Andrew Ryan's dilemma


Recommended Posts

Currently I'm reading a novel based on the BioShock game series, which itself has a backdrop of objectivism. If you don't know about BioShock from the media or from the several threads that have been in the entertainment threads here on OL, here is the trailer

Okay so why aren't I posting this in the entertainment section or in the literature section or someplace else where people care? Because there is a interesting dilemma that occurs in the book and I wanted to know what your response would be, forget the fact that it is a video game. In fact this story takes place before the game anyway.

So Andrew Ryan goes Galt, creates an underwater city in which there would be no regulations and no rules regarding capitalism and freedoms. Well there is one rule-- you can't leave. Once you arrive you must forever say goodbye to the surface world because the underwater city is secret (same as the gulch) and is government or socialists, or anyone else found out about it, other than the vetted individuals that Ryan brings in, than they probably would be invaded.

The city is so free from regulations that one of my favorite lines from the trailer is Ryan saying that scientists there would be free of "petty morality"

The dilemma comes when one of the people he brought in, a psychiatrist named Dr. Lamb, notices a opening and begins to convince those who haven't been as successful in this lassiez-faire paradise that the true path to happiness is through collectivism. Of course, this is the polar opposite of what Ryan is trying to create so he tries to hold public debates with her to keep the city residents on his side. He is unable to keep 100% of the population so now he starts to see unions and the like begin, orphanages, etc. He feels that he has no choice but to hold Dr. Lamb as a political prisoner!

What would you do? You don't want to be a dictator, you want things to stay free but in order to maintain your vision of freedom do you begin taking away freedoms? If its as simple as, don't take away freedoms, what happens to your city which begins to collapse under the weight of the needy? Do you simple allow it? Remember you built this city with your own hard earned dollars, an underwater marvel, and now you can see it going to hell in a handbasket.

ps. moralist will say that he should have never built the city and that building the city itself was a collectivist action. Ok, I agree, now that we have that out of the way, what do you do now that you have built the place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Read John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty, chapter 2, Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek,

The premise is wrong.

If you can't leave, there is no freedom. There's only the illusion of freedom. It's like the freedom of a prison where you are free to watch TV or go outside. The scale is different, but the principle is the same.

That's what makes this dilemma no real dilemma except for Ryan wanting his cake and eating it, too.

I once heard Ayn Rand clarify in a Q&A that Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged was not a city or anything of the sort, but instead one man's private estate (Midal Mulligan's).

I don't know what the status is of the underwater city in BioShock. If it's an estate, the concept of political prisoner is not applicable. As an outlaw place, I imagine the law of the jungle works just as well as any.

But just to be more constructive, if people were required to take an oath not to preach collectivism, organize unions, etc., on pain of punishment before they were allowed entry, that would simplify the practical matter of what to do with Dr. Lamb.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK, I appreciate your answer to the specific problem I presented even though, to answer it, you went a step back, unlike JTS's answer who decided to rely on general theory. But what to do about the problem once you are already in it? that's the real issue, which I suppose Mikee answered well with simply - kill the bitch!

I suppose Ryans second dilemma would be more in-your-face, one that couldn't just be avoided by quoting theory.

He, Ryan, brought in another guy named Fontaine. Fountaine employed some scientists to create something called plasmids (if you watch the trailer you will see an example of one where the bees come out of the guy's arm) These plasmids give people the power to shoot electricity, freeze things, run faster, stick to walls, teleport, hurl balls of fire, etc but it also makes them kinda nuts. They start fighting each other since they are drunk with power and on hair triggers. The issue is whether Ryan should regulate these genetic serums before everyone kills each other, or allow the situation to play itself out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if people were required to take an oath not to preach collectivism, organize unions, etc., on pain of punishment before they were allowed entry

Not to quibble, but fundamental rights are unalienable. Can't be surrendered, delegated, or extinguished by contract.

Not to quibble, but you evidently think "unalienable rights" means you can make any kind of promise, contract, deal, whatever, with your fingers crossed behind your back "didn't mean it, doesn't count". Maybe this is true under duress but not if freely given. Have you no honor? [no insult intended, just looking for clarity]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to quibble, but fundamental rights are unalienable. Can't be surrendered, delegated, or extinguished by contract.

Wolf,

On a private estate, it is perfectly possible to demand dress codes, ban certain kinds of speech, enforce certain kinds of behavior, and so on. This has nothing to do with unalienable rights, which a person can practice anywhere except on the estate.

