9 captures
01 May 2013 - 05 Sep 2021
About this capture

Listen Live
4/26/13 Ron Paul
Retired Congressman Ron Paul discusses his new Institute for Peace and Prosperity; making it acceptable for conservative Christians to be antiwar; keeping the US out of Syria; fighting terrorism in exactly the wrong way; and the new “Ron Paul’s America” daily radio commentaries with Charles Goyette.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 18:57 — 4.3MB)
John Ellis
April 28, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Perfect solution — An attitude adjustment
Virtually everyone is born with this illusion that man is something more then an animal, a “being” with an organic and unalienable right to life. Which gives their conscience the fiction illusion that they must also have the right to the food, shelter and wealth needed to have life. From which springs the attitude that we all deserve to “Be All You Can Be,” to earn all you can earn, take all you can take, own all you can own and to be a dictator over all who are on land that you own. In short, most guilty do they feel is ever they fail to take all they can take.
Truth is, be we humans evolved or created, we are not beings better then the animals, just one species among many animals. So, life is a free gift from nature that no man deserve, which means that we own nothing, that everything we have belongs to those who have not our intelligence to earn what we have and most guilty should we feel if ever we fail to give all we can give.
The Hakem
April 29, 2013 at 8:35 am
Hamad’s OPEX briberies for all or DEATH: Qardhawi minority-rich dustOor
John Uebersax
April 29, 2013 at 8:58 am
You state several propositions:
A. People believe they are immortal beings (i.e., more than animals).
B. People believe they have an inalienable right to life.
C. They believe they have a right to food, shelter, wealth.
D. They feel guilty if they do not take all they can, etc.
E. We are just animals (i.e., ‘naturalism’).
You then say that A implies B, B implies C, C implies D, and that A, B, and C imply D.
Except for A, neither your propositions nor inferences are certain or obvious. Some people who believe A also believe that they should do God’s will, which means to be humble and unselfish, protect the environment, live sustainably, practice charity, etc. So apparently A does not always lead to B, C, and D. Is it religion, or faulty religion causes the problems?
You also suggest that if people accept life as a “free gift from nature,” they will feel grateful; but that, apparently, if they accept life as a free gift from God, they do not feel grateful.
You also assume that ‘naturalism’ would make for a better society. Yet animals routinely kill, eat and prey on each other. The strong chick in a nest kills its weaker sibling; the black widow spider eats her mate; chimpanzees, our nearest genetic relatives, practice cannibalism. Animals are governed by no moral law but survival of the fittest. Genghis Khan and Hitler are examples of a purely animal morality.
John Ellis
April 30, 2013 at 8:11 am
Mental darkness — All is relative
Because “Some people,” which is actually most people, engage in mutual gratification with equals giving gifts to equals in their class and expecting equal in return, because of this all of my axioms on basic human nature are false?
All of the supernatural gifts that we receive from nature, gifts most essential as only by them are we able to live, move and have our being, ypu believe that they do not establish the existence of a supernatural all loving God? But where is your proof?
You claim that because nature practices cannibalism, nature cannot be used to establish the existence of anything good. But if the purpose of this world is to reach the ultimate conclusion of greed, if Satan rules and perverts nature so that he may be given enough rope to hang himself, then why be so locked in mental darkness by all your relative conclusions?
“Naturalism,” surely this is a fiction religion that springs from a blind faith conviction that there is no God and that nature is a spiritual thing, a god most high above all other gods. Surely a fake morality akin to your humanism morality, as you worship the human brain thinking that it is the creator of all morality.
Soloman Nivasa
April 29, 2013 at 11:24 am
Our Constitution is a social agreement that our Forefathers instituted for the posterity of Humanity. Unfortunately, because of the false beliefs and prejudices we are indoctrinated into as children, this truly revolutionary social agreement has been turned into social disagreements perpetuated by the self-interests of individuals, groups, and organizations.
Sociopolitical issues, because of our opposing beliefs, are turned into arenas of social disagreements, and like the old Roman style arenas, the People have become like gladiators, fighting for one side or the other. Who is it that benefits from our divisions and disagreements?
Who is it that really benefits from our wars? Is it we the People, or those who profit from the sale of destructive weapons and technologies, to the global military industrial complex?
What did Dwight Eisenhower have to say about this complex in his Farewell Address?
Our divisions are diversions that keep us focused on the symptoms of our dysfuntions so that we won’t examine our beliefs, which are the cause of all dysfunction.
We, the People of one species, with the sweat of our brows, pay for the research and development of these weapons and technologies, which will ultimately be used to destroy our sons and daughters.
John Ellis
April 30, 2013 at 8:28 am
Empire USA — Every man an ingrate
It’s not our Constitution, only a High Society Constitution and a property owner’s Constitution, as only those with the most property derive any benefit from it.
And the “false beliefs and prejudices we are indoctrinated into,” are they not built into the Constitution? For the illusion that we deserve life, that an “unalienable right” from “our Creator” is life, this is the root cause of why we are an Empire with every man an ingrate using all the force he can muster to take all he can take from life.
Lorin Partain
May 1, 2013 at 4:14 am
“…we are not beings better then the animals, just one species among many animals.” I beg to differ. Mises himself wrote in Human Action that man is distinct in his capacity to act willfully. Humans act with purpose, animals do not. They are driven by instinct, we have the power to over rule our instincts and act with our will. This makes us not only better, but unique from any other thing in all of the known universe. The largest most magnificent objects in the heavens do not act or move by their will, we do.
Leave a Comment
Name (required) Mail (required) Website Your Comment
© 2013. The Scott Horton Show. | All Rights Reserved.
WordPress Theme by SN Design and Frontend development.
Bad Behavior has blocked 2534 access attempts in the last 7 days.
AboutAll InterviewsDonateStress BlogShow ArchiveListen Live