by being true to his principles.
Yes, you can morally take some of his water to live, provided you do not endanger his life. If he fully comprehends the beauty of life, he should be happy to give it to you.
Stampedingherd.blogspot.com
-
Thanks, we've gotten YouTube to remove the infringing videos.
-
I am reposting this description to clarify the nature of the product:
I am offering for download a 56-minute interview with Ayn Rand recorded for my 1980's radio show, The Raymond Newman Journal. In this newly released interview, Ayn Rand talks with me about the essential principles of her philosophy, Objectivism; how the virtue of selfishness is prescribed by man’s nature; why the question “What is the purpose of life?” is an improper one; her standards for judging the morality of others, including family; and much more. Listen as Miss Rand identifies the fundamental conflict between the American and European sense of life and the missing ingredient to America’s near-perfect politics.
To download for $7.95, visit http://stampedingherd.blogspot.com.
--
Ray Newman is the author of Sovereign: The True Nature of Man. He interviewed several prominent Objectivists on his radio show, including Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger.
-
Hi, this is my first my post and I just wanted to say hello to everyone. I used to know Ayn Rand back when I lived in New York City and taped a very interesting interview with her, In this newly released interview made in 1980 at her home in New York, Ayn Rand talks with me about the essential principles of her philosophy, Objectivism; how the virtue of selfishness is prescribed by man’s nature; why the question “What is the purpose of life?” is an improper one; her standards for judging the morality of others, including family; and much more. Listen as Miss Rand identifies the fundamental conflict between the American and European sense of life and the missing ingredient to America’s near-perfect politics in her very own words. 56 mins. To purchase please visit my blog where I have over 250 short posts that I have written. http://stampedingherd.blogspot.com/
Ayn Rand's Evidence
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
All human "sciences" must begin with axioms, self-evident truths. Including, properly, philosophy. Otherwise you are caught in an endless progression backwards..."What is the proof that the proof you offered is correct? And the proof that that proof is correct?" Ayn Rand quite clearly laid out the axioms. They are ultimately the evidence for everything in Objectivism, and that is one of its beauties.