Ted Turner’s 11 Voluntary Initiatives

Ted Turner is a legend. He’s a media mogul and a philanthropist. He’s the founder of the Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) which launched CNN, the first 24-hour cable news channel. He pioneered the superstation concept in television.

He has given $1 billion to the UN who created the UN Foundation, of which he’s chairman of. In 2001, he co-founded the Nuclear Threat Initiative. This is a non-partisan organization dedicated to preventing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. He is co-chairman of this organization too. On top of all that, he is the second largest landowner in America owning over 2 million acres.1

Below are the ’11 voluntary initiatives” he wrote in his autobiography “Call Me Ted.” I found them wonderful. It’s the constitution of a giver.

To your success,
Nikhil Mahadea

  • Meh. Philosophically inferior to Hayek and to Harry Browne. Another example of specialized genius and generalized anti-intellectualism or self-contradiction. Giving power to the unconstitutional U.N., for example, is a terrible idea, since they have force at their disposal, and mindlessly follow(not lead) unconstitutional “law enforcement.” They are not, for example, committed to the idea of limited government, but of “sovereignty”(of whom? Nation-states! for what purpose? ..no answer!).

    • Nikhil Mahadea

      Ted Turner wasn’t a philosopher. So, it’s unfair to compare him to Hayek. He was a businessman. I don’t know what you mean by “specialized genius” or “generalized anti-intellectualism” or “self-contradiction”. And one can’t call the UN “unconstitutional”, of course they’re unconstitutional, they’re not part of the US constitution.

      The UN does have force at their disposal but it’s regulated by Security Council and especially the Veto powers. I don’t understand what you mean bu the UN “follows (not lead) unconstitutional ‘law enforcement.'” They aren’t suppose to lead, the are suppose to represent all the nations which means to follow them.

      They aren’t suppose to be committed to the idea of limited government, that’s arguments on political science. That’s not what they are designed to do. Yes they are committed to sovereignty. They were created to keep each state within it’s borders. For the purpose of no war…..they were created after WWII ended….

      • You wrote: “Ted Turner wasn’t a philosopher. So, it’s unfair to compare him to Hayek. He was a businessman.”
        I reply: When someone makes philosophical comments (high-hierarchical-level comments about the way society should be structured), they open themselves up to “philosophical” criticism, because the domain their comments were addressing were “of a philosophical nature/kind.”

        You wrote: “I don’t know what you mean by “specialized genius” or “generalized anti-intellectualism” or “self-contradiction”.”
        I reply: You should look those terms up, using Google. Websters online is a pretty good dictionary, and I’m using all those terms in their common English meanings. Ray Kurzweil’s use of those terms, and his concepts of “common universal hierarchy” are relevant here. ie: The more system-encompassing and “general” a label is, the more it describes the whole system hierarchy, not a precise part of that system. Such a general label is located at the top of the hierachy (the entire car). Specific labels get more and more specific(the car door) until they reach the very bottom of the hierarchy, where specific data points or atomic details exist(the reflectivity of the car door handle). Nested hierarchies like this are how our neocortex organizes our perception of the universe.

        You wrote: “And one can’t call the UN “unconstitutional”, of course they’re unconstitutional, they’re not part of the US constitution.” OK, they purport to be “law,” but they’re unconstitutional. Therefore, it’s important to point that out: The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to limit the power of the government. If it doesn’t serve this purpose, as you pointed out, it’s useless. So, pointing out that a lawmaking/”statute”-making/law-enforcement body is “unconstitutional” is relevant to the topics Turner’s points raised. Were that not to be the case, I wouldn’t have mentioned it, as the Constitution has generally failed to limit the power of government, except in certain “edge cases” where it has slowed down the tyranny of the courts.

        The constitution also doesn’t say I can’t personally enslave you, but if I try to do so, even if I work for the UN, the common law (that the Constitution and Bill of Rights refers to) does, in fact, have something to say about this. The common law (which is also ignored today) requires a valid corpus in order for law enforcement to act legitimately(they also ignore this, so the point is purely academic). Because the UN rarely acts under the auspices of having a corpus, it regularly acts in defiance of the U.S. Constitution.

        Acting in defiance of the U.S. Constitution and common law is what people generally mean when they say something is unconstitutional. ..The constitution doesn’t mention the specific form of ANY violations of individual rights, yet many such violations are, in fact, “unconstitutional” in the only meaningful sense of the word. The Constitution doesn’t have to mention something for it to be unconstitutional.

        You wrote: “The UN does have force at their disposal but it’s regulated by Security
        Council and especially the Veto powers. I don’t understand what you mean
        bu the UN “follows (not lead) unconstitutional ‘law enforcement.'” They
        aren’t suppose to lead, the are suppose to represent all the nations
        which means to follow them.”
        I reply: The Security Council has many anti-American goals. (Such as goals that reduce the number of defensive weapons individuals can own without being attacked by government forces. …And other cover goals dependent on the untrustworthy and unelected –by the US electorate– bureaucrats who run the UN.)

        You wrote: They aren’t suppose to be committed to the idea of limited government,
        that’s arguments on political science.
        I reply: This is a hidebound answer, as if that’s not the subject under discussion. The entire question of when force can be tolerated is “political science.” It’s also “Civics”, “Law”, “History”, “Psychology”, “Economics”, etc. If the UN isn’t committed to limited government, then its use of force is arbitrary, and it is capable of being used for tyranny. (Those who pay attention to History distrust any such “arbitrary” force.)

        You wrote: That’s not what they are designed
        to do. Yes they are committed to sovereignty. They were created to keep
        each state within it’s borders. For the purpose of no war…..they were
        created after WWII ended….
        I reply: They are committed to a poorly-defined or even improperly-defined “sovereignty.” …As if the fact that a legislature making laws makes those laws legitimate. (The common law indicates that this is not the case, and once provided a means for restoring individual rights.) I know how the UN was created, and that’s irrelevant to the discussion, which was a philosophical discussion of right and wrong: a discussion of legitimacy.

        You claimed Ted Turner’s philosophical bullet points were “not philosophical” and are legitimate. I disagree. He was a businessman speaking to a subject area on which he’s uninformed, and uncaring. His wealth insulates him from the consequences of being wrong about philosophy and law. …Unfortunately, they also allow him (and many other billionaires and millionaires) to preside over a degraded, ruined, lawless USA.

        …Much as your post on “Our Constitution” indicated.

        When the UN building in NY has a giant statue of a bent(nonfunctional) gun in front of it, that’s claiming that individuals should be defenseless serfs, incapable of resisting a lawless and tyrannical government. It’s an affront to American values and human decency. (Even worse than confederate statutues erected in defense of individual rights in the 1960s, it champions the creation of a global government that has the coercive power to forcibly tax/enslave individual all over the entire globe.)

        When businessmen speak about philosophical domains, they should not be held to a lower standard than Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, and Sam Adams, but a higher one: after all, they have the ability to implement their ideas, and philosophical ideas affect the entire society, and the respect (or disrespect) that law enforcement and the courts have for individual rights.

        In closing, here’s a quote from Kevin Warwick:

        “I feel that we are all philosophers, and that those who describe themselves as a ‘philosopher’ simply do not have a day job to go to.” -www.kevinwarwick.com

        • Nikhil Mahadea

          What “high-hierarchical-level [philosophical] comments about the way society should be structured” did Turner make? And by your definetion, then everyone is inferior to Hayek. Everyone is but then it’s a useless comment to make….

          And, I have his books as you recommended, I’ll keep an eye out for those terms.

          The U.N. doesn’t “purport” to be law. It is law. They went through all the legal organs of the constitution to be law, as in Congress, Senate, and the Executive Branch. And, I don’t know about everything else you said after the word I quoted, I’ll have to read up on that. But, the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) states, “The Constitution, federal laws…, and treaties…constitute the supreme law of the land.” And the U.N. Statute was sign so it’s law.

          I’ve haven’t heard of that U.N. goal, I also don’t read on public international law, so you’ll have to show it to me. The U.N. can’t force a country to change, that I agree with you. I also agree with you on the unelected US ambassador to the UN.

          “As if the fact that a legislature making laws makes those laws legitimate. ” Then, by that logic, Congress is also illegitmate…?

          The U.N. has nothing to do if a country wants to exercise limited goverment, communism, socialism or anarchy. It has zero power to influence which way a country is to guide itself…..Tho it does do it via sanctions and war against a country such as Syria right now. But I haven’t read in it’s statute that it’s allowed to do that.

          The U.N is commited to let any country choose however it wants to govern but if it starts war then it intervenes as per it’s Statute…

          I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

          LOL no that statue of the gun isn’t of citizens not having guns. It’s about no-war, no-fighting, peace.

          The UN isn’t trying to tax/enslave the globe.

          You’re right when anyone, even a businessman, makes a philosohpy argument, they shouldn’t be allowed to say whatever they want and not be critized. But I don’t see where he was making a philosohpy argument. He was saying he supports the U.N.

          And you said, in short, that the UN is bad. And, I’m here defending the U.N., not what it has done or willing to do, but what it was set out to do per it’s mandate/statute. I know the U.N. has done horrendous things. But I don’t see any other alternative to stopping a war if it’s not via a world organization. Maybe you’ll change my opinion 🙂