one problem i have with rand's "emergencies" is that she only agrees it's a duty to save some person from the "immediate" perilous situations, such as a fire or flood; but certainly there are perilous situations, such as a man who is hit with a disease & has a month or so to live & absolutely has no money to pay for an operation that would save his life. isn't the unforeseen disease that suddenly manifests itself an emergency situation that's still urgent, even though the time line is longer?
ever had the thought in the back of your mind that some oncoming cars might be noticing a lone guy in his car talking to himself? ha ha, but like your videos all the same!
I'm sorry, but your reasoning is based on no better than the same "mysticism" that you criticize, because it is frequently contradictory and based on a myriad of tenuous assumptions that are easily falsified. Don't criticize people as irrational when you are in the course of thoroughly pointing yourself out as one of the same.
It's very arguable that enlisting in the military is the equivalent to suspending one's ability to live as a human being. He gives up the right to decide, and furthermore, he's at the forefront of making OTHERS live as farm-animals, which is what US foreign policy is truly about. Propping up dictators and maintaining an empire under the threat of force.
Please don't do a film while driving! People get distracted and other people die. I'm not saying you'll have a wreck, but you are setting a very bad example for foolish people.
Mr. McKeever: Do you consider the police and the military a "Service," as they are often referred to? Do you think that individuals within these organization are serving themselves and, consequently, others? If so, then is it still a service if they are funded by forcibly taking money from others? If I play the guitar on a street corner as you walk by, do I have the right to track you down and force you to pay for the song you heard?
Soldiers, ultimately, are ensuring that they can continue to live as a free human being by defeating those who would take that away from them. The rest of the country simply benefits from this. They are not signing up to die. They want to live as free citizens of the United States of America and the trade they willingly make is that of mutual benefit to themselves and the rest of the country. Which is consistent with Rand's philosophy.
The wealth of the North American nations derives a great deal from the theft of land form the original inhabitants and the theft of labor from slaves.
Naturally, soldiers of the time were willing to kill to obtain those goods for their masters.
I must disagree; your argument presumes that if one does not put one's life on the line, we would somehow lose the freedom and standard of living which one in North America comes to expect.
All due respect, the last time the US was attacked on its own soil by a military was 1941, and only because the socialist Roosevelt stirred trouble with the Japanese.
Defence is one thing, but interventions abroad is quite another matter, thus I invite you to re-examine your logic and premises.
If they don't have to why would they? It's not complicated and it's not morally "wrong". NOW, if this was done by force it would be wrong. This is WHY FREEDOM is important to the balance and the mix of society and humans interacting and living as humans. It is critical that we govern our own destiny. Only those that fail blame others for their circumstances. Those who succeed may be grateful for others who helped them succeed, but they certainly don't blame them for their success.
jnycnuk "the wealthy do not go to war and neither do their children." The wealthy are pursuing their human interests by not going to war. They have riches because they provide others with service that is worth riches. They have a skill that the poor don't have. The poor go to war because they choose to. They choose to because they are compensated for their service by those with money. Those with money will fight if they have to.
brain; you have got to be kidding. so, if your parents are rich and are able to send you to the best schools while other childen have to fight and claw their way though just to complete high school -- that is suppose to be somehow OK with you. screw that. thats whats wrong with america and what is going to ruin america. that is the most rediculous statement ever.
cont;one member of all 535 members of both the House and the Senate is the parent of a child in the enlisted ranks of the military. Only two others are parents of military officers.
"It is apparent however, that service in the armed forces is not a common experience and that disproportionate numbers of the poor and members of
cont;minority groups compose the enlisted ranks of the military," Rep. Rangel said.
"I believe this legislation is necessary to achieve full sharing of the sacrifice which will be required of the American people if the President chooses to invade Iraq and pursues military options elsewhere in furtherance of the war against terrorism," he continued.
Why isn't it okay for someone to send their child to a better school if they can afford it? We should all be subjected to miserable schooling because you don't like the fact that some people are wealthier than others?
you have got to be kidding. the wealthy do not go to war and neither do their children. it is the working class and the poor that do the fighting. the rest sit back and continue to get richer from their investments because war creates more wealth for those in and near the boardrooms.
actually war is bad for business. It may create short term wealth, but wealth is a long term value. War is all about destruction, which is detrimental to wealth, which thrives on production. War destroys markets, destroys resources, kills workers, and kills consumers.
'the wealthy do not go to war and neither do their children'
erm, how about the British royal family? two princes currently serving in the army, one of whom has combat experience as an infantry officer in Afghanistan. Also, Prince Andrew (I think) flew combat sorties in the Falklands campaign. When I was at Sandhurst there were plenty of wealthy people training with me to go to war. Your statement is entirely false.
dan; the british royal family get involved with the military because of tradition. where is the rich of america when it comes to volunteering for the military? watch the documentary by michel moore and learn something.
The only thing a person might learn from watching a micheal moore 'documentary' is how fat and stupid a human being can become if he really goes for it. It's inspiring in a way: the thought that if a man chooses to completely destroy any self worth he might have had then he has the supreme example of mr moore to drive him on through those long nights of the soul when he might be tempted to read a book or eat something other than deep fried smugness.
dan; i take it then that you did not see the documentary where he asked many politicians to encourage their children to sign up for the military. it was hilarious to see them squirm. after so openly supporting the war in iraq, they were stunned when asked to have their own children join the fight.
cont;truly a bunch of hippocrates. the same goes for the wealthy, war creates wealth for those that invest in the machinery to kill. this wealth insures that nobody in their family will have to be killed by war.
You started off saying that the rich don't go to war, now you are saying that the families of politicians don't go to war. I doubt you'd find many libertarians or Objectivists who will defend politicians from the charge of HYPOCRISY. You are still presenting no evidence about 'the rich' never fighting in contrast to the facts I pointed out that a lot of my colleagues in at Sandhurst were wealthy.
dan; i did say the rich don't fight wars and politicians families as well. quote--"If our great nation becomes involved in an all-out war, the sacrifice must be equally shared," Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) told reporters Jan. 7. Mr. Rangel is concerned that the burden of military service is now being borne disproportionately by members of disadvantaged groups. He noted that only
This fits certain wars, like WW2 (which one could argue was for others, but take for example a Jewish soldier who fought for the allies) or the American War of Independence. But what about other wars, like the war in Iraq? Not all wars are about bestowing freedom on the individual who is fighting.
