Going Galt

[Derek McGowan]

I finished the book but I need to be at my pc to put forth my best response. For now, waiting curb-side to pick up my wife, I'll just post the typos that I found

Pg 51- third paragraph up from bottom, there appears to be a missing quotation mark at the end the paragraph.

Pg 63- misspelled Englischer. You left out the c.

Pg 39- you wrote "focused her yes" instead of focused her eyes

Pg 43- "trained at hour heads" instead of our heads

[syrakusos]

Yes, I am so important that if I quit working society will collapse. (Premise: I have to go on Strike because the Looters are oppressing me.) Megalomania and delusions of persecution being the benchmarks of insanity, you have to wonder about the objective nature of Objectvism as practiced by Objectivists.

To me, it is personal. I understand completely that you do not work for your destroyers. There's lot of gas stations that I use once and never again.

[jtucek]

Thanks for the typo check, but do not waste your time on that. I will hire a proofreader if this ever heads for publication (will probably need two more stories to accompany it first though).

The missing quotation mark note is curious though. There seems to be a rule in English (sorry, not a native speaker), that multi-paragraph quotations open each paragraph with a quote, but only the last one has a closing one. Is that not your understanding?

[jtucek]

Yes, I am so important that if I quit working society will collapse. (Premise: I have to go on Strike because the Looters are oppressing me.)

You're not that important, and the protagonist does not make any claims about wanting the society to collapse, although he admits that it is a pleasant fantasy for him, if a large enough fraction of the productive similarly revolted.

You do not have to go on strike because you are being oppressed, but if you happily live on, then in effect you are condoning of the oppression. If you can bear an ugly simile, it is as if a 1930s German quietly, obediently worked on, because, hey, it's only the Jews, I don't have it that bad after all.

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the typo check, but do not waste your time on that. I will hire a proofreader if this ever heads for publication (will probably need two more stories to accompany it first though).

The missing quotation mark note is curious though. There seems to be a rule in English (sorry, not a native speaker), that multi-paragraph quotations open each paragraph with a quote, but only the last one has a closing one. Is that not your understanding?

That is correct. Or, indent the quoted material and dispense with the marks. Don't combine the two. Indentation is overall the better way to go for long or multi-paragragh quotations. Never use it for a short quote. Use the marks.

--Brant

generally you don't indent in fiction

[Francisco Ferrer]

Thanks for the typo check, but do not waste your time on that. I will hire a proofreader if this ever heads for publication (will probably need two more stories to accompany it first though).

The missing quotation mark note is curious though. There seems to be a rule in English (sorry, not a native speaker), that multi-paragraph quotations open each paragraph with a quote, but only the last one has a closing one. Is that not your understanding?

You are correct.

[Derek McGowan]

Interesting about the quotation rules, I didnt know that.

As far as the book goes, this review will be highly influenced by the implication of your opening post. In it I understood you to say that many of the scenarios/characters in Atlas Shrugged were unrealistic and your story would be placed in a more realistic setting. Atlas Shrugged gets something of a pass because Rand specifically said that she was working in a idealized fashion. She described men, not as they are but how they should be, therefore when I read it I can focus more on the base lessons and not so much on the surface details of this or that character reaction. With that being said...

I did enjoy the pacing of the story and the plot itself. I liked the chapters named after specific photography projects and each project leading to more change in the female protagonist.

But... because you said that you weren't going idealistic, I do have some issues (up for discussion) with some elements of the story. For example on pg 28 you have your first major discussion about taxes. Why do people use the analogy with the sheep and wolves voting on whats for dinner? This is not how most of the tax vote works. Mostly its not one group voting to eat another group but it is the majority deciding to eat of themselves. The wolves would be voting to take a bite of the sheep and also of themselves. Also why would Elke say that she is a strong elephant able to carry 100 leeches and not even notice? First, it would appear to me that if she could perform such a feat than the argument is non-practical. Philosophical rhetorical burdens have no effect on real life. When you discovered that the human body is a carrier of millions of bacteria, some harmful some good but almost none which effect your daily life in any way, do you still feel the need to wipe them out? But again, she shouldn't have said that because from the stories description of her understanding, she doesn't (didn't at that point) think that she was supporting other anyway but was contributing as a group to a pool of resources. This was a prime time for you to give a much more realistic lesson about the involuntary nature of taxes and how that robs you of freedom and choice, forget the whole leeches and parasites rhetoric.

