What's Happening?

[Selene]

Dick jokes!

Great junior high school never dies...

So you would have loved the slogan I used in the Nixon campaign, especially at colleges...

NOBODY CAN LICK OUR DICK

VOTE FOR NIXON END THE DRAFT

Adam

wow what a great argument limp dicks can't shoot straight

[Brant Gaede]

Brant wrote:

You seem to have jumped the rails, Peter. The only value George could have to you is as a political-philosophical historical expert or a whipping boy because he says he's an anarcho-capitalist. One is left to conclude you are only interested in the latter. In any case the Constitution cannot be fixed no matter how much you modify it.

End quote

George has GREAT value to me as a political-philosophical historical expert. I would not mind having a beer or two with George.

What I want you to consider is that the quotes and thinking he has had for a long time are to justify a preconceived notion. He is not scientific. Every quote or fact he divulges is to bolster his argument that Government is bad. Any pleasantry he has about America Government is a sop, or an aside and of no consequence.

I am sort of a Climategate guy. I don't like missing facts, slant, and a pre-conceived agenda, tied to fanaticism.

Brant, if you think the "Constitution cannot be fixed no matter how much you modify it," then you should stand by your words of hate. I see you will be a limp dick in the coming war/campaign.

"Out, damn spot!"

The Bard

Get your idealism and enthusiasm back, brother. God bless America!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I have come to the conclusion you are a profoundly ignorant man papered over by unthinking, dogmatic nonsense.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Peter, please read my profile before you lecture me about what kind of person I am.

--Brant

[DavidMcK]

http://www.blackstoneaudio.com/Search.cfm?search=George%20H.%20Smith Thanks George for telling us about these....I wasn't aware.

[George H. Smith]

http://www.blackstoneaudio.com/Search.cfm?search=George%20H.%20Smith Thanks George for telling us about these....I wasn't aware.

The tapes (now CDs) that I wrote on the Constitution are available in two sets, and they are also available from Amazon.

The first is "The Constitutional Convention":

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Convention-Library-Cronkite-Narrator/dp/0786169788/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266673480&sr=1-3

The second is "The Text of the United States Constitution":

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Constitution-Audio-Classics/dp/0786169761/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266673096&sr=8-11

A more extensive treatment of the ideas of the Founding Fathers can be found in the four CDs that I wrote on the American Revolution (narrated by George C. Scott). The first CD in particular, which runs nearly 90 minutes, is devoted entirely to the ideological background of the Revolution, and this discussion is continued in the next two CDs, as I discuss the events that led up to the Revolution. Only the last CD is devoted to the battles per se.

I consider these to be among the best things I ever wrote for Knowledge Products, along with the four CDs on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and the two CD set on Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France and Paine's response, Rights of Man. (So far as I know, these latter are also available from Amazon.)

Part I (two CDs) of "The American Revolution":

http://www.amazon.com/American-Revolution-Part-United-States/dp/0938935518/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266673644&sr=1-2

Part II (two CDs) of "The American Revolution" now appears to be available only as an audio download from Amazon:

http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/entry/offers/partnerPromotions.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&productID=BK_BLAK_001731

Ghs

[Peter]

Replying to what would keep the Constitution going until the year 2500, George wrote:

First, the 1936 Supreme Court decision "United States v. Butler" would need to be overturned. This is where Alexander Hamilton's broad interpretation of the "general welfare" clause was explicitly adopted, thereby gutting the enumerated powers doctrine advocated by Jefferson and other strict constructionists . . . The odds of this decision ever being overturned are virtually zilch.

end quote

And George wrote:

Second, the Supreme Court would need to wake up to the fact that we have a Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

end quote

Very interesting George. So in your opinion, it is the Supreme Court’s *altering the meaning* of the words written there, or their *adverse interpretation* of the words written there, that is the cause of our loss of liberty, and not the Constitution itself?

And it is the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear cases before it that would be based upon arguments utilizing the Ninth Amendment that have lessened our freedoms? Are you saying The Constitution itself IS NOT a futile exercise in freedom? I hope you will agree to fix it.

I will try to keep the following story short about my own brush with the Ninth amendment.

I was a founding member of the Objectivist Club at the University of Virginia in 1967. I was 19 years old, working full time and attending the School of General Studies, taking one or two courses at a time, which did not give me a student deferment. I received a letter telling me my *place* in the draft, that estimated my odds of being drafted.

Mine were quite high, and though I intended to serve if called, I was still philosophically and emotionally upset about how my life would be altered. I wanted to go to Virginia Polytechnic Institute, where I would be given a job, partial scholarship and more importantly, it was within my budget. I was accepted to start at VPI in September 1967.

Much in despair, I read my draft status letter to the UVA Objectivist Club. I agreed that the draft was not right, but I would go, if called. You know me. I railed against my fate to the Objectivist club, quoting Ayn Rand from memory, as if I were Howard Roark in front of a jury.

A few days later, a club member who was attending the law school at UVA showed up with two lawyers. They wanted to fight the draft all the way to the Supreme Court, using the ninth amendment primarily, but if I remember correctly, also the tenth amendment that reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I listened to them for about two hours and declined their invitation. I later heard they did find a potential draftee to agree to be represented by them but the Courts refused to hear their case based on the ninth or tenth amendment. They never got close to the Supreme Court.

So how do we change things? Twenty or thirty years of *good Presidents* could appoint enough judges who are receptive to a strict interpretation.

Or we could have a predominantly, future Tea Party elected Congress enact laws that require a strict interpretation.

Or get a further amendment passed. Will the people reading this on OL write a sample amendment?

.

The last amendment is the 27th, ratified May 5, 1992:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Now, if that inconsequential amendment could be passed, why not write and pass something historically important to keep us *freer* for the centuries to come?

Considering the current political climate, in spite of recent Tea Party gains, in the Welfare States like New York, New Jersey, and California, and the prevailing entitlement mentality of many Americans, I am fearful of a Constitutional Convention UNLESS it had a strictly defined *script* and our representatives at the convention were men of honor. Is that possible? Does the checkered history of the first Convention show us the way to safely proceed?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

Are you saying The Constitution itself IS NOT a futile exercise in freedom? I hope you will agree to fix it.

Jesus, even when I write a post in a friendly spirit, you manage to misunderstand it.

I said that the two changes I mentioned would help to promote freedom. I never said these changes would solve all the problems presented by the Constitution. For example, Article 1, Section 8 expressly grants to Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign nations." The mercantile interests (to use an 18th century term) loved this provision, because it gave to Congress the power to impose tariffs, thereby lessening competition and permitting the mercantile interests to raise prices. It was widely opposed by the agricultural interests, however, who would bear the brunt of higher prices.

This is why the Constitution, generally speaking, was supported by city folks and opposed by farmers. And this, in turn, is why proponents of the Constitution pushed for quick ratifying conventions by the states. Located primarily in cities, the mercantile interests could organize quickly, whereas farmers, though constituting the majority of the American population, were spread out and required much more time to mount opposition. This tactic succeeded brilliantly.

Most historians agree that the majority of U.S. citizens probably opposed ratification. In any case, only around 5 percent of the population ended up voting for delegates to state ratifying conventions.

As to what went on during those state ratifying conventions -- well, here is where the old adage about not wanting to see how sausages are made becomes relevant. For example, in New York the majority of delegates opposed ratification. But the pro-ratification crowd, led by Alexander Hamilton, threatened that New York City (where support was strong) would secede from the state if the Constitution was not approved. That threat is what brought New York into line.

There are many other examples of strong-arm political tactics as well, but since you don't read history, you needn't worry about such things. Ignorance is bliss, is it not?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

So how do we change things? Twenty or thirty years of *good Presidents* could appoint enough judges who are receptive to a strict interpretation.

Or we could have a predominantly, future Tea Party elected Congress enact laws that require a strict interpretation.

Or get a further amendment passed.

Or, alternatively, we could pray for an Angel of Death to descend from heaven and smite all statist politicians. This is probably more realistic than your proposals.

The last amendment is the 27th, ratified May 5, 1992: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Now, if that inconsequential amendment could be passed, why not write and pass something historically important to keep us *freer* for the centuries to come?"

That amendment passed precisely because it is fairly inconsequential. And it was first proposed in 1789, so it took around 200 years to be ratified.

I suggest that you abandon your harebrained political schemes and focus instead on educating people about the basic principles of a free society. Ayn Rand insisted that this is the most effective way to bring about change for the better, and she was right.

There is a catch, however: Before you can educate others, you first need to educate yourself. I recommend an intensive reading program that spans at least two years.

Ghs

[Peter]

Julius Seisure wrote:

Peter has no arguments, Michael. His abject stupidity renders him incapable of formulating any such thing, just as his hopeless ignorance renders him incapable of putting together anything that could reasonably be described as an "interpretation" of historical events.

End quote

I see the vultures and rats are arriving.