Ayn Rand's "philosophies" should be given as much credence as David Duke's ideas. Bluntly---no one of any intellectual consequence takes her infantile crud seriously.
Alan Greenspan. He's a "real-life" example of the abject failure of applied randroid policies. He actually knew Rand and was part of her little clique. And what about Iceland? Heh, heh. If these aren't big red flashing warning signs, you're nothing more than a religious fundamentalists.
Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies,
(cont.) international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!
I don't know much about Iceland, but I think it's not going so well right now.
Let's see, I can either believe Greenspan---an original randroid super-capitalist that was actually in control of real-life economies---or some guy that cuts and pastes stuff ad nauseam on YouTube. Not a hard decision in my book.
Well, I think a reasonable person would say you can judge for yourself. Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal reserve and the mortgage encouraging laws that got us in such a mess features of capitalism or things that capitalism had to work around? What do you think?
Ayn Rand exalts the human EGO and dismisses the human soul. Unbelievable that such a backwards, self-serving philosophy could get so much attention, praise, and credit.
Listen, Ayn Rand says that you have no responsibility at all to your fellow man. But That's insane and I'll show you how!! Watch -> Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day - and you're making him a beggar too! I AM WITH HER! But Teach him how to fish and he will take care of himself. The only way to stop the peasants from storming the castle is to TEACH THEM to be more than peasants! But you HAVE TO WANT it for them in the first place!
First Mr. McKeever, thank you for your videos. Please don't take this criticism as any kind of affront, but only as a joint journey towards the truth. "Only human beings can choose suicide." I think this statement, made at roughly 3 minutes, is false. There have been many reports of animals such as dogs, horses, cats, dolphins, monkeys, even parrots seemingly deliberately committing suicide.
I respect the philosophy and agree that it may contribute to wellbeing in the USA.
But it's naive to think that USA is successful because of this philosophy and that Europe would be less successful because of mysticism while USA clearly suffers more Mysticism then Europe.
Have you even been to Europe to be able to compare it to America?
I've lived on both sides, and I would never claim that Americans are better off, or that they adhere more to Philosophy like that of Ayn Rand.
We all know how the story goes by now, Radroids will support anyone on the right, regardless of how far from Rands original utopia he is, watch his society crumble to dust as all right wing politics inevitably does and the they will call him a communist and claim that they never had anything to do with him.
That is completely untrue. They do not support the right because it is the right because they believe it is morally right. The ARI actually supports democratic candidates because they believe the Republicans are morally wrong in their beliefs.
I'm an objectivist, but my own philosophy is that it is as it does. As an airmen, i've made the choice to put my life on the line, not only for my country, but for my own self interest. if I had chosen to instead smoke crack and become homeless, i'd still be human... so my own way of life and philosophy would still be human. just because a dog chooses a certain type of food over the other doesn't mean that it has free will, or is any more human.
Am I the only person who thinks youtube mixes up the posting order? I'm getting emails saying I have a reply but the messages are clearly a reply to somebody else.
Thank you Mr. Mckeever for the time and effort you have put into these videos, I enjoy them immensely. Something that has amazed me since I began reading message boards on the internet is the name calling and hatefulness of many of the posters. Their psychology reminds of the kind of person who would scratch the paint on your car with a key instead of comfronting you directly, a coward would be a good description because they know they can write whatever they want with no repercussions.
"...is the name calling and hatefulness of many of the posters."
check out the phil donahue ayn rand interview part 3, to see rand's "hatefulness" on full display. (along with her homophobia, elitism, racism) "cowardly" would describe just about every randian that I have come across. their unwillingness to engage in debate and shut out opposing views is legendary. rand herself said that she need not listen to the views of others. the brave do not fear debate, but randians do.
If you ever come to Melbourne, I'll buy you a drink and tell you what I think of anything you care to discuss. The only Objectivists I've ever met face to face, will debate anything.
You are talking non-sense.
Send me a youtube message with a phone number if you are ever in Melbourne.
While at the same time you are doing that same thing, except that in your case (calling name callers cowards), it is done even more passively. Because you can write whatever you want with no repercussions. I think that passive-aggressive people are below cowards.
Am I wrong? Are we not erring in this way? Only more passively here?
In response to the video, I joined the Navy for the purpose of getting an education, not because I wanted to serve my country or sacrifice my life for others. I left the Navy with a honorable discharge, an AS degree in electronics, $22,000 in the bank, (with a $12,000 debt paid off too), and okay medical benefits. The first job I accepted when I got out paid %45,000/ year, and had great benefits. I now run my own business.
BTW- I am not or never have been a Navy recruiter.
Yes, defending against those who enslave, murder and thieve is indeed a positive choice; but great care must be taken to see who's doing what, e.g. Africa, Hiroshima-Nagasaki, Iraq.
loordboogar is exactly the kind of person that is attracted to the ideas of rand for the wrong reasons. like her, he can't see the hypocrisy of his position. they are all for "rights" and "property"... for themselves,
Well it basically boils down to a might makes right; or in this particular case- technological sophistication.
Whether it is ethical or not, it is much like the US annexing native american land, expanding to its current size. The inability to enforce sovereignty forfeits rights to resources.
It was our technology that discovered it. At the least we should take back our technology. The Iraq war is not a wholly justified war. Iran should've been the original target.
I've been trying to figure out how an objectivist such as yourself can justify the Iraq (disaster) war.
so, I decided to rewatch the rand /donahue interview, as I remembered that she had some views about the situation in the middle east. here are a few quotes that struck me: Iran- "a dinky miserable little savage country that exists only on the proceeds of the oil that they stole from us" ...this is astounding on a number of levels.(more)
(cont) iran, even at that time, was no "miserable little savage country" rand exposes her ignorance of history, and her outright racist bias. the iranians made the "rational" decision to nationalize THIER oil fields when it became obvious that the west was cheating on the already unfair 85% British-15% Iran profit sharing agreement. she goes on to say- "no it isn't (their oil) it was there for centuries and they didn't know what to do with it." really? by what right does it "belong" to the west?