For example, I may have an unalienable right to free speech, but if I keep showing up at a high-class restaurant talking nonstop trash in a loud voice, the owner will throw me out and ban me from reentering. I can trash talk in a loud voice to my heart's content elsewhere.

In other words, the owner has rights, too.

That's one of the things that makes being able to leave the estate fundamental. And I cannot imagine a scenario like the BioShock one where you can't leave, but have unalienable rights. The concept of unalienable rights in such a situation is an illusion. The person is essentially a prisoner.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK, I appreciate your answer to the specific problem I presented even though, to answer it, you went a step back, unlike JTS's answer who decided to rely on general theory. But what to do about the problem once you are already in it? that's the real issue...

Derek,

The problem is I take consistency seriously.

Your dilemma is one politicians constantly pretend exist. (I know I was elected to promote small government, but I voted for that measure to increase the powers of the government because I have to play ball to get our small government agenda through.)

If I understood correctly the way you framed the dilemma, you wanted a solution based on a premise that doesn't allow for a solution. A practical solution ("kill the bitch"--like the politician voting for bigger government) is always available in any situation. But in that case, your solution has totally undermined the premise you set up.

If consistency is the standard, the real solution to both the problem and the hypocrisy is to stop pretending there is some kind of morality involved and just take care of business to make matters conform to your heart's desire. In other words, give up morality and bully people into compliance.

Done. Problem solved. No hypocrisy.

I'm not sure many people will like it if it is exposed that way to the sunlight, though. They prefer to maintain the hypocrisy, affect a moral posture and say they are looking for a solution. Then they couch immoral solutions within their moral discourse as if they are doing moral good.

I'm not saying this is what you intend or do with this hypothetical.

But it happens all the time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, I may have an unalienable right to free speech, but if I keep showing up at a high-class restaurant talking nonstop trash in a loud voice, the owner will throw me out and ban me from reentering.

Gives me indigestion all over again, remembering Quentin Tarantino at the next table in a restaurant, talking trash and slurping like a loud pig. I threw some money down without touching my food and walked out, banned myself from patronizing that private estate ever again.

Same thing happened at a party in Stone Canyon, involving Steven Spielberg and a bowl of cocaine. Put down my drink and left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolf,

I ran with celebrities in Brazil during several phases of my life there so I got pretty used to seeing close up how they were pampered. Being the producer, etc., I even got pampered. :)

But I have also seen celebrities thrown out of establishments for misbehavior and throwing shit-fits over it.

(Man, does this bring back memories. One famous singer I produced, Geraldo Vandré, once threw a glass of beer in the face of a TV executive because he would not stop talking about the show. At least that person was at our table and was asked to stop several times. On another occasion, Geraldo put a cigarette out in a stranger's cheek because the guy would not stop cussing and there were women present. He had some old-fashioned views about women. :) Try cleaning those kinds of messes up. Barrel of laughs, I tell ya'. :) )

I don't think the exception of tolerance for celebrity misbehavior makes the rule about owner's rights. An owner of an establishment has the right to set conditions of behavior on the public that patronizes his establishment and he has the right to make flexibility in his rules.

Do you see that differently?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the exception of tolerance for celebrity misbehavior makes the rule about owner's rights. An owner of an establishment has the right to set conditions of behavior on the public that patronizes his establishment and he has the right to make flexibility in his rules.

Do you see that differently?

I'm thinking of my own home. Only five people have been invited to visit in the past 7 years, and one of them was a plumber.

Must be a special kind of hell to operate a McDonalds, legally forbidden to refuse service to loud, thuggish customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the exception of tolerance for celebrity misbehavior makes the rule about owner's rights. An owner of an establishment has the right to set conditions of behavior on the public that patronizes his establishment and he has the right to make flexibility in his rules.

Do you see that differently?

I'm thinking of my own home. Only five people have been invited to visit in the past 7 years, and one of them was a plumber.

Must be a special kind of hell to operate a McDonalds, legally forbidden to refuse service to loud, thuggish customers.

Yep...that is why you create "social clubs."

K of C.

Gotti's Brooklyn Social Club.

These are "membership" in structure and that gives you a reasonable expectation of privacy and you can refuse entrance to a "non-member."

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with having orphanages and unions?