Peter

I came. I saw. I concurred . . . with the vast majority, none of whom are Objectivists. May my vast bulk be conscrued as piling on.

Julius Seisure

[Selene]

Et tu Brute!

Definitely do not want you anywhere near my foxhole.

What is wrong with you?

Why are you so obsessed that you cannot carry on an argumentation based on logic, supported by evidence, preferably, evidence of high probative value, and make a conclusion.

And, on a personal note, you owe Brant a public and personal apology.

When I see that public apology then I will know that your avatar is not reflective of your soul.

Adam

[Peter]

Brant wrote

Peter, please read my profile before you lecture me about what kind of person I am.

end quote

Thank you Brant for your service to our country.

Sorry for the limp remark.

Peter

[Selene]

Peter:

Thank you.

Adam

[Peter]

That loveable subatomic particle, or does a ray have no mass, Xray may be on to something. She noted a link between a younger Rand and Nietzsche, but then she wrongly extended that link to Nietzsche and Objectivism. But I think there is a link between Anarchism and Nietzsche!

I can’t quite figure out if this is a quote from Xray or someone else but it goes:

This is perhaps the most ambiguous passage in all of Rand's writings on political theory. Especially troubling is what she means by "must." Does she mean that rational people should delegate their right of self-defense as a matter of self-interest? Or does she mean that people can legitimately be compelled to "delegate" that right, whether they deem this to be in their self-interest or not?

End quote

Xray definitely wrote:

I think the "Pledge of Allegiance" is a pretty open way of indoctrinating children.

End quote

Nietzsche wrote (thanks Steven Boydstan. check out his profile, he has dozens of links):

Not one of these clumsy, conscience-stricken herd animals (who set out to treat egoism as a matter of general welfare) wants to know . . . that what is right for someone absolutely cannot be right for someone else; that the requirement that there be a single morality for everyone is harmful precisely to the higher men; in short, that there is an order of rank between people, and between moralities as well. (§228)

end quote

The guys who think they are “Supermen” are The Philosophical Anarchists. What they say is the law. What another PA says is the law. May the strongest amongst them triumph.

I really think this deserves some thought.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

The guys who think they are “Supermen” are The Philosophical Anarchists. What they say is the law. What another PA says is the law. May the strongest amongst them triumph.

I really think this deserves some thought.

Too late, Peter. You should have given it some thought before posting this bilge.

Ghs

[Selene]

The guys who think they are "Supermen" are The Philosophical Anarchists. What they say is the law. What another PA says is the law. May the strongest amongst them triumph.

I really think this deserves some thought.

Too late, Peter. You should have given it some thought before posting this bilge.

Ghs

George:

It is never too late.

I have seen too many people change and learn.

Trust, but verify. Let's see.

The apology is a decent sign.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

George:

It is never too late.

I have seen too many people change and learn.

Trust, but verify. Let's see.

The apology is a decent sign.

Adam

Peter apologized to Brant only because of his military service.

My days of a "Let's see" attitude with Peter are finished. I took that attitude on A2 and got burned. And not long ago on OL I offered to hit the reset button with Peter, only to have him to revert to his old ways in a day or so. Since I have again been active on OL, Peter has accused me of hating America and wishing to destroy it, of giving a lunatic fringe interpretation of the Founders, and much more. And I haven't gotten an apology for any of this.

Ignorance can be overlooked at times, but Peter is also bereft of intellectual integrity. And for that I have no sympathy or patience.

How far did you get in your effort to engage Peter in a reasonable discussion? Keep trying and see what happens.

Ghs

[Selene]

Martin:

That does not apply to "territorial waters" which run from our three (3) mile limit to other countries where ever the other shore line ends!

You do have contested areas like Kashmir, for example, but that would not, I assume fall into that category.

Adam

Good point, which I should have thought of but didn't! I guess one could say that all of the oceans outside of the territorial limits of each country exist in a state of anarchy, since no government claims or exercises ultimate authority over them. The only way to eliminate this anarchic condition would be to either extend the territorial limits of each country such that every section of the ocean was controlled by one government or another, or to institute a one world government which exercised control over the entire earth, including all of the oceans. I haven't seen any objectivists propose either of these scenarios as a solution to the problem of anarchy.

Martin

Martin:

A story is breaking that the British are exercising their rights to the territorial waters off the Falkland Islands. Argentina is furious. Seems there may be oil off shore!

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/f/Falkland_Islands.htm

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

The part of the ocean adjacent to the coast of a state that is considered to be part of the territory of that state and subject to its sovereignty.

In international law the term territorial waters refers to that part of the ocean immediately adjacent to the shores of a state and subject to its territorial jurisdiction. The state possesses both the jurisdictional right to regulate, police, and adjudicate the territorial waters and the proprietary right to control and exploit natural resources in those waters and exclude others from them. Territorial waters differ from the high seas, which are common to all nations and are governed by the principle of freedom of the seas. The high seas are not subject to appropriation by persons or states but are available to everyone for navigation, exploitation of resources, and other lawful uses. The legal status of territorial waters also extends to the seabed and subsoil under them and to the airspace above them.

From the eighteenth to the middle of the twentieth century, international law set the width of territorial waters at one league (three nautical miles), although the practice was never wholly uniform. The United States established a three-mile territorial limit in 1793. International law also established the principle that foreign ships are entitled to innocent passage through territorial waters.

By the 1970s, however, more than forty countries had asserted a twelve-mile limit for their territorial waters. In 1988 President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Proclamation 5928, which officially increased the outer limit of U.S. territorial waters from three to twelve miles (54 Fed. Reg. 777). This limit also applies to Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The Reagan administration claimed the extension of the limit was primarily motivated by national security concerns, specifically to hinder the operations of spy vessels from the Soviet Union that plied the U.S. coastline. Another reason for the extension was the recognition that most countries had moved to a twelve-mile limit. In 1982, at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 130 member countries ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which included a recognition of the twelve-mile limit as a provision of customary international law. Although the United States voted against the convention, 104 countries had officially claimed a twelve-mile territorial sea by 1988.

http://www.answers.com/topic/territorial-waters

[Brant Gaede]

George:

It is never too late.

I have seen too many people change and learn.

Trust, but verify. Let's see.

The apology is a decent sign.

Adam

Peter apologized to Brant only because of his military service.

My days of a "Let's see" attitude with Peter are finished. I took that attitude on A2 and got burned. And not long ago on OL I offered to hit the reset button with Peter, only to have him to revert to his old ways in a day or so. Since I have again been active on OL, Peter has accused me of hating America and wishing to destroy it, of giving a lunatic fringe interpretation of the Founders, and much more. And I haven't gotten an apology for any of this.

Ignorance can be overlooked at times, but Peter is also bereft of intellectual integrity. And for that I have no sympathy or patience.

How far did you get in your effort to engage Peter in a reasonable discussion? Keep trying and see what happens.

Ghs

It's understandable George feels as he does as I did albeit from a different perspective. While it's appropriate to accept Peter's apology and I do, he provides no locus for ratiocination even if he were to apologize to George, which would be incomparably harder to do.

--Brant

proud that George used my grandfather's Madison bio for his research

Edited February 22, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

proud that George used my grandfather's Madison bio for his research

For those who don't know, Brant's grandfather was the historian Irving Brant, who wrote a superb six-volume biography of James Madison. I used this biography for the KP tapes that I wrote on the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, as I recall, I quote Irving Brant by name on at least one occasion. This was a rare occurrence, since I almost always confined direct quotations to contemporaries of the person or event being discussed.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

The Madison work, which represents nearly 25 years of research and writing, was followed by my favorite: "The Bill of Rights, Its Origins and Meaning," which can be read on Questia. Irving also condensed the Madison into one volume in the 1960s. In November 1960 I visited him and my grandmother in Washington and he showed me the just completed manuscript of the last Madison. I visited a few places there including running up and down all the steps in the Washington Monument twice, the White House and the Smithsonian. I also saw the bleachers being prepared for the Kennedy inauguration. The highlight for me was when they took me to the Jefferson Memorial and Irving pointed out the famous "I have sworn upon the altar of God" quote. It was there because he suggested it to his friend Harold Ickes, Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior who asked him for recommendations. That's the only place in the world that justifies the quotation--that really makes that quote work--and is perfect for the setting, for it universalies it from Jefferson to all who read and understand and value the sentiment. It's a commonality of what it really means to be an American that unites the intellectual and the moral and a powerful lifeforce which was the life of Jefferson.

I believe there were two reasons he did the Madison work: Madison hadn't had a significant bio and Irving was criticized for quoting Madison in Congressional testimony supporting the New Deal and packing the Supreme Court. While my Father was visibly active in the America First anti-war movement his father-in-law was hobnobbing with the President and his cronies. During WWII he was almost indicted for--I think it was sedition. There was a famous trial with like 12 defendants that went on for about a year in the middle of which the judge died. I've always wondered if he escaped indictment because of who his father-in-law was. Since my parents were separated then divorced when I was very young, I never remembered the experience of them being part of the same household and saw him rarely until my last two years of high school.

Most of Irving's books were published by Bobbs Merrill. D.H. Chambers was a personal friend. He even managed to have Bobbs publish his very poorly done novel, "Friendly Cove." Considering all the trouble Chambers gave Ayn Rand's novel, it's instructive of how important who-knows-who-for-what in that business. Bobbs never directly made a penny off Irving. Bobbs did Madison for the prestige and that's fine as far as it goes.

I think George brings the same high level of scholarship to his work as Irving Brant did to his. While Irving was a New Dealer it didn't corrupt his Madison work. Rose Wilder Lane went gaga over it, pointing out that the New Deal bias was obvious and aboveboard and irrelevant. You can say the same about George's anarcho-capitalism. Everybody with a brain believes in important, debatable things. But George doesn't have a religious fixation on his philosophy the way some people do with, say, Objectivism. He has a scholarly orientation and agenda of the first order.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I think George brings the same high level of scholarship to his work as Irving Brant did to his. While Irving was a New Dealer it didn't corrupt his Madison work. Rose Wilder Lane went gaga over it, pointing out that the New Deal bias was obvious and aboveboard and irrelevant. You can say the same about George's anarcho-capitalism. Everybody with a brain believes in important, debatable things. But George doesn't have a religious fixation on his philosophy the way some people do with, say, Objectivism. He has a scholarly orientation and agenda of the first order.

--Brant

Thank you, Brant.

I was aware of Irving Brant's "liberal" political views when I read his six-volume biography of Madison, but you are absolutely right: That work is a model of objectivity.

While working for Knowledge Products, I sometimes wrote scripts for the "Great Political Thinkers" series about books with which I radically disagreed and even disliked, most notably Machiavelli's The Prince and Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.

When writing these scripts, I would initially put aside all secondary sources and read the books several times in an effort to "get inside the skin" of the philosopher in question. I would keep reading until I felt that I understood how the philosopher thought, and I would then attempt to present his views in the most empathetic manner possible.

This was an interesting and enjoyable challenge for me, and it paid off. The economist Jennifer Roback (Morse) once told me that the tapes I wrote on philosophers I radically disagreed with were among her favorites.

When Crom Carmichael (CEO of KP) and I formed Knowledge Products, I said that I didn't want the tapes to be propaganda. Nor did I want the tapes to be oversimplified audio versions of Cliff Notes. A problem along these lines arose when I attended a board meeting in Nashville for a read through of the four manuscripts I had written on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Reagan was president then, and Crom suggested that I draw some parallels between Smith's recommendations and Reagan's policies. I put my foot down and refused.

Although I had final authority in matters pertaining to the content of scripts, I wanted to convince Crom that this was a bad idea rather than pull rank. When my real objections, such as my refusal to reduce historical tapes to political propaganda, failed to persuade, I pointed out that any references to the Reagan administration would quickly date the tapes, so they would need to re-written and re-recorded later on. This was an expensive process -- the production costs of each tape ran around $10,000 -- so this argument from economic self-interest won the day.

Ghs

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

While it's appropriate to accept Peter's apology and I do . . . . ”

End quote

You may feel a bit shell shocked, as do I at times, when your good intentions are denied.

I don’t just thank you for your service and for your illustrious family. Thanks for being a good sparing partner.

To shift gears. I heard on the news about a week ago about a study to decrease PTSD or post traumatic stress disorder. Medics in the Iraqi and Afghanistan war had been giving morphine to “slightly injured” soldiers, and in some cases, mentally injured, traumatized soldiers, right on the battlefield. I want to congratulate the brass for not requiring a strict accounting of every drop.

The consequence of quickly dispensed morphine was greatly decreased PTSD. They think it may work to ward off mental problems, because the brain will not totally process the horror it went through. It is individual initiative on the part of some medics, who risked having their own honor questioned by doing the honorable thing. I thank all medics for their extraordinary service to their country and to their fellow soldiers.

Their intuitive action, backed by reasoned research, may save a generation of patriots from what would have awaited them when they slept at night.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Xray]

That loveable subatomic particle, or does a ray have no mass, Xray may be on to something. She noted a link between a younger Rand and Nietzsche, but then she wrongly extended that link to Nietzsche and Objectivism.

Would you please give a link to the post(s) of mine you are specifically referring to?