By the right that the west had the means and motivation to extract and exploit the resource. Just like when you buy a property you don't automatically own the mineral rights too it... big suprise for some people when natural gas is extracted right out from under their feet legally and without profit for them.
the iranians did not "buy" their country from the west. by your logic, cyber thieves, having the "means and motivation" would be justified in stealing money from the accounts of billionaires.
LOL- are you REALLY attempting to argue that the THEFT of iranian oil was OK because it is a "natural resource"?!
Iran does not "claim" ownership, they have a little thing called NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, which is internationally recognized with CONTRACTS and TREATIES.
by your logic it would not be theft if china started drilling for oil in alaska.
according to rand, and apparently senselessbattery, property rights, contracts, treaties, etc. only seem to apply to white westerners- not brown "savages".
RAND: "Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."
"I oppose applying contract law to American Indians." (or Iranians, it seems)
and her interview with phil donahue (part 3) that can be seen here on youtube
and yes I know that rand CLAIMS to not be a racist. (she would not be the only racist who claims that they are not) she also CLAIMS that her philosophy is non-violent. yet in the same interview she calls for violent action against Iran
despite her non racist claims, it is difficult to see her comments as anything but racist
"There are property rights issues, I'm trying to argue one thing at a time. Your comparison was bad."
I will concede that my comparison was not great, however you should concede that the iranians, should by right have control over their internationally recognized land- thus they should control access to the oil.
again- would it be OK for china to drill for oil in alaska?
Oism is not non-violent, it's non-aggressive. I'm sure that's what you meant. If she calls for violent action it's in retaliation to what she considers an initiation of force (nationalisation perhaps)? Even if you disagree with whether there's been an initiation of force in the first place, you must run with her idea that there IS an inititiation.
My point there is ONLY that she's consistent, I won't comment here whether she's right or wrong because I openly admit ignorance to these matters.
When I said "you must run with her idea that there IS an inititiation," I mean to assess her consistency in the non-aggression principle, you must apply it to HER view of the oil situation.
You're probably the first person on youtube to concede that something you said was "not great," so I'll try to answer your question honestly...
I don't see that "international recognition" is the source of rights. Property rights derive from right to life. In order to life, you need THE SPACE YOU LIVE ON. From this, I say if you build a house on otherwise uninhabited land, IT'S YOURS. (maybe other subtleties about the matter)
So if Americans didn't infringe on any establishments or infrustructure to get to the oil, it's theirs to pump.
I DON'T believe you own your land to the Earth's center. (...)
I don't concede anybody owns his land JUST BECAUSE it's internationally recognised. Property rights derive from nature and pertain to men; they are not invented by men.
Read Rothbard (For a New Liberty, free audio book at mises(dot)org) on the matter, he speaks of it quite a bit. Yes, yes I know he's an Anarchist.
As to the China question. *Sigh* no they shouldn't because it'd cause BIG trouble. Do I agree with the way things are run? See above. It's difficult. I don't really know.
Here here. Isn't the 'we-deserve-this-oil-because-of-our-technology' argument presented by Peikoff and other Randians (no, not "Objectivists") the same line of reasoning that Hitler used to try and invade the Caucasus? It seems like it.
"to the extent that US soldiers are killing the proponents and supporters of Islamic terrorism, they are rightly defending their lives, liberty and property. To the extent that they are being forced to do peace-keeping, to set up electoral systems, or to hand out food etc., they are being abused and are not serving a rational purpose."
The concept of putting one's life on the line for others (if you die, those you are protecting may still benefit) is an *inherent* contradiction to Objectivism.
Plus, you need to take shorter trips. This droned on quite a bit with nothing of any actual value in the content. I understand that Objectivists disdain debate, but perhaps you should learn some of the techniques.
"putting one's life on the line for others": I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you implying erroneously that I suggested soldiers choose to sacrifice themselves? Are you suggesting that Objectivism itself has an internal contradiction?
Both. The guy who jumps on the grenade is not acting in his own self-interest; he is acting in the interest of the tribe. Or, if he chooses not to act, for purposes of self-interest (enlightened or not) when he was the only one to do so, then he would be adjudged badly by all, most likely by himself as well. Objectivism's primary contradiction is that its premise denies that man is a pack (tribal, if you prefer) animal.
Ah: you misunderstand Rand's concept of selfishness. In her philosophy, there would be situations in which the soldier could rightly kill himself. 500 word limits don't allow me to do the explanation justice. As for "pack animal": that's just a bald assertion on your part.
Okay, while I'm interested in Rand's theories to a point, I am also interested in what you have to say without resorting to dogma from the canon. I don't, incidentally, misunderstand Rand's concept in this particular; I just believe in order for her to work it into a flawed philosophy, she had to twist it more than Mr. Fantastic. So leaving *her* aside now, what do *you* think?
The video was a response to a question about Objectivism, Rand's philosophy. Paul is staying on the topic. Is this a problem for you?
You do misunderstand Rand's theory in regards to the supposed contradictions you just mentioned. Go read it yourself. The first chapter of "Virtue of Selfishness."
what would rands philosophy say about the morality of putting ones self in the position where one could easily KILL innocents by fighting a war of choice for the profit of oil companies?
If an innocent is being used by an Islamic terrorist as a human shield and if, as a result, the innocent human shield is killed by an American bullet or bomb, the murderer is the Islamic terrorist, who bears 100% of the moral guilt.
"Bill Gates III went to Lakeside, Seattle's most exclusive prep school where tuition in 1967 was $5,000. Harvard tuition that year was $1760. his parents were among Seattle's social and financial elite, his mother was a board member of First Interstate Bank and Pacific Northwest Bell. She was also on the board of United Way, along with John Opel, the chief executive officer of IBM who approved the inclusion of MS/DOS with the original IBM PC."
at first you made some points but then you started to go into "the reason people in north america.." BS. ...most of the wealth of the west has been made at the point of a gun. are you saying the US soldiers in iraq are fighting a "rational" war? so they can keep their property and not be enslaved?!?