Also I have a physical reaction whenever I hear someone say that taxes are at the"point of a gun" like somehow that force is only used by the government in immoral acts. No, all human interactions, at base, devolve into carrot or stick threats and promises. I wrote a bit more extensively here.

The sex scene also was a bit of a let down in that it was very Randian. I keep reading each line expecting some twist but instead it kinda appeared to be a script out of one of her books, so much so that I could almost guess what would be said next and by the end our female protagonist change her speaking patterns and personality to Dagny's. Luca feel bad at the end of sex scene (that was refreshing) because he felt that he didn't earn her, he merely took what he wanted, but then she says he did earn it "all those years before by becoming the man that..." and "I don't want anything from you that you would not give freely..."

On page 36, you have a discussion about a governmental inspection. I have to disagree with your conclusions on the grounds that your story places the inspection in a chemical facility that causes possible radiation leaks. It just so happens that we are a few days outside of the 2 year anniversary of the building collapse in Bangladesh. In that instance I would say that though the structure was faulty and that no one should have been in there working I can agree that the job of inspecting that could be handled by a private firm. Building inspection has a low enough expertise and cost point of entry that independent inspectors would not be to dependent upon those firms that they are suppose to be policing. But you have a possibility of radiation leaking out into the public and the government's responsibility is to protect me and my property from your lack of proper infrastructure. The employees there may feel that as long as they aren't growing third arms then they shouldn't have to hire a private firm to check for leaks but that's on them. Radiation on the other hand is a serious public problem. The clean up and securing of such a facility entails high enough costs that private firms will cut corners for the company that hires them (for a little kick back of course) Government officials can be bought off as well, sure, but when it comes to radiation public outcry and accountability will tend to lead to fewer outright ignoring of the rules. Keeping in mind that you said that the officials had real equipment to use in their sweeps and their were real experts doing the inspection. You did not present us with the bumbling cronies of Atlas Shrugged.

Then how can either of our protagonists be upset realistically or philosophically, that the inspection lead to s shut down? Any code enforcement company, whether public or private, by definition, must be able to ENFORCE the rules. If your company is not in alignment with the standards than they must have the ability to shut you down until you get into alignment. If they can't whats the point of them? And the standards cannot be based on your level of inconvenience at the time. If the rules say that you cannot have a kitchen full of mold and roaches, then it doesn't matter if you are in the middle of the lunch rush. You need to be shut down until you fix it. One of the characters could have acknowledged that, instead it became a point of- we were sooo close, and now we will lose precious days fixing a non-related problem.

Pg 42. You make reference to intellectual property. Not something I believe in but I'll give it a quick swing anyway- did Luca pay the church when he took the photographs in there?

In Atlas Shrugged we have a idealized world in which 90% of the world population really has no idea of how the world works or what they are doing. They are all stupid, lazy and parasites in the truest sense. But your world is supposed to be based on reality, so I question why is it that this argument against taxes is framed from the perspective welfare. Redistribution is not a major part of the US budget (I understand you may not live in the US so you may have a different understanding than I) and yes that means that I don't agree that Social security and medicare are re-distributions, but the evil of the system is constantly pronounced as the few who support the parasitical many with their life blood. All of the people who work for the government are not soulless bureaucrats who only look for ways to take other peoples money, in fact many of them believe in what they are doing (having no personal connections at all to the actual taking of money) and even if they didn't. Even if the vast majority of governmental workers weren't teachers, firefighter, police, military, code enforcement, scientists, diplomats,CIA and FBI agents etc (with a very small minority actual being congressional members who pass tax laws and IRS workers who collect them) it cannot be argued that this people are doing a days work. Ok, so there are many who are lazy, but lets be honest, there are many in the private field who are lazy as well and just as protected, but the point is that it doesn't matter if you personally respect the industry someone works in, it really doesn't even matter if the industry is moral. If someone does work then they need to be compensated. There is no moral defense for those who pulled to handles for the gas chambers and they should have went to jail but that doesn't mean that they should have been paid. They were hired for a job, they did it and they should be paid. To call someone's pay at the end of a hard week "re distributions" doesn't sit well with me.

Pg 43.

Elke mentions the fact that if a person refuses to pay for something and yet still uses it, they themselves are leeches. I appreciate the fact that you put that in there but then you gave Luca the weakest rebuttal ever. He merely says that he didn't ask for the government to be the supplier of such service and if they weren't the only guys in town providing such service he would go else where. Again, personal inconvenience is not a justification for a lack of integrity especially not for a person of such moral fortitude that Luca otherwise appears to be. If the government provides water and Luca has no choice but to either use it or take a 5 gallon drum out to a fresh water stream everyday, then he is just going to have to make that trip OR allow for the justifications of others who use the services (while actually paying for them by the way) Does he accept items through the mail?(still speaking from a US perspective) Did he pay the full un subsidized cost of his train ticket? The train helping him to maintain his business by taking him to such exotic locations needed for his photographic backgrounds. Does he drive on roads?

I did see you post above #40, where it appears that you are wrestling with this idea as well, but that internal debate does not come across in the narrative.

pg 45

There is a small discussion on the loss of community compassion because all responsibility has been off loaded onto the government. I am empathetic to this idea but I don't know if the full lack of community can be contained only within the tax-and-safety-net debate.

pg 61

I agree about your ideas on marriage being too constraining for many people but you really didn't have to ty that to the government. You don't get thrown in jail if you get a divorce. In fact people do it all the time, ask Kim Kardashian! (first marriage 4 years, second 72 days)

I would say something as well on your depiction of Elke's chemical company getting hit with a tax with the result of her project being scrapped or on your ending where Elke will now become a consultant and model for magazines while working under the table, but so far I've said enough.

I agree with some of your above comments on what it will take to change the mentality of the people, and with that a change in the governmental structure, I suppose I just have a different realism based way in which it can occur- see my book

Thanks for the free read.

p.s. this makes 5 books that I have read after being mentioned on these forums- Atlas Shrugged: the novel, the film, the philosophy, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (followed up with Stranger in a Strange land), Ayn Nation under God, and Daniel Evergreen's book (member of this site) Evolution: A theory of everything

[jtucek]

Hi Derek,

thanks for the detailed comments. You will get mentioned in acknowledgements.

I am afraid that we are going to disagree on great many things though Principally, due to this claim you make: " If someone does work then they need to be compensated."

If someone does work I did not ask him to do, I see no reason why I should be paying his bills. None.

I agree with you, that Luca should make it clearer that he does not propose zero government. There are some services that are properly provided for by the government, but there are very few of them. I guess he can claim with some justification that he still pays indirect taxes (like VAT ... this is a major tax amount in EU), and this covers the essential services he uses. The rest, he refuses to pay for, because, and here I have to disagree with you, it is all redistribution imposed by one pressure group or another. No exceptions to that. In EU, social security is the largest governemnt expenditure for every single member state. For many of them, it even exceeds 50% of the budget. I don't understand how you can find say socialised health insurance not to be redistribution. Any free market insurance scheme would base premiums on the client's risk, not on his ability to pay. A well-paid guy, who keeps himself fit, does not smoke or drink can end up paying about 20% of his earnings in forced insurance (varies between EU states). A bum on welfare, who sits on his butt all day, smokes and drinks has full health care coverage for free. Is that not redistribution from the responsible to the irresponsible? Do you call that justice?

I guess this also answers your objection to the gun simile. Outside of the small set of services properly handled by the government, it is all immoral, and no way I'd pay for any of it without an implied gun aimed at me. The same goes for the elephant + leeches simile. To me, the leeches rhetoric is central, and I will absolutely keep it, but you might have a point that Elke should not accept is so readily. She says it more playfully, than seriously, "...you want to play games with me and I can oblige you..." but I will try to make her struggle with accepting his line of argumentation a bit more. Thanks.

Concerning the inspection, they were inspecting the safety of the workplace (electromagnetic radiation from tools), not public space hazard. I guess it doesn't matter, however. I'd still maintain that this is none of goverment's business. The government should enforce liability for any damage caused and leave it to private parties how they prevent them. Does your employer use dangerous tools? Do not work for him. Are you concerned about nuclear radiation? Do not live next to a power plant. I do assure you that a private nuclear plant operator is more obssessed about the safety of his plant than some bureacrat sitting in a cozy office in the capital city.

They don't throw you in jail for a divorce, but they do for a second marriage without that divorce. I will keep the ties between the goverment and marriage mentioned.

Not sure I undestand you on the intellectual property. Do you claim that there is no such thing? Can you elaborate? If the church charged for camera usage (many do in EU), then Luca would have paid, of course, and made no objections whatsoever against it.

I had Luca described to me by a friend as an annoying sage who never does or says anything wrong. The sex scene is an attempt to make him at least a bit flawed. He damns himself for what he has done, but Elke understands that there is no reason for that. At the end of the story, when he "proposes" to her in front of her parents, he references back to that night and acknowledges that he was wrong, while she wasn't, and thanks her for letting him learn from her. Maybe this all fell flat?

[Francisco Ferrer]

But... because you said that you weren't going idealistic, I do have some issues (up for discussion) with some elements of the story. For example on pg 28 you have your first major discussion about taxes. Why do people use the analogy with the sheep and wolves voting on whats for dinner? This is not how most of the tax vote works. Mostly its not one group voting to eat another group but it is the majority deciding to eat of themselves. The wolves would be voting to take a bite of the sheep and also of themselves.

Somewhere between 43 and 47 percent of Americans do not pay income tax. Yet about 60% of eligible Americans vote. It would be fair to say that those who don't pay taxes are not necessarily the ones not voting.

More importantly, Americans do not pay taxes in equal amounts. The top 20% of earners pay 84% of income taxes. Thus in exchange for having to nibble a bit of his own tail, the wolf gets to feast on a platter of lamb chops.

[Derek McGowan]

Hi Derek,

thanks for the detailed comments.

Sure thing

If someone does work I did not ask him to do, I see no reason why I should be paying his bills. None.

I didn't say that you should be paying his bills. Who ever hired him should pay for a day's work. Here you could say that the citizen/tax payer hired him and Luca as a citizen is actually saying that no, he didn't ask for this person's work so he shouldn't have to pay. But that wasn't my point. My point is that I get an implication that the salary that this person receives is a sham because it is "redistributions" I feel that you can be free to disparage the actual morality of the job that gets done but to say that a person's reward for a honest day of work is a sham is going a bit too far. I feel that there are many CEO's that have lead their companies down the path to ruin. Those CEO's should not get a performance bonus but they should get paid for every day that they work even until the final day that the company collapses or they are fired and I would not say that the pay that they got was undeserved.

So in summary, education may not be a rightful job for the government but the high school math teacher who is doing his or her best to spark something in their students, that spends hours extra per day working on lessons and planning field trips, who also happens to receive their from a government entity should not be said to be a crook or a leech. They did a honest day's work and should be paid by whoever hired them, namely the state.

A well-paid guy, who keeps himself fit, does not smoke or drink can end up paying about 20% of his earnings in forced insurance (varies between EU states). A bum on welfare, who sits on his butt all day, smokes and drinks has full health care coverage for free. Is that not redistribution from the responsible to the irresponsible?

This is a good example and I retract my statement on Medicare not being a redistribution. Still going to have to disagree with Social Security being one....

The "A bum on welfare" statement though kinda reinforces my idea that you are focusing too much on the welfare aspect of government and taxes. I don't live in the EU and perhaps I should do further research but what would your characters have to talk about if their was no welfare component of government but the other departments still existed? Would NASA scientists (back to the US ) doing incredibly deep non-war related work, which has translated into many benefits for the citizens, which were released into the public's hands for private use still be the basis a tax knocking book? From your perspective I mean, I know that there was that Stadler component in Atlas Shrugged (which I don't agree with) Or what about the Center for Disease Control or the Presidency itself. You may very well say that the government shouldn't have its nose in any of those things and that's fine, my question is would you call those workers crooks and leeches since they would get paid with tax dollars?

Are you concerned about nuclear radiation? Do not live next to a power plant.

You said you weren't working in a idealized world....

Are taxes and the welfare state pissing you off? Do not live in the EU. Clearly its not that simple.

They don't throw you in jail for a divorce, but they do for a second marriage without that divorce. I will keep the ties between the goverment and marriage mentioned.

Hmm, I actaully know several people who have been married more than once and never divorced. I also knew a polygamous couple (one of the wives recently left) and they never seemed to have trouble with the law. Why, because you don't have to get married through the state. Married has governmental ties because of tax implications but the institution of marriage is a spiritual or even a cultural one that doesn't have to go through the state at all. Being married in front of a judge does not somehow make the relationship stronger than being married in front of the town elders or religious leaders. And the break up, if and when the partners get tired of each other, will sometimes have societal consequences whether the state involved or not. Sure minds must be changed to look at relationships in a more natural way but I wouldn't continue to throw the big bad government in as a dark shadowy figure behind all that ills the world.

As a side note, while I again agree with your notion of the unnaturalness of marriage, something must also be said about the fact of humans too easily moving from one whim to another. Minds change and they change back, and one thing is cool today and old hat tomorrow. There are benefits to sticking it out with something even if the new shiny thing is within your grasp. Children for example should be exposed to as many things as possible to find where their passions lay but then the parents do need to step in and guide the child down the path to perfection even when the practice gets tedious and they just want to go outside and play.

Not sure I undestand you on the intellectual property.

Personally I don't think that intellectual property laws should stand. And I'm saying that as an artist, writer and overall creative person. I could care less if someone took my idea and manufactured it without me getting paid. My problem only comes in if/when that person then tries to copyright my idea in order to prevent me from using it, but that is just another scenario that wouldn't exist without patent laws. What I personally produce is for me to use however I see fit but it stops right there, at my personally produced thing/store/service. I can't complain if someone make more money off my idea than I do, because its my responsibility to market and distribute that item in a way that gets me whatever profits I need or desire. Have you ever seen the movie Flash of Genius? I spent the whole movie wondering when the protagonist was just going to move on a create something new. Yes I would want the Wikipedia page to have my name on said product as the inventor but other than legacy, why should I care.

Maybe this all fell flat?

I actually did not get/read the part where he goes back to "that night" in his proposal....

I did think that the proposal was a good compromise* between Luca and the parents.

*compromise is more than likely the wrong word, but the idea that he didn't just tell the parents what he was going to do but tried to make them see his perspective in non-threatening terms

I have a question for your characters though

Why would it be preferable to Elke or to Luca or to me or you to leave a career that you are passionate about for more or less philosophical reasons? You have address this several times in the book with the opening where Luca is clearly desiring to go back to his Aerospace roots and also with Elke wrestling emotionally with leaving her post. The you also tried to bring the philosophical argument into the real world with your bit on the new sector tax which shut down the Elke's project. My problem with this is that someone would be willing to do some random menial (to them) profession for the rest of their lives because there is a disagreement with the infrastructure of their chosen passion? That's like me saying that I will never paint again because the minerals that are used in oil paints come from a country who has human rights violations. I simply wont get my supply from that country anymore, there are always (well most of the time ) alternatives. I could switch to acrylic, or water colors or even to pure black and white graphite drawings. I'm not going to leave a career I love because the new mid manager decided to group me with some colleagues that I don't like. Or because the CEO decided to partner with a another company that I don't approve of. People's pet projects get shut down all the time in the private sector. If you don't like it, I think you should find a company that is more in line with your values, not leave the profession all together.

[dldelancey]

Thanks for the typo check, but do not waste your time on that. I will hire a proofreader if this ever heads for publication (will probably need two more stories to accompany it first though).

The missing quotation mark note is curious though. There seems to be a rule in English (sorry, not a native speaker), that multi-paragraph quotations open each paragraph with a quote, but only the last one has a closing one. Is that not your understanding?

If you can't take the time to proofread, then why should we take the time to read your typos? There's little more annoying than reading material that has not been properly proofread.

[Derek McGowan]

Thus in exchange for having to nibble a bit of his own tail, the wolf gets to feast on a platter of lamb chops.

I think that the statement would more comparably be that in exchange for having a nibble of his own tail, the mice get to feast (relative feast based on their size) on the skin of an elephant.

I don't disagree with your other information though Francisco but it brings up a different question/issue one that maybe I should start a different thread for-

In the instance that taxes were completely obliterated, which means all re-distributions from from the 20%, what is the defense against the inevitable violent revolution that would take place? Not that this uprising would be condoned by me but history has shown quite clearly that when one group gets richer, even if it is by law or honest practices, the other group (the majority) gets jealous and pissed off. The morality of keeping your portion of taxes might fail in the face of a mob at your front steps. Especially if the police feel that they are wronged as well.

There was a History channel commercial many years ago when they were advertising for their documentary miniseries on the French revolution. It had a MasterCard theme. I don't remember all the words and I can't find it on YouTube (fail!) but it was funny and yet true. It was showing a fashion party inside some well decorated palace for a bunch of rich people and as the camera panned the place the narrator said stuff like

Necklace of the finest pearls- $10,000

Caviar from the coasts of Normandy- $ 1,000 a ounce

and then it should outside the castle where a mob of peasants were growing and the narrator said

the price of having a fabulous dinner while the common folk starve to death outside? Your head!

[jtucek]

If you can't take the time to proofread, then why should we take the time to read your typos? There's little more annoying than reading material that has not been properly proofread.

Look, lady, there are no shoulds here. If you are insulted by the quality of the language to which I was able to proofread it myself without a native speaker doing a final pass, then simply do not read it. You can easily evaluate that from a couple of paragraphs and move on.

[Brant Gaede]

If you can't take the time to proofread, then why should we take the time to read your typos? There's little more annoying than reading material that has not been properly proofread.

Look, lady, there are no shoulds here. If you are insulted by the quality of the language to which I was able to proofread it myself without a native speaker doing a final pass, then simply do not read it. You can easily evaluate that from a couple of paragraphs and move on.

Calm down. You're a newbie here and need to be a little more circumspect when you get irritated. I just ripped you a new one but deleted it when I realized I was just doing what you did. One-upmanship off a negative base has no good outcome and you are on the verge of being sliced and diced by several posters. My specialty is stomping, but I consciously made the decision several weeks ago to stop it except in extremis and you don't deserve that. You have to understand that while you only want one thing here respecting your work, the trade is you'll get a lot of other stuff too so don't tell us to stuff it. Just ignore it if that's your wont or say you don't want to engage on that.

--Brant

it's easy

[Selene]

jtucek:

Are you from Czechoslovakia?

Also, are you related to the Czech fencer?

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the typo check, but do not waste your time on that. I will hire a proofreader if this ever heads for publication (will probably need two more stories to accompany it first though).

The missing quotation mark note is curious though. There seems to be a rule in English (sorry, not a native speaker), that multi-paragraph quotations open each paragraph with a quote, but only the last one has a closing one. Is that not your understanding?

If you can't take the time to proofread, then why should we take the time to read your typos? There's little more annoying than reading material that has not been properly proofread.

Really not enough to complain about, Deanna. I think you're really complaining about his bad manners in turn. The original proofreading remarks were a free gift to him and he looked the horse in the mouth. Well, shame on him for that.

--Brant

[jtucek]

the high school math teacher who is doing his or her best to spark something in their students, that spends hours extra per day working on lessons and planning field trips, who also happens to receive their from a government entity should not be said to be a crook or a leech.

To keep up with some of the terminology used directly by Luca, he would call that teacher "a servant of evil", leeches are not the teachers, but the people who send their children to a public school, which is paid for by redistributions from the childless, or from parents sending their children to private schools.

you are focusing too much on the welfare aspect of government

I don't understand Welfare and regulation (except natural monopolies regulation) is 80% of everything I object to. I don't have really strong objections against the rest, although I'd be happy to see much of that go as well. For example the NASA you mention. Is it the the government's business to do this research? It is not. Dump NASA. If you disagree, then you prove the point about pressure groups muscling in on tax revenue to support their own narow interests. Why should people who do not care about space finance your pet projects? If you care about space, use your private money to gather similarly minded people and fund a non-profit organisation to conduct that research. Do not make others help you through force.

Are taxes and the welfare state pissing you off? Do not live in the EU.

To an extent, I agree. As Luca says though, I am not brave enough to move to Inner Mongolia. But I think comparing moving out of a country to living in a community you choose is a bit disingenuous. If the government did not stick its nose into your freedom of association through say, anti-discrimination laws, the latter would be relatively easy. Just gather enough like-minded people, buy a stretch of land, and refuse to allow the unwanted elements to move in. Have you tried to move out of a country, however? Try it just once in your life, to see how much of a slave you really are. Especially as a US citizen, you will have lots of fun with IRS even after leaving the country for good.

Why would it be preferable to Elke or to Luca or to me or you to leave a career that you are passionate about for more or less philosophical reasons?

Philosophical rhetorical burdens have no effect on real life.

I think, Derek, this is something Dr. Floyd Ferris would be really happy to hear.

To Luca, this is a matter of principles. If you disagree with him that what the government does is unjust, then yes, the revolt is foolish. But if you agree, isn't it the moral thing to do, to remove as much support for the goverment as possible? In Luca's view, an aircraft engineer paying his withholding taxes is a pillar the welfare state rests on. He refuses to be that pillar. You have to draw the line somewhere, Luca has drawn it obviously earlier than you would. Suppose you lived in Germany in 1930s. At which point do you quit? Or do you build bullets happily till the end? Because philosophical reasons do not take precedence over having a warm meal today?

[jtucek]

Are you from Czechoslovakia?

Also, are you related to the Czech fencer?

I am, but I left ... for various countries ... and also, Czechoslovakia no longer exists

Never heard of any fencers, so I guess, I am not.

[Brant Gaede]

Are you from Czechoslovakia?

Also, are you related to the Czech fencer?

I am, but I left ... for various countries ... and also, Czechoslovakia no longer exists

Never heard of any fencers, so I guess, I am not.

It divided like a cell and I don't think much to the benefit of one part. My good late friend Petr Beckmann was from Czechoslovakia. He fled the Nazis and went to Britain in WWII. Worked on radar. Then he went back and ended up fleeing the communists and came to the United States, where he stayed.

--Brant

[Selene]

Are you from Czechoslovakia?

Also, are you related to the Czech fencer?

I am, but I left ... for various countries ... and also, Czechoslovakia no longer exists

Never heard of any fencers, so I guess, I am not.

It does to myself and my Czech friends.

Jaroslav Tuček (born 24 August 1882, date of death unknown) was a Bohemian fencer. He won a bronze medal in the team sabre event at the 1908 Summer Olympics.[1]

References

"Jaroslav Tuček Olympic Results". sports-reference.com. Retrieved 2010-04-03.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Tu%C4%8Dek

[jtucek]

That's interesting. I didn't even know that the Czechs had an independent Olympic team in 1908, since we were a part of Austria at the time.

How come you have so many Czech friends? Are they all descendants of the exiles of the flight from Communism?

[Selene]

That's interesting. I didn't even know that the Czechs had an independent Olympic team in 1908, since we were a part of Austria at the time.

How come you have so many Czech friends? Are they all descendants of the exiles of the flight from Communism?

Sure are.

One of them has your first name also.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Try it just once in your life, to see how much of a slave you really are. Especially as a US citizen, you will have lots of fun with IRS even after leaving the country for good.

JT,

I'm not in love with the bureaucracy here in the USA, but my experience has not been borne out by this warning.

I lived in Brazil for 32 years--I have a permanent resident's visa from there.

I came and went several times during that period and I never had any problem at all with the IRS. Ditto for people I knew.

In fact, I became friends with a guy from the IRS in São Paulo (yes, it has agents in other countries)--he used to go to shows I produced down there. He never did me any favors and he never messed with me for IRS business. We just partied together and that was that.

I'm not downplaying the damage the IRS can do, which is considerable, but IRS bullying does not make the USA a totalitarian police state. I've actually lived in one for real (Brazil during the military dictatorship) where you needed a formal exit visa to leave. That's nothing like the USA.

(I'm merely mentioning this because I believe one has to identify something correctly in order to evaluate it correctly. I believe, though, we should abolish the IRS.)

Michael

[jtucek]

I was refering to the fact - to my knowledge unique to US - that even after leaving the country, you still owe IRS taxes on your worldwide income. I think there is a cap, maybe 10 years or so? after which you are free and clear. I would call that totalitarian, honestly.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would call that totalitarian, honestly.

I wouldn't.

If you take extreme words to describe non-extreme situations, you don't know what to say to accurately describe things when you get up against an extreme situation for real.

At least, nobody's listening to you.

You blow your credibility that way.

If that's OK with you, that's your choice and I'm fine with your decision.

I disagree and I'm fine with that, too.

Michael