According to B. Branden (TPOAR, p. 45, p.115), Rand in part admired Nietzsche but also disagreed with his position regarding the emplyoyment of physical force as a means to an end.

But Rand's fictional heros do apply physical force, and she meant them to be understood as role models. She was quite clear about this.

Interesting link:

"Thus Spoke Howard Roark:

The Transformation of Nietzschean Ideas in The Fountainhead"

by

Lester H. Hunt http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/nietzsche&fountainhead.htm

PT: I can’t quite figure out if this is a quote from Xray or someone else but it goes:

"This is perhaps the most ambiguous passage in all of Rand's writings on political theory. Especially troubling is what she means by "must." Does she mean that rational people should delegate their right of self-defense as a matter of self-interest? Or does she mean that people can legitimately be compelled to "delegate" that right, whether they deem this to be in their self-interest or not?" End quote

The italicized quote is from George H. Smith, and clearly marked as such in my # 263 post here on this thread.

PT: Xray definitely wrote:

I think the "Pledge of Allegiance" is a pretty open way of indoctrinating children. End quote

You're correct here. I definitely wrote that. I also commented on the God passage in the Pledge on another thread.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8268&pid=91430&st=20entry91430 (post # 23)

So the indoctrination in the Pledge is both political and religious.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Brant wrote:

While it's appropriate to accept Peter's apology and I do . . . . "

End quote

You may feel a bit shell shocked, as do I at times, when your good intentions are denied.

I don't just thank you for your service and for your illustrious family. Thanks for being a good sparing partner.

To shift gears. I heard on the news about a week ago about a study to decrease PTSD or post traumatic stress disorder. Medics in the Iraqi and Afghanistan war had been giving morphine to "slightly injured" soldiers, and in some cases, mentally injured, traumatized soldiers, right on the battlefield. I want to congratulate the brass for not requiring a strict accounting of every drop.

The consequence of quickly dispensed morphine was greatly decreased PTSD. They think it may work to ward off mental problems, because the brain will not totally process the horror it went through. It is individual initiative on the part of some medics, who risked having their own honor questioned by doing the honorable thing. I thank all medics for their extraordinary service to their country and to their fellow soldiers.

Their intuitive action, backed by reasoned research, may save a generation of patriots from what would have awaited them when they slept at night.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

While I had access to uncontrolled morphine in Vietnam I didn't use it for PTSD, which was hardly understood or on our radar. On one airboat operation a fellow American got a gunshot wound in the upper thigh. The bullet brushed the head of his penis leaving a red mark from the mild abrasion. Nice to think the morphine might have helped with PTSD. Another American got a bullet between the eyes; I returned the favor in Cambodia six days later. Some people are entirely eaten up and used up by war mentally and suffer terribly psychologically the rest of their lives. I had it pretty easy that way and a bed almost every night, hot food and showers, cook and housekeeper. Jennifer Jones came by one day and we chatted with her in our small team bar the walls of which were plastered with Playboy centerfolds. Sean Flynn came by too, with a small entourage. I mistook him for a medic. He was a journalist. Three years later he disappeared a few miles away in Cambodia. He and his companion were captured by the Khmer Rouge, held for a year and executed around May 1971. It took decades to find this out.

--Brant

Edited February 22, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Aaron]

GHS-

I've not had time to be on frequently, but I remember you well from the war-thread-of-the-damned on SOLO a few years ago, and it's great to see you active here.

The anarchy vs minarchy argument I can't join with the gusto I would have at some points in the past. I've argued vehemently on both sides at one time or another, but now think it mainly an unproductive distracting argument; I am irritated both by diehard Peter Schwarz type Objectivists and Rothbardian libertarians who automatically assume the worst strawman of their opponents' views rather than arguing the actual points involved. I am an Objectivist and not an anarchist since when it comes down to the fundamental question of 'can more than one formulation of law be peaceably enforced in a single geographical area?' I absolutely consider the answer negative. However, I also agree with Spooner on the constitution, never forget than any valid minarchy would have to include not being coercively funded, and think the actual just implementation of objective law could end up being far more decentralized than party-line Objectivists would like to consider. So is there anything there worth arguing over? ;)

One point you made that surprised me was concerning 'competing governments'. You mentioned the implication that implementation of Objectivism minarchy should ideally mean one-world government but that most Objectivists won't advocate it. However, in my experience, many Objectivists may not have already thought about the OWG implications but will advocate it (even if in a simplistic form such as 'USA uber alles') when the issue is explained and pushed to its extreme.

Aaron