"free" market types like to cite gates as an example of the "self made" man. he is not. he comes from a wealthy family and he had the advantage of good early education. (yes I know he dropped out of college) also he DID steal the concept of windows from steve jobs. gates now lobbies for cheap foreign labor because he knows he can make even more by paying them less.
the "free" market is an illusion. it is controlled by a certain segment of the population. the heirs of the the people that control the market have a distinct advantage over those who do not. there are only (very) rare exceptions.
Of course the free market is an illusion: because socialists have imposed prohibitions on ownership, taxed profits, controlled wages and prices with threat of fine or imprisonment, etc.. What more would you have them do?
I'm saying that, to the extent that US soldiers are killing the proponents and supporters of Islamic terrorism, they are rightly defending their lives, liberty and property. To the extent that they are being forced to do peace-keeping, to set up electoral systems, or to hand out food etc., they are being abused and are not serving a rational purpose.
"I'm saying that, to the extent that US soldiers are killing the proponents and supporters of Islamic terrorism, they are rightly defending their lives, liberty and property."
I am not aware of an islamic state or group that has taken the property of, or enslaved US citizens.
there are homegrown terrorists in the US, are you
suggesting that the military should go after them as well? or just the muslims?
See below. Add to that only sociopaths think as you describe. I understand that objectivism celebrates a different form of sociopathy, but gimmeabreak.
the concept of a free market is based on the idea that through work and innovation anyone with ability and brains can make it. Inheritance takes that concept away, when someone can be wealthy though no merit of their own.
Thank you so much for answering this for me. You hit the nail on the head: my question presumed a faulty understanding of the relationship of a soldier to life and death. Excellent as always.
one problem i have with rand's "emergencies" is that she only agrees it's a duty to save some person from the "immediate" perilous situations, such as a fire or flood; but certainly there are perilous situations, such as a man who is hit with a disease & has a month or so to live & absolutely has no money to pay for an operation that would save his life. isn't the unforeseen disease that suddenly manifests itself an emergency situation that's still urgent, even though the time line is longer?
vinnynumbnuts 6 months ago
ever had the thought in the back of your mind that some oncoming cars might be noticing a lone guy in his car talking to himself? ha ha, but like your videos all the same!
vinnynumbnuts 6 months ago
I'm sorry, but your reasoning is based on no better than the same "mysticism" that you criticize, because it is frequently contradictory and based on a myriad of tenuous assumptions that are easily falsified. Don't criticize people as irrational when you are in the course of thoroughly pointing yourself out as one of the same.
marsig11 7 months ago
It's very arguable that enlisting in the military is the equivalent to suspending one's ability to live as a human being. He gives up the right to decide, and furthermore, he's at the forefront of making OTHERS live as farm-animals, which is what US foreign policy is truly about. Propping up dictators and maintaining an empire under the threat of force.
"To protect us." Bull-shit. Read more history.
OUexclusive 11 months ago
Please don't do a film while driving! People get distracted and other people die. I'm not saying you'll have a wreck, but you are setting a very bad example for foolish people.
maiasaura08 1 year ago
@maiasaura08 He has to do them in his car. His mother wont let him do them in the house.
panterguy 1 year ago
So, you do support military altruism. So much for your consistency.
ImYourDrillerMan 2 years ago
Mr. McKeever: Do you consider the police and the military a "Service," as they are often referred to? Do you think that individuals within these organization are serving themselves and, consequently, others? If so, then is it still a service if they are funded by forcibly taking money from others? If I play the guitar on a street corner as you walk by, do I have the right to track you down and force you to pay for the song you heard?
TokDiYel 2 years ago
I love how you're casually driving while talking about philosophy.
Ricardo72 2 years ago
Yeah, I would crash into something, if I gave a speech while driving. It looks insane, but he pulls it off.
ftsmallwood 2 years ago
Soldiers, ultimately, are ensuring that they can continue to live as a free human being by defeating those who would take that away from them. The rest of the country simply benefits from this. They are not signing up to die. They want to live as free citizens of the United States of America and the trade they willingly make is that of mutual benefit to themselves and the rest of the country. Which is consistent with Rand's philosophy.
Anakha13 2 years ago
The wealth of the North American nations derives a great deal from the theft of land form the original inhabitants and the theft of labor from slaves.
Naturally, soldiers of the time were willing to kill to obtain those goods for their masters.
proudfootz 2 years ago
How can a group of people who don't recognize the concept of property claim that anything was stolen from them?
obmax1212 2 years ago
@obmax1212
The people who were robbed of their property certainly did resist the murderers and theives who came to these shores.
So it seems they did recognize 'the concept of property' even if the Europeans didn't...
proudfootz 2 years ago
I must disagree; your argument presumes that if one does not put one's life on the line, we would somehow lose the freedom and standard of living which one in North America comes to expect.
All due respect, the last time the US was attacked on its own soil by a military was 1941, and only because the socialist Roosevelt stirred trouble with the Japanese.
Defence is one thing, but interventions abroad is quite another matter, thus I invite you to re-examine your logic and premises.
DemonSkirnir 2 years ago
nope dont do it for you do it for my buddies you can die all you want i dont care
mumpies1000 2 years ago
My, what an articulate response! Trained monkeys such as yourself belong in zoos, not before keyboards.
Ad-hominem aside, the ethics of objectivism discourage sacrificing one's self unto others, so your 'buddies' can take a hike.
DemonSkirnir 2 years ago
If they don't have to why would they? It's not complicated and it's not morally "wrong". NOW, if this was done by force it would be wrong. This is WHY FREEDOM is important to the balance and the mix of society and humans interacting and living as humans. It is critical that we govern our own destiny. Only those that fail blame others for their circumstances. Those who succeed may be grateful for others who helped them succeed, but they certainly don't blame them for their success.
briansmobile1 3 years ago
jnycnuk "the wealthy do not go to war and neither do their children." The wealthy are pursuing their human interests by not going to war. They have riches because they provide others with service that is worth riches. They have a skill that the poor don't have. The poor go to war because they choose to. They choose to because they are compensated for their service by those with money. Those with money will fight if they have to.
briansmobile1 3 years ago
brain; you have got to be kidding. so, if your parents are rich and are able to send you to the best schools while other childen have to fight and claw their way though just to complete high school -- that is suppose to be somehow OK with you. screw that. thats whats wrong with america and what is going to ruin america. that is the most rediculous statement ever.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
cont;one member of all 535 members of both the House and the Senate is the parent of a child in the enlisted ranks of the military. Only two others are parents of military officers.
