Speak for Yourself: Letters to the Editor
No Excuses
In reading Robert Bidinotto’s article about the “excuse-making industry” (November 2007), I had to stop because of the assumption about crime being reduced due to harsher punishment. While there is indeed some correlation, correlation is not proof of causation. Such correlation may merely be the result or reflection of private citizens being more willing to take action against crime.
What if we only had three types of punishment, which were jail sentences of one year, ten years, and twenty-five years, with no fines, no rehabilitation, no sex-offender lists, and no death penalty? How would society react? What laws would be enacted or repealed? What measures would people take to protect their lives, properties and other interests? To assume more government control over criminals will make society better is not a valid assumption.
Here in
Defending against rape, robbery, murder, and fraud is not just a matter of government responsibility but of every citizen’s own interest. The “excuse-making industry” is nothing more than an extension of a society which does not want to hold people accountable for their actions or take responsibility for their own welfare. It fails to defend our own interests against those who would do harm and implies the average citizen has no responsibility to defend his own life and property.
Andrew L. Sullivan
Traditional Wisdom?
Roger Donway’s article on Shelley (December) used the word “Romantic” at least eight times, but I was most struck by his use of the word “Enlightenment,” which occurred just once: “In 1813, Shelley brought out his first important poem, Queen Mab, which assembled many of the ideas of the French Enlightenment, from philosophical materialism to free love.” So we see where he got the idea of free love, the source of so much suffering in his circle.
We usually hear that the Romantics were rebelling against the Enlightenment. But often they were just trying to take seriously the Enlightenment’s own ideals. This could be catastrophic—particularly when the Enlightenment in question was that of the French.
Donway says that a philosophy is like a vehicle: It needs brakes to keep from crashing. He proposes a braking mechanism: respect for “a wisdom manifest in tradition and custom.” I am reminded here of Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France.
But tradition and custom are sometimes manifestly wrong. A vehicle does need brakes, but safety does not consist in slow going. Wise is the individual who can separate the wheat from the chaff in the accumulated ways of the world.
John Enright
Animals Vick-timized
Regarding Ray Newman’s December 2007 article on the Michael Vick case, I certainly will not contend dogs are entitled to the same rights as people. Yet long ago Objectivism pointed out that there is a difference in nature between animals that possess consciousness versus plants, amoeba, etc. Given such differences, I contend animals with consciousness are “deserving” of rights higher than those of non-conscious entities.
I think there is a fundamental, reality-based difference between killing a dog and cutting the grass. Would it not make sense to somehow protect those animals that have a consciousness? There also is a fundamental difference between domesticated animals versus wild ones, so any law protecting dogs and cats does not have to extend to wild boars.
Mother Nature did not produce dogs: Man very carefully developed the animal to help with hunting, safety, etc., as well as provide companionship. Dogs were bred, essentially, to love their owner (or at least the person who feeds it) regardless of the cruelty inflicted by the owner. In developing dogs, we have carefully stripped away any self-defense mechanism. Does not “justice” at least suggest we place an objective, legal value on dogs higher than that of inanimate objects? Does not justice at least suggest that there is a responsibility on the part of humans, since they created dogs?
Finally, I assume the purpose of TNI is now sensationalism. Why else would you be backing dog fighting? Have you run out of positive philosophical issues to cover? And why would you include those full-page color photos in Bidinotto’s article on justice? At the same time you ask readers to send money for “Taking It to the Next Level,” why go out of your way to make the magazine so unattractive?
Michael Berger
Abominable!
“The Abominable Dr. Paul” (January-February) makes me wonder if TNI is going for the sensationalism of Michael Moore. If so, someone needs to take lessons.
I will not debate the points. It is like debating a Michael Moore film. It reeks of innuendos and exaggerated “what ifs.” The final statement is, “In fact, I’m thinking that perhaps it’s high time for
I am not a Ron Paul fanatic. But I do try to look at things logically. Can the president just up and eliminate the IRS? (I wish!) The Federal Reserve? Close all our bases throughout the world? Bring all our troops home? Does anyone think the president has this power without backing? Does anyone think Ron Paul will have the backing of either the Republicans or the Democrats?
Realistically, the best Ron Paul has a chance at doing is heading toward these goals with vetoes and votes. Even with full backing, most presidents cannot even get one of their campaign goals accomplished. In fact, they fall so short that most cannot even remember where their campaign was heading, which becomes more obvious the longer they are in office. This is reality.
Ron Paul is heading in a direction—one that, if he can stick to it, will bring us closer to the ideals we cherish. If he can just vote with the Constitution as a guideline, it will be more than most politicians I have seen in the last fifty years. Is there any other viable candidate?
At least when Michael Moore stages a smear, he has an agenda, an alternative. I am open to suggestions.
Karen
Sulphur
When I got home from work this evening and sorted through my mail, I was wondering what a horror magazine was doing among my Christmas cards and bills. I was very disturbed when I saw that it was The New Individualist. Whatever flaws Ron Paul may have, depicting him on the cover as a horrific half man/half monster was “abominable” on your part. He certainly does not deserve that treatment.
Has winning the “Eddie” award made you giddy and daring? Don’t ruin a good thing, Robert. Choose your writers and photos carefully.
Hope you have a lot of time during the upcoming holidays, because I’m sure you will be reading a ton of emails.
P.S. I ripped the cover off the magazine and threw it in the trash.
Patricia Santos
Valley Cottage,
Karen, Patricia: My editorial “Soliloquy” this month explains my reasons for publishing the Ron Paul piece—reasons important enough to risk the displeasure of some subscribers. I appreciate your candor, and I hope you’ll appreciate mine. —RJB