Nothing, as long as you are not forced to pay for them against your will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the exception of tolerance for celebrity misbehavior makes the rule about owner's rights. An owner of an establishment has the right to set conditions of behavior on the public that patronizes his establishment and he has the right to make flexibility in his rules.

Do you see that differently?

I'm thinking of my own home. Only five people have been invited to visit in the past 7 years, and one of them was a plumber.

Must be a special kind of hell to operate a McDonalds, legally forbidden to refuse service to loud, thuggish customers.

Yep...that is why you create "social clubs."

K of C.

Gotti's Brooklyn Social Club.

These are "membership" in structure and that gives you a reasonable expectation of privacy and you can refuse entrance to a "non-member."

A...

Yes I remember, as a kid, the Social Clubs.

Columbo's Bklyn Social Club. I couldn't enter...sign on door "Members Only"...didn't want to join...glad I didn't. My father told me to stay away.

Was a "Squire", which was the part of the K of C reserved for the teens. Nice bennies included in the basement...along with the rules... a 4 lane bowling alley, 2 tournament Brunswick pool tables & a snack bar. I got to shoot pool, bowl & make money setting up pins for the adult members (Knights). A Trifecta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to know the real quality of a pool table reach into any pocket and grab the slate and supporting structure. Tournament and professional quality is 1 1/2 inches of slate and 1 1/2 inches of support or 3 inches thick total. Most tables are half that and essentially garbage.

--Brant

I was once a friend of Toby Sweet, the greatest nine-ball road player of all time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to know the real quality of a pool table reach into any pocket and grab the slate and supporting structure. Tournament and professional quality is 1 1/2 inches of slate and 1 1/2 inches of support or 3 inches thick total. Most tables are half that and essentially garbage.

--Brant

I was once a friend of Toby Sweet, the greatest nine-ball road player of all time

Brant,

I believe the slate should be 1" thick. Size should be 4 1/2' by 9', although 5' by 10' was initially used decades ago. Most tables sold today are 4' x 8' ......manufactures sought to make the game "easier" for the average player. Bars usually have 3 1/2' x 7' tables.

I learned straight pool on the 9' Brunswick Gold Crown (used in tourneys as far back as I can remember). Once saw Willie Mosconi, the greatest of all "straight pool" players, put on an exhibition while he was promoting Brunswick. I've also played on the 10' (yrs ago) & 7' (which is the common bar type). One thing is certain, the larger the table the more difficult the shot making & positioning is...especially as your eyes get older.

Rack em up! I still play :)

-J

http://www.brunswickbilliards.com/pool-tables/gold-crown-v

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Mosconi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person is essentially a prisoner.

I thought about this for a while. Is the person a prisoner if they agree to stay forever, even if it was a bad decision? If I sign a 99 year lease (essentially more than my life span) with some building, I'm I a prisoner in a business sense? I now have no rights, as a business person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to know the real quality of a pool table reach into any pocket and grab the slate and supporting structure. Tournament and professional quality is 1 1/2 inches of slate and 1 1/2 inches of support or 3 inches thick total. Most tables are half that and essentially garbage.

--Brant

I was once a friend of Toby Sweet, the greatest nine-ball road player of all time

Brant,

I believe the slate should be 1" thick. Size should be 4 1/2' by 9', although 5' by 10' was initially used decades ago. Most tables sold today are 4' x 8' ......manufactures sought to make the game "easier" for the average player. Bars usually have 3 1/2' x 7' tables.

I learned straight pool on the 9' Brunswick Gold Crown (used in tourneys as far back as I can remember). Once saw Willie Mosconi, the greatest of all "straight pool" players, put on an exhibition while he was promoting Brunswick. I've also played on the 10' (yrs ago) & 7' (which is the common bar type). One thing is certain, the larger the table the more difficult the shot making & positioning is...especially as your eyes get older.

Rack em up! I still play :smile:

-J

http://www.brunswickbilliards.com/pool-tables/gold-crown-v

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Mosconi

Ralph Greenleaf was likely the greatest player of all time and straight pool the most difficult game. One-pocket was, if not still is, the greatest money game for hustlers for they can hide their speed. A nine-ball player can't hide how good he is for the most part. The next greatest player of the next generation was Willie Moscone followed by Steve Mizerak. I think the last straight pool national tournament was in 1983 which he won. The difference between Greenleaf's time and Mizerak's was there were so many great players back then you could only get into a major tournament by invitation. In 1983 anyone who wanted too bought their way in.

Here's a standard Mizerak bet (he does all the shooting): he starts with a rack of balls with a standard break shot (one ball out of the rack, which a good player would make as a matter of routine) and three chances to run 100 balls. Of course he won. (Mizerak died in Florida eight years ago at the age of 61, probably coming out of his chronic over-weight problem.)

Toby Sweet spent years following Mizerak around New Jersey trying to get him to play nine-ball, which he would have won and Miz only wanted to play Toby straight pool, which Miz would have won. So they didn't play, or didn't play much. Later when Toby was older and rusty 31 years ago he started playing more and better. He had a pool room in Spring Valley, NY. One day a player who wanted to play him--not really to win money, but to play him for the sake of playing him--was spotted the 7 ball and they started playing. That guy was playing his heart out and just keeping his head above water. I told the guy next to me that Toby was going to play better and better but the other guy was already maxed out. I said it would be over in two hours. It was over in one.

That year Toby played in a tournament in Elizabeth, NJ. He won it and never lost a set (of nine-ball) including beating Mizerak. He and Mizerak then repaired to another nearby pool room at midnight and Toby got Miz to give him the seven ball spot game to game--not sets--$100 a game. I was sorry that they weren't playing even but at that level of pool that was a very small spot. During the negotiation I managed to piss off Steve and he offered me the six ball ("and I don't even know you") and my face went completely red. Anyway, I took a part of that bet and they started playing. Every time Miz broke he made one or two balls. Nobody else in the whole room was making anything on the break--some humidity problem or something--including Toby. They went back and forth for hours. Finally I had to give up the bet and go home. The next day I learned they had ended up even.

When Toby was in his prime in the 1960s he went on a famous road trip and beat everybody. The set scores were like 12 to 2. He went to Lassiter's room to play but Lassiter declined because he was having heath problems. I met Lassiter in Atlantic City in 1985 at another tournament and shook his hand. Very classy and nice guy. That was also the last time I saw Mizerak in person and shook his hand too. He was very heartily generous and charismatic. He got involved with the making of the movie The Color of Money about that time and you can see him in the movie playing in the tournament that the whole story led up to.

As for playing pool I was never much good because of depth perception. I couldn't consistently make standard cut shots so wasn't a run-out player. If you're not a run-out player you simply aren't very good. Why I got involved the way I did for a while--about a decade--is another story. Today I go into a room every five or more years and play by myself for 20 minutes, get bored and leave. The game has a tremendous mental component and I'm not willing to use my brain for that insofar as I ever did. The same goes for chess. My main interest is ideas, reading and writing.

If I were standing outside a decent family billiard room today with some buddy and he asked me, "What would it take to get you to go inside and play pool for an hour?", I'd say, "$1000." "I'll pay you $900." "Nope, not enough. Let's go to McDonalds."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I enjoyed your post above. Yes, Greenleaf is considered the greatest all-around player, Mosconi the greatest 14.1 and Hoppe the 3 cushion billiards honcho. Several yrs ago I discovered Efren Reyes while on Youtube. Daam, he can play.

BTW, I tried 3 cushion a few times on a 10' table. Now that's an insanely difficult game.

I still prefer 14.1 but usually play 8 ball (sissy game, luck is a factor) at my condominium's clubhouse. No one there plays anything else. Hell, no one even heard of "straight" pool.

Cheers!

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My maternal grandfather was a straight pool champion, 9 ft table in the basement. When I was a little kid, he taught me the game. When I missed a difficult cut or combination, he'd shake his head with disdain and mutter "Pitiful, pitiful" and proceed to run two or three racks.

I must say, however, that snooker on a 12 x 6 table with smaller balls is a more difficult game.

800px-Snooker_table_selby.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Wolf.

That's some table. Played on a snooker table once. Not for amateurs. If I remember correctly aren't the pockets just a tad wider then the balls?

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My maternal grandfather was a straight pool champion, 9 ft table in the basement. When I was a little kid, he taught me the game. When I missed a difficult cut or combination, he'd shake his head with disdain and mutter "Pitiful, pitiful" and proceed to run two or three racks.

I must say, however, that snooker on a 12 x 6 table with smaller balls is a more difficult game.

800px-Snooker_table_selby.JPG

I suspect three-cushion billiards is too.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now