"It is apparent however, that service in the armed forces is not a common experience and that disproportionate numbers of the poor and members of
jnycnuk 3 years ago
cont;minority groups compose the enlisted ranks of the military," Rep. Rangel said.
"I believe this legislation is necessary to achieve full sharing of the sacrifice which will be required of the American people if the President chooses to invade Iraq and pursues military options elsewhere in furtherance of the war against terrorism," he continued.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
cont; how many of your friends have been killed or wounded in front line action?
jnycnuk 3 years ago
What difference does it make?
obmax1212 2 years ago
Why isn't it okay for someone to send their child to a better school if they can afford it? We should all be subjected to miserable schooling because you don't like the fact that some people are wealthier than others?
obmax1212 2 years ago
Live free or die! says it all. If your choice is to live as a slave or die, any moral, rational man would choose to die.
Mrmikeshelton 3 years ago
Live free or die! says it all.
Are any further words actually needed.
Pity yes this often this concept must be explained.
Then you are asked if there will be free cheese for the slaves.
AbitaVets 3 years ago
As Patton said, "Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country, he did it by making the other sorry bastard die for his."
Mrmikeshelton 3 years ago
Great video!
87176246 3 years ago
you have got to be kidding. the wealthy do not go to war and neither do their children. it is the working class and the poor that do the fighting. the rest sit back and continue to get richer from their investments because war creates more wealth for those in and near the boardrooms.
jnycnuk 3 years ago 3
actually war is bad for business. It may create short term wealth, but wealth is a long term value. War is all about destruction, which is detrimental to wealth, which thrives on production. War destroys markets, destroys resources, kills workers, and kills consumers.
Mrmikeshelton 3 years ago
mrm: war is primarily destructive to the people and the nations that it is exported to. where the military devices are manufactured, there is wealth.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
'the wealthy do not go to war and neither do their children'
erm, how about the British royal family? two princes currently serving in the army, one of whom has combat experience as an infantry officer in Afghanistan. Also, Prince Andrew (I think) flew combat sorties in the Falklands campaign. When I was at Sandhurst there were plenty of wealthy people training with me to go to war. Your statement is entirely false.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago
dan; the british royal family get involved with the military because of tradition. where is the rich of america when it comes to volunteering for the military? watch the documentary by michel moore and learn something.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
The only thing a person might learn from watching a micheal moore 'documentary' is how fat and stupid a human being can become if he really goes for it. It's inspiring in a way: the thought that if a man chooses to completely destroy any self worth he might have had then he has the supreme example of mr moore to drive him on through those long nights of the soul when he might be tempted to read a book or eat something other than deep fried smugness.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago 2
dan; i take it then that you did not see the documentary where he asked many politicians to encourage their children to sign up for the military. it was hilarious to see them squirm. after so openly supporting the war in iraq, they were stunned when asked to have their own children join the fight.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
cont;truly a bunch of hippocrates. the same goes for the wealthy, war creates wealth for those that invest in the machinery to kill. this wealth insures that nobody in their family will have to be killed by war.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
You started off saying that the rich don't go to war, now you are saying that the families of politicians don't go to war. I doubt you'd find many libertarians or Objectivists who will defend politicians from the charge of HYPOCRISY. You are still presenting no evidence about 'the rich' never fighting in contrast to the facts I pointed out that a lot of my colleagues in at Sandhurst were wealthy.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago
dan; i did say the rich don't fight wars and politicians families as well. quote--"If our great nation becomes involved in an all-out war, the sacrifice must be equally shared," Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) told reporters Jan. 7. Mr. Rangel is concerned that the burden of military service is now being borne disproportionately by members of disadvantaged groups. He noted that only
jnycnuk 3 years ago
I am a Vet, I believe that the point you are making is that we fight due to enlightened self interest?
eventide925 3 years ago
Moral soldiers do, yes.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago 2
what a dumbass.
thomasschenkel82 3 years ago
Stop putting your own life on the line for our sake, Paul! Tisk tisk!
philosophyarchitect 3 years ago
This fits certain wars, like WW2 (which one could argue was for others, but take for example a Jewish soldier who fought for the allies) or the American War of Independence. But what about other wars, like the war in Iraq? Not all wars are about bestowing freedom on the individual who is fighting.
filmzo 3 years ago
A "North American soldier" dies for Israel.
xxmonickkkkaxx 3 years ago
The war mechine can be used against you as well!
deepblueandfree 3 years ago
Ayn Rand's "philosophies" should be given as much credence as David Duke's ideas. Bluntly---no one of any intellectual consequence takes her infantile crud seriously.
kurd711 3 years ago
Elaborate...explain some of Rands philosophy and give examples of why it is infantile and impractical.
I'm guessing if you hate Rand you're a Marx fan. If I'm right what makes Marx philosophy more legitimate than Rands. Give real life examples.
kpj24078 3 years ago
Alan Greenspan. He's a "real-life" example of the abject failure of applied randroid policies. He actually knew Rand and was part of her little clique. And what about Iceland? Heh, heh. If these aren't big red flashing warning signs, you're nothing more than a religious fundamentalists.
kurd711 3 years ago
Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies,
kpj24078 3 years ago 3
(cont.) international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!
I don't know much about Iceland, but I think it's not going so well right now.
kpj24078 3 years ago
Let's see, I can either believe Greenspan---an original randroid super-capitalist that was actually in control of real-life economies---or some guy that cuts and pastes stuff ad nauseam on YouTube. Not a hard decision in my book.
kurd55 3 years ago
Well, I think a reasonable person would say you can judge for yourself. Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal reserve and the mortgage encouraging laws that got us in such a mess features of capitalism or things that capitalism had to work around? What do you think?
EdwardWLynn 3 years ago
Rand is Satan .
Easydollars 3 years ago
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Satan can be equated to one simple concept=EGO
Ayn Rand exalts the human EGO and dismisses the human soul. Unbelievable that such a backwards, self-serving philosophy could get so much attention, praise, and credit.
Aspetta17 3 years ago
Wow, you are so wrong it's unbelievable. Please actually read and understand Ayn Rand before you seek to criticize her or her philosophy.
Manx123 3 years ago 3
Listen, Ayn Rand says that you have no responsibility at all to your fellow man. But That's insane and I'll show you how!! Watch -> Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day - and you're making him a beggar too! I AM WITH HER! But Teach him how to fish and he will take care of himself. The only way to stop the peasants from storming the castle is to TEACH THEM to be more than peasants! But you HAVE TO WANT it for them in the first place!
Aspetta17 3 years ago
Then it's not really a responsibility because its done entirely for a selfish reason.
Manx123 3 years ago 3
If Rand is Satan then Earth is hell.
Manx123 3 years ago 2
First Mr. McKeever, thank you for your videos. Please don't take this criticism as any kind of affront, but only as a joint journey towards the truth. "Only human beings can choose suicide." I think this statement, made at roughly 3 minutes, is false. There have been many reports of animals such as dogs, horses, cats, dolphins, monkeys, even parrots seemingly deliberately committing suicide.
justintrevorlewis 3 years ago 3
I respect the philosophy and agree that it may contribute to wellbeing in the USA.
But it's naive to think that USA is successful because of this philosophy and that Europe would be less successful because of mysticism while USA clearly suffers more Mysticism then Europe.
Have you even been to Europe to be able to compare it to America?
I've lived on both sides, and I would never claim that Americans are better off, or that they adhere more to Philosophy like that of Ayn Rand.
ZardexM 3 years ago 4
Militarism is an integral part of Objectivism.
We all know how the story goes by now, Radroids will support anyone on the right, regardless of how far from Rands original utopia he is, watch his society crumble to dust as all right wing politics inevitably does and the they will call him a communist and claim that they never had anything to do with him.
Khomradeigor 3 years ago
Khomradeigor
"Militarism is an integral part of Objectivism"
indeed. just take a look at this clip from ARI
maniac leonard peikoff. in it he advocates "exterminating" iran. given her statements on iran I'm sure rand would agree.
/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw
blujesus 3 years ago
That is completely untrue. They do not support the right because it is the right because they believe it is morally right. The ARI actually supports democratic candidates because they believe the Republicans are morally wrong in their beliefs.
Manx123 3 years ago
I'm an objectivist, but my own philosophy is that it is as it does. As an airmen, i've made the choice to put my life on the line, not only for my country, but for my own self interest. if I had chosen to instead smoke crack and become homeless, i'd still be human... so my own way of life and philosophy would still be human. just because a dog chooses a certain type of food over the other doesn't mean that it has free will, or is any more human.
AirForceGirl05 3 years ago
Am I the only person who thinks youtube mixes up the posting order? I'm getting emails saying I have a reply but the messages are clearly a reply to somebody else.
senselessbattery 3 years ago
Thank you Mr. Mckeever for the time and effort you have put into these videos, I enjoy them immensely. Something that has amazed me since I began reading message boards on the internet is the name calling and hatefulness of many of the posters. Their psychology reminds of the kind of person who would scratch the paint on your car with a key instead of comfronting you directly, a coward would be a good description because they know they can write whatever they want with no repercussions.
niruobas55 3 years ago
niruobas55
"...is the name calling and hatefulness of many of the posters."
check out the phil donahue ayn rand interview part 3, to see rand's "hatefulness" on full display. (along with her homophobia, elitism, racism) "cowardly" would describe just about every randian that I have come across. their unwillingness to engage in debate and shut out opposing views is legendary. rand herself said that she need not listen to the views of others. the brave do not fear debate, but randians do.
blujesus 3 years ago
If you ever come to Melbourne, I'll buy you a drink and tell you what I think of anything you care to discuss. The only Objectivists I've ever met face to face, will debate anything.
You are talking non-sense.
Send me a youtube message with a phone number if you are ever in Melbourne.
senselessbattery 3 years ago 2
While at the same time you are doing that same thing, except that in your case (calling name callers cowards), it is done even more passively. Because you can write whatever you want with no repercussions. I think that passive-aggressive people are below cowards.
Am I wrong? Are we not erring in this way? Only more passively here?
kingsleykillz 3 years ago
This video was amazing.
PeteMisener 3 years ago
In response to the video, I joined the Navy for the purpose of getting an education, not because I wanted to serve my country or sacrifice my life for others. I left the Navy with a honorable discharge, an AS degree in electronics, $22,000 in the bank, (with a $12,000 debt paid off too), and okay medical benefits. The first job I accepted when I got out paid %45,000/ year, and had great benefits. I now run my own business.
BTW- I am not or never have been a Navy recruiter.
niruobas55 3 years ago
Good point: you did it to obtain values for yourself. Presumably, there was a greater likelihood of obtaining those values than of losing your life.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
Hello Paul I heard something about Ayn Rand that disturbed me. Is is true that a woman's sole role is to have hero worship of males?
freezzertime 3 years ago
No.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
Where did you hear this?
senselessbattery 3 years ago
@freezzertime Let me answer that. No.
356pla 1 year ago
Yes, defending against those who enslave, murder and thieve is indeed a positive choice; but great care must be taken to see who's doing what, e.g. Africa, Hiroshima-Nagasaki, Iraq.
loc1k 4 years ago
PaulMcKeever
loordboogar is exactly the kind of person that is attracted to the ideas of rand for the wrong reasons. like her, he can't see the hypocrisy of his position. they are all for "rights" and "property"... for themselves,
but not for "savages"
blujesus 4 years ago
Well it basically boils down to a might makes right; or in this particular case- technological sophistication.
Whether it is ethical or not, it is much like the US annexing native american land, expanding to its current size. The inability to enforce sovereignty forfeits rights to resources.
Lordboogar 4 years ago
It was our technology that discovered it. At the least we should take back our technology. The Iraq war is not a wholly justified war. Iran should've been the original target.
RyanPig 4 years ago
RyanPig
"Iran should've been the original target."
your logic escapes me. why?
blujesus 4 years ago
I've been trying to figure out how an objectivist such as yourself can justify the Iraq (disaster) war.
so, I decided to rewatch the rand /donahue interview, as I remembered that she had some views about the situation in the middle east. here are a few quotes that struck me: Iran- "a dinky miserable little savage country that exists only on the proceeds of the oil that they stole from us" ...this is astounding on a number of levels.(more)
blujesus 4 years ago
(cont) iran, even at that time, was no "miserable little savage country" rand exposes her ignorance of history, and her outright racist bias. the iranians made the "rational" decision to nationalize THIER oil fields when it became obvious that the west was cheating on the already unfair 85% British-15% Iran profit sharing agreement. she goes on to say- "no it isn't (their oil) it was there for centuries and they didn't know what to do with it." really? by what right does it "belong" to the west?
blujesus 4 years ago
By the right that the west had the means and motivation to extract and exploit the resource. Just like when you buy a property you don't automatically own the mineral rights too it... big suprise for some people when natural gas is extracted right out from under their feet legally and without profit for them.
Lordboogar 4 years ago
Lordboogar
the iranians did not "buy" their country from the west. by your logic, cyber thieves, having the "means and motivation" would be justified in stealing money from the accounts of billionaires.
theft is theft.
blujesus 4 years ago 2
Do you actually believe what you just said? Do you not see the distinction? What is oil?What is a bank account?
It's so simple I can't bring myself to explain it.
Hint: Oil is a natural resource, it is not the property of the person claims ownership of the land it sits in.
senselessbattery 3 years ago
senseless(indeed)battery
"Do you actually believe..."
LOL- are you REALLY attempting to argue that the THEFT of iranian oil was OK because it is a "natural resource"?!
Iran does not "claim" ownership, they have a little thing called NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, which is internationally recognized with CONTRACTS and TREATIES.
by your logic it would not be theft if china started drilling for oil in alaska.
-let's see how well THAT would go over
*rolls eyes*
randbots are ethical contortionists
blujesus 3 years ago 2
according to rand, and apparently senselessbattery, property rights, contracts, treaties, etc. only seem to apply to white westerners- not brown "savages".
RAND: "Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."
"I oppose applying contract law to American Indians." (or Iranians, it seems)
blujesus 3 years ago
I am not white, if by white you mean ango-saxon.
Where did you get those quotes from? I haven't seen them before. I'd like to see their context.
What I have read of Rand (considerable amount) she most certainly is not racist.
senselessbattery 3 years ago
senselessbattery
the quotes come from a book called-
Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A
and her interview with phil donahue (part 3) that can be seen here on youtube
and yes I know that rand CLAIMS to not be a racist. (she would not be the only racist who claims that they are not) she also CLAIMS that her philosophy is non-violent. yet in the same interview she calls for violent action against Iran
despite her non racist claims, it is difficult to see her comments as anything but racist
blujesus 3 years ago
Did you read my post? Did you see what it was in response to? Do you see the difference between a bank account and a natural resource?
There are property rights issues, I'm trying to argue one thing at a time. Your comparison was bad.
senselessbattery 3 years ago
senselessbattery
"There are property rights issues, I'm trying to argue one thing at a time. Your comparison was bad."
I will concede that my comparison was not great, however you should concede that the iranians, should by right have control over their internationally recognized land- thus they should control access to the oil.
again- would it be OK for china to drill for oil in alaska?
blujesus 3 years ago
Oism is not non-violent, it's non-aggressive. I'm sure that's what you meant. If she calls for violent action it's in retaliation to what she considers an initiation of force (nationalisation perhaps)? Even if you disagree with whether there's been an initiation of force in the first place, you must run with her idea that there IS an inititiation.
My point there is ONLY that she's consistent, I won't comment here whether she's right or wrong because I openly admit ignorance to these matters.
senselessbattery 3 years ago
When I said "you must run with her idea that there IS an inititiation," I mean to assess her consistency in the non-aggression principle, you must apply it to HER view of the oil situation.
You're probably the first person on youtube to concede that something you said was "not great," so I'll try to answer your question honestly...
senselessbattery 3 years ago
Ahhh... I can't help you...
I don't see that "international recognition" is the source of rights. Property rights derive from right to life. In order to life, you need THE SPACE YOU LIVE ON. From this, I say if you build a house on otherwise uninhabited land, IT'S YOURS. (maybe other subtleties about the matter)
So if Americans didn't infringe on any establishments or infrustructure to get to the oil, it's theirs to pump.
I DON'T believe you own your land to the Earth's center. (...)
senselessbattery 3 years ago
I don't concede anybody owns his land JUST BECAUSE it's internationally recognised. Property rights derive from nature and pertain to men; they are not invented by men.
Read Rothbard (For a New Liberty, free audio book at mises(dot)org) on the matter, he speaks of it quite a bit. Yes, yes I know he's an Anarchist.
As to the China question. *Sigh* no they shouldn't because it'd cause BIG trouble. Do I agree with the way things are run? See above. It's difficult. I don't really know.
senselessbattery 3 years ago
Here here. Isn't the 'we-deserve-this-oil-because-of-our-technology' argument presented by Peikoff and other Randians (no, not "Objectivists") the same line of reasoning that Hitler used to try and invade the Caucasus? It seems like it.
Fawksian21 3 years ago 3
WHAT?
Let me repeat, WHAT? What the fuck are you saying?
Are you this stupid or are you being sarcastic?
No logical sense to your post.
MACKATTACK1970 4 years ago
"to the extent that US soldiers are killing the proponents and supporters of Islamic terrorism, they are rightly defending their lives, liberty and property. To the extent that they are being forced to do peace-keeping, to set up electoral systems, or to hand out food etc., they are being abused and are not serving a rational purpose."
YOU- killing= rational
handing out food= irrational
blujesus 4 years ago
The concept of putting one's life on the line for others (if you die, those you are protecting may still benefit) is an *inherent* contradiction to Objectivism.
Plus, you need to take shorter trips. This droned on quite a bit with nothing of any actual value in the content. I understand that Objectivists disdain debate, but perhaps you should learn some of the techniques.
abbnormalfunctions 4 years ago
"putting one's life on the line for others": I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you implying erroneously that I suggested soldiers choose to sacrifice themselves? Are you suggesting that Objectivism itself has an internal contradiction?
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Both. The guy who jumps on the grenade is not acting in his own self-interest; he is acting in the interest of the tribe. Or, if he chooses not to act, for purposes of self-interest (enlightened or not) when he was the only one to do so, then he would be adjudged badly by all, most likely by himself as well. Objectivism's primary contradiction is that its premise denies that man is a pack (tribal, if you prefer) animal.
abbnormalfunctions 4 years ago
Ah: you misunderstand Rand's concept of selfishness. In her philosophy, there would be situations in which the soldier could rightly kill himself. 500 word limits don't allow me to do the explanation justice. As for "pack animal": that's just a bald assertion on your part.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Okay, while I'm interested in Rand's theories to a point, I am also interested in what you have to say without resorting to dogma from the canon. I don't, incidentally, misunderstand Rand's concept in this particular; I just believe in order for her to work it into a flawed philosophy, she had to twist it more than Mr. Fantastic. So leaving *her* aside now, what do *you* think?
abbnormalfunctions 4 years ago
The video was a response to a question about Objectivism, Rand's philosophy. Paul is staying on the topic. Is this a problem for you?
You do misunderstand Rand's theory in regards to the supposed contradictions you just mentioned. Go read it yourself. The first chapter of "Virtue of Selfishness."
senselessbattery 3 years ago
what would rands philosophy say about the morality of putting ones self in the position where one could easily KILL innocents by fighting a war of choice for the profit of oil companies?
blujesus 4 years ago
If an innocent is being used by an Islamic terrorist as a human shield and if, as a result, the innocent human shield is killed by an American bullet or bomb, the murderer is the Islamic terrorist, who bears 100% of the moral guilt.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
not all innocent deaths in iraq are the result of those innocents being used as human shields.
besides, this ENTIRE war is immoral.
(nice attempt at shifting blame)
blujesus 4 years ago
"Bill Gates III went to Lakeside, Seattle's most exclusive prep school where tuition in 1967 was $5,000. Harvard tuition that year was $1760. his parents were among Seattle's social and financial elite, his mother was a board member of First Interstate Bank and Pacific Northwest Bell. She was also on the board of United Way, along with John Opel, the chief executive officer of IBM who approved the inclusion of MS/DOS with the original IBM PC."
blujesus 4 years ago
Good for him.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
So what?
senselessbattery 3 years ago
lucky man.
kingsleykillz 3 years ago
at first you made some points but then you started to go into "the reason people in north america.." BS. ...most of the wealth of the west has been made at the point of a gun. are you saying the US soldiers in iraq are fighting a "rational" war? so they can keep their property and not be enslaved?!?
wow- you did have a big glass of randaid.
blujesus 4 years ago
Wow how did I forget that Bill Gates made his billions by robbing banks. Silly me. Thanks for setting me straight.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
"free" market types like to cite gates as an example of the "self made" man. he is not. he comes from a wealthy family and he had the advantage of good early education. (yes I know he dropped out of college) also he DID steal the concept of windows from steve jobs. gates now lobbies for cheap foreign labor because he knows he can make even more by paying them less.
blujesus 4 years ago
the "free" market is an illusion. it is controlled by a certain segment of the population. the heirs of the the people that control the market have a distinct advantage over those who do not. there are only (very) rare exceptions.
blujesus 4 years ago
Of course the free market is an illusion: because socialists have imposed prohibitions on ownership, taxed profits, controlled wages and prices with threat of fine or imprisonment, etc.. What more would you have them do?
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
ok, show me a successful model of unregulated laissez-faire economics, that does not result in creating robber-barons.
btw- you never answered:
are you saying the US soldiers in iraq are fighting a "rational" war? so they can keep their property and not be enslaved?!?
blujesus 4 years ago
I'm saying that, to the extent that US soldiers are killing the proponents and supporters of Islamic terrorism, they are rightly defending their lives, liberty and property. To the extent that they are being forced to do peace-keeping, to set up electoral systems, or to hand out food etc., they are being abused and are not serving a rational purpose.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
"I'm saying that, to the extent that US soldiers are killing the proponents and supporters of Islamic terrorism, they are rightly defending their lives, liberty and property."
I am not aware of an islamic state or group that has taken the property of, or enslaved US citizens.
there are homegrown terrorists in the US, are you
suggesting that the military should go after them as well? or just the muslims?
blujesus 4 years ago
The free market is only viable if inheritance is completely eliminated.
abbnormalfunctions 4 years ago
I agree. Lets see if any rich kid can match my work ethic, intelligence and consistancy.
kingsleykillz 3 years ago
I agree, let's encourage the murder of rich people by setting laws that say "when a rich man dies, his stuff is distributed among the population.
Idiots.
senselessbattery 3 years ago
See below. Add to that only sociopaths think as you describe. I understand that objectivism celebrates a different form of sociopathy, but gimmeabreak.
abbnormalfunctions 3 years ago
I disagree, I earn on my own.
kingsleykillz 3 years ago
What!? How does this comment even make sense? How would inheritance have anything to do with the well being of a Free Market?
PeteMisener 3 years ago
the concept of a free market is based on the idea that through work and innovation anyone with ability and brains can make it. Inheritance takes that concept away, when someone can be wealthy though no merit of their own.
abbnormalfunctions 3 years ago
Umm...no. The concept of a free market is based on the idea that through no government regulation, anyone with the ability and brains can make it.
PeteMisener 3 years ago
Thank you so much for answering this for me. You hit the nail on the head: my question presumed a faulty understanding of the relationship of a soldier to life and death. Excellent as always.
zsOverman 4 years ago
You're quite welcome zsO. Glad you enjoyed it.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago