How would an Objectivist go about constructing a constitution?

Month: January 2011

NEIL REYNOLDS A brave new world of fossil fuels on demand

In September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for “a proprietary organism” – a genetically adapted E. coli bacterium – that feeds solely on carbon dioxide and excretes liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline. This breakthrough technology, the company says, will deliver renewable supplies of liquid fossil fuel almost anywhere on Earth, in essentially unlimited quantity and at an energy-cost equivalent of $30 (U.S.) a barrel of crude oil. It will deliver, the company says, “fossil fuels on demand.”

Imagine that, all the fuel we could possibly want. We can all start driving again. Interesting times ahead. Just trying to keep track of it.

Report This Post

Objectivist Warriors

In a recent article in Forbes. YARON BROOK AND DON WATKINS co-wrote.
They referred to “class warriors”. It reminded me of a post I wrote some years ago where I posed the phrase “Objectivist Warrior” I debated whether “Objectivist Knight” or “Objectivist Warrior” would be a better banner for us. The consensus was for “Objectivist Warrior”.
I didn’t know how Homeland Security would react to the use of the word warrior. But since YARON BROOK AND DON WATKINS have used it and it is well known that Objectivism is a philosophy engaged in an Intellectual battle. I think it is time to start using it.
I am an Objectivist Warrior.

Report This Post

How to be a Modern Philosopher?

When I start a big one like this I usually say something like: “If I’m an expert on this we are all in a lot of trouble”, but here goes:
We, as philosophers, have to familiarize ourselves with the bulk of the old guard philosophers, of course. That’s grammar school level. Early High School level we start to notice the connections between all of them and the contradictions. I have noticed very few people making historical timeline connections between them all. I think it is important that we familiarize ourselves with where these Individuals were in there philosophical development. For example: It is reasonable to assume that most of them had, at least, access to to writings of philosophers that came before. It’s perfectly logical to read to the leading edge of a science and proceed from there. It is usually easy to see the philosophers they favor and that’s OK. I believe we must keep in mind the history of the times for context. Without it, we will be making value judgments on ancient times with modern standards and that would be backwards. It is possible that some of the old guard philosophized in intellectual vacuum. As such, their insights might be very insightful. However we should keep this in mind when we read their stuff. These should be considered the exception.
In late High School of our development. I believe we should start to realize that the answers we are looking for are not written in ancient Greek or Hebrew. Probably not in ancient Chinese either. We are going to have to break some new ground. That’s the scary part. The blank page of raw creativity. It’s easy to bath in current events. However, I believe we must be careful not to waste too much time at it as none of us has it to waste.
In the early years of the University of our development. I believe we should be trying to figure out what we should actually do. It is not self-evident.
The professorship of our development is self-explanatory, but should only be done if everything else is done first. Missing steps will flaw our work in the field. Miss Rand gave us a wonderful Philosophy, it is complete. However, She did not tell us what to do with it.
That is our job to create.

Report This Post

Is there value in having Objectivist churches?

This is another podcast of Dr. Peikoff’s. His answer is no. I will concede this one. I did have the idea. I thought we believe nature. We presume to to give people advise on how to live. We have good reason to get together regularly and learn more about our philosophy. It’s a way of mainstreaming our message. Dr. Peikoff brings up the point that the word “church” has a specific meaning as a place for worship of the super-natural. That would make something like: The Axiomatic Church of Reason” a contradiction.

Is there value in having Objectivist churches?.

Regular meetings would be fine but we couldn’t call it a Church.

Fair enough.

Report This Post

If you were to write up a constitution, knowing all you know of the vulnerabilities of our current one, what would you change?’”

This is a podcast from Dr Peikoff. I am sorry to say we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I don’t think there is any other way to fix what is wrong. The “how” is a huge question that I am sure will take a long time and a lot of dialog. That does not mean it is too much work and should not be bothered with. I believe it is the first thing to do and will still be the first thing in two hundred years if we don’t start.

If you were to write up a constitution, knowing all you know of the vulnerabilities of our current one, what would you change?’”.

In Lithuania, They have a Constitutional Court that is always in session. It constantly reviews the Constitution and makes changes to improve it. I don’t agree with everything in Lithuania’s Constitution. There are a number of apparent contradictions in it. However, the idea of a Constitutional Court that really tries to perfect the legal Rights of the individual citizens is very provocative to me.

Report This Post

© 2020 The Venture Party

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog