Reconsidering Rand's Ethics

[sjw]

It's not complicated at all. If you don't like the tone of a thread, then don't read it or participate in it.

Are you really that dumb George or is this just you trying and failing to score the cheap shot? The point at issue is a thread that starts off being productive and ends up as a snipe fest. The "tone" of the thread is not some mystical property that keeps unethical debaters out.

The problem with you is that you spend so much effort on insults that it often makes you appear to be quite stupid. That can't be the case can it? Because if you are that stupid I'm going to have to go even easier on you than I have been.

Shayne

A discussion about "Is Shayne Beavis or Butthead?" could be very productive, unless you turned it into a snipe fest. Let's test it out, shall we?

I said before that you are smarter than Beavis and dumber than Butthead. Do you agree or disagree? I have asked a civil question, on a par with "Are Anarchists Overgrown Teenagers?" --so no sniping, please. I expect you to be a gentleman.

Ghs

So if I use a provocative title, then that gives you license to fill the thread with a litany of ad hominems. You're like a spiteful teenage girl George.

Shayne

-But are you really that dumb? I really want to know.

[George H. Smith]

It's not complicated at all. If you don't like the tone of a thread, then don't read it or participate in it.

Are you really that dumb George or is this just you trying and failing to score the cheap shot? The point at issue is a thread that starts off being productive and ends up as a snipe fest. The "tone" of the thread is not some mystical property that keeps unethical debaters out.

The problem with you is that you spend so much effort on insults that it often makes you appear to be quite stupid. That can't be the case can it? Because if you are that stupid I'm going to have to go even easier on you than I have been.

Shayne

A discussion about "Is Shayne Beavis or Butthead?" could be very productive, unless you turned it into a snipe fest. Let's test it out, shall we?

I said before that you are smarter than Beavis and dumber than Butthead. Do you agree or disagree? I have asked a civil question, on a par with "Are Anarchists Overgrown Teenagers?" --so no sniping, please. I expect you to be a gentleman.

Ghs

So if I use a provocative title, then that gives you license to fill the thread with a litany of ad hominems. You're like a spiteful teenage girl George.

Shayne

-But are you really that dumb? I really want to know.

You did far more than use a provocative title. You also wrote a post in which you defended your thesis. So don't play Mr. Innocent.

You did a similar thing with your thread claiming that Rand has no theory of rights. As I recall, you backpedaled on this absurd claim, but your purpose was clear enough, namely, to play the game of "Shayne Comes to the Rescue." You demean your intellectual superiors, such as Rand and Rothbard, in order to show how brilliant you are by comparison. This is a very sleazy game. And it turns into a theater of the absurd when played by someone as philosophically inept as you happen to be.

Ghs

[sjw]

You did far more than use a provocative title. You also wrote a post in which you defended your thesis. So don't play Mr. Innocent.

I wrote more than one. But you miss the point. I tried to deescalate, as any reasonable person would, permitting your attack but asking to move on, and you just kept right on at it. Are anarchists spiteful teenage girls or is it just you?

You did a similar thing with your thread claiming that Rand has no theory of rights. As I recall, you backpedaled on this absurd claim,

I didn't backpedal, I just recognize that the word "theory" has multiple senses. My view is that she has no theory in the formal sense of a theory. She only has a theory in the informal sense, in the sense that any ordinary layperson might have a "theory" on this or that. Her ideas are more developed than a layperson's, but they do not rise to the level of a systematic theory.

...but your purpose was clear enough, namely, to play the game of "Shayne Comes to the Rescue." You demean your intellectual superiors, such as Rand and Rothbard, in order to show how brilliant you are by comparison. This is a very sleazy game. And it turns into a theater of the absurd when played by someone as philosophically inept as you happen to be.

Did someone think a thought? The horror. What an uppity person they are. How dare they question your Gods. Such impertinence. Such blasphemy.

Poor George.

Shayne

Edited February 22, 2011 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

You did a similar thing with your thread claiming that Rand has no theory of rights. As I recall, you backpedaled on this absurd claim,

I didn't backpedal, I just recognize that the word "theory" has multiple senses. My view is that she has no theory in the formal sense of a theory. She only has a theory in the informal sense, in the sense that any ordinary layperson might have a "theory" on this or that. Her ideas are more developed than a layperson's, but they do not rise to the level of a systematic theory.

Ah, yes; I nearly forgot! You never backpedal. You have simply been misunderstood over and over and over again, so all you need do is to clarify what you really meant to say. Did Shayne claim that two plus two equals five? Well, yes, but that was not a mistake, for when Shayne said "five," he really meant "four." Words have multiple senses, after all. :

You're a riot, Shayne.

Btw, Rand did have a theory of rights "in the formal sense." It is a systematic theory, one that she presented succinctly. These are not incompatible.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

...but your purpose was clear enough, namely, to play the game of "Shayne Comes to the Rescue." You demean your intellectual superiors, such as Rand and Rothbard, in order to show how brilliant you are by comparison. This is a very sleazy game. And it turns into a theater of the absurd when played by someone as philosophically inept as you happen to be.

Did someone think a thought? The horror. What an uppity person they are. How dare they question your Gods. Such impertinence. Such blasphemy.

I have written more detailed criticisms of both Rand and Rothbard than you ever will. But I first made a serious effort to understand both philosophers. I have no seen no indication that you understand either person; quite the contrary.

There is an old saying about standing on the shoulders of giants. (This is often attributed to Newton, but he did not originate it.) Those who have stood on the shoulders of Rand and Rothbard have sometimes been able to see further than they did, but you prefer to kill the giants and then stand on their corpses, crowing -- "Look at me! I'm Shayne. Look at me!" And this attitude is what makes you a quack.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OL is a difficult addiction to quit, even temporarily. You tell yourself, "I will just do one line, and that's all" -- and before you know it you've gone through an eight-ball.

George,

Tell me about it.

There's a writer's block secret in there somewhere. I haven't been able to make it something useful yet, though.

It's very similar to some advice I read on sales copywriting--especially for autoresponder emails. One guy I was studying (I forget his name) said when you get stuck, you mentally isolate a bullet point for the product you are trying to sell or the topic you need to cover, then write the following on a new page:

"This reminds me of..."

or

"This is like..."

Your subconscious just pours out the rest. I've tried this and it works for me.

Forum posting is very similar in providing this effect, but it also makes me want to post.

Compulsively.

If I can bottle that essence and sell it to writers who are stuck on their works, I'm sure I'll make a fortune.

All I need to do is figure out how to simulate in my mind an interactive audience of people interested in me and my issue--some of whom are maddeningly contrary and obstinate regardless of what I say. Once I can imagine--to the point of making it seem real--that I am writing to and for people like them, the rest just floods out like Niagara Falls.

I believe this would work for all topics, styles and genres.

Michael

[sjw]

Ah, yes; I nearly forgot! You never backpedal. You have simply been misunderstood over and over and over again, so all you need do is to clarify what you really meant to say. Did Shayne claim that two plus two equals five? Well, yes, but that was not a mistake, for when Shayne said "five," he really meant "four." Words have multiple senses, after all. :

In common parlance, people use the term "theory" loosely, as in "my theory of child rearing is that ..." They don't mean they have a systematic, philosophical theory. It's not "backpedaling" to recognize this.

And this is a perfect example of your bad behavior and failure to exercise good faith in argument. You are an unethical debater.

Btw, Rand did have a theory of rights "in the formal sense." It is a systematic theory, one that she presented succinctly. These are not incompatible.

Ghs

No George, she did not. But that isn't the topic of this thread. If you don't agree there's already a thread I created to discuss Rand's lack of a theory. You don't have to spew your incompetent assessments all over the forum like some teenage girl throwing a temper tantrum.

Shayne

[sjw]

I have written more detailed criticisms of both Rand and Rothbard than you ever will. But I first made a serious effort to understand both philosophers. I have no seen no indication that you understand either person; quite the contrary.

There is an old saying about standing on the shoulders of giants. (This is often attributed to Newton, but he did not originate it.) Those who have stood on the shoulders of Rand and Rothbard have sometimes been able to see further than they did, but you prefer to kill the giants and then stand on their corpses, crowing -- "Look at me! I'm Shayne. Look at me!" And this attitude is what makes you a quack.

Ghs

Again with the unethical debate tactics. This is not my position on Rand at all, on the contrary I recognize the debt I owe her, and that she was an intellectual dynamo I have no chance of matching. I have said this on various occasions but you keep on lying just to score the cheap shot. You're a master of nothing but ad hominem. You're just jealous because unlike my regard for Rand, I don't regard you as a giant.

Rothbard I do have a lower estimate of. I agree with Rand about him and about you: concrete-bound mentality.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All I need to do is figure out how to simulate in my mind an interactive audience of people interested in me and my issue--some of whom are maddeningly contrary and obstinate regardless of what I say. Once I can imagine--to the point of making it seem real--that I am writing to and for people like them, the rest just floods out like Niagara Falls.

I want to add a thought to this to keep it on record.

Part of the imagined "maddeningly contrary and obstinate" people would have to include a glimmer of hope that they could be persuaded or convinced or argued down somehow.

I think I'm on to something. Done right, this idea is far more than a mental punching bag.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Ah, yes; I nearly forgot! You never backpedal. You have simply been misunderstood over and over and over again, so all you need do is to clarify what you really meant to say. Did Shayne claim that two plus two equals five? Well, yes, but that was not a mistake, for when Shayne said "five," he really meant "four." Words have multiple senses, after all. :

In common parlance, people use the term "theory" loosely, as in "my theory of child rearing is that ..." They don't mean they have a systematic, philosophical theory. It's not "backpedaling" to recognize this.

And this is a perfect example of your bad behavior and failure to exercise good faith in argument. You are an unethical debater.

What makes you think that I am debating you? I learned the hard way that this would be a waste of my time. Mocking you may be a waste of time as well, but it can at least keep me amused from time to time, when I have nothing better to do.

Btw, Rand did have a theory of rights "in the formal sense." It is a systematic theory, one that she presented succinctly. These are not incompatible.

Ghs

No George, she did not. But that isn't the topic of this thread. If you don't agree there's already a thread I created to discuss Rand's lack of a theory. You don't have to spew your incompetent assessments all over the forum like some teenage girl throwing a temper tantrum.

Your "teenage girl" quip was amusing the first one hundred times you used it.

As for your thread on why Rand doesn't have a theory of rights, here is a passage from your headline post:

According to Rand, the genus of "right" is "moral principle." According to her this makes a "right" an attribute of man, specifically, a kind of principle, which is an attribute of man's mind, one that we put there. So what she is saying here is that rights exist -- only in our heads. This is off to a bad start for Rand's theory. Further, what do principles do? They identify fundamental truths about something else. What is the something else? That would seem to be the important place to find the true genus. But Rand doesn't bother looking there.

Anyone who attributes this gibberish to Rand has either not read her or doesn't understand what he read. Why should anyone take you seriously when you misrepresent Rand's theory of rights so egregiously? To what purpose, people might ask? Well, here is your clincher:

Rand has no theory. Which is part of why I wrote "For Individual Rights": http://www.amazon.com/Individual-Rights-Treatise-Human-Relations/dp/0984587004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278694389&sr=8-1 .

Here comes Shayne to save the day!

What a joke.

Ghs

[sjw]

What makes you think that I am debating you? I learned the hard way that this would be a waste of my time. Mocking you may be a waste of time as well, but it can at least keep me amused from time to time, when I have nothing better to do.

Like I said, you're unethical. You follow the Leninist tactics of your hero: http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/005.pdf

Anyone with even a tiny bit of philosophical ability can see that Rand has no theory of rights just by reading her essay on copyrights and patents. There is absolutely no philosophical justification for her position there, no theory at all, and because of this she ends up advocating for the property rights violation of innocent inventors.

Here comes Shayne to save the day!

You're just seething with jealousy aren't you? You can't control yourself, first you're ignoring me, then 5 minutes later you're back at it again.

Shayne

[william.scherk]

All I need to do is figure out how to simulate in my mind an interactive audience of people interested in me and my issue--some of whom are maddeningly contrary and obstinate regardless of what I say. Once I can imagine--to the point of making it seem real--that I am writing to and for people like them, the rest just floods out like Niagara Falls.

I want to add a thought to this to keep it on record.

Part of the imagined "maddeningly contrary and obstinate" people would have to include a glimmer of hope that they could be persuaded or convinced or argued down somehow.

I think I'm on to something. Done right, this idea is far more than a mental punching bag.

Shayne's idea of a corner or fresh topic with suggested guidelines is not a bad idea, to my mind.

In the specialized 'corners' that exist right now, if I understand the format correctly, the lead or named person in the Corner has a certain level of control, at least the ability to delete or modify posts. Is that right?

If that is right, maybe you could try an experiment if there is enough interest -- a place where a moderator could take responsibility to oversee a discussion.

Alternatively, anyone can start a discussion topic and start the thread with an addendum to the OL guidelines, perhaps laying out what is and isn't considered 'fair play.'

I mention these notions, Michael, in the context of some of our recent exchanges on the topic of 'global warming' debates/discussion on OL. I have read over all the previous threads and you are right that discussion degenerated. At the same time, I liked Adam Selene's notion of a framework for a semi-formal debate. We managed to even find four folks who were very interested in such a thing.

Is anything like a moderated 'Corner' possible, Michael, or are there objections in your mind?

[George H. Smith]

What makes you think that I am debating you? I learned the hard way that this would be a waste of my time. Mocking you may be a waste of time as well, but it can at least keep me amused from time to time, when I have nothing better to do.

Like I said, you're unethical. You follow the Leninist tactics of your hero: http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/005.pdf

Anyone with even a tiny bit of philosophical ability can see that Rand has no theory of rights just by reading her essay on copyrights and patents. There is absolutely no philosophical justification for her position there, no theory at all, and because of this she ends up advocating for the property rights violation of innocent inventors.

This is an prime example of your bone-headed reasoning. The most that Rand's position on patents and copyrights could show is that Rand did not apply her own theory of rights consistently. To claim that it shows that she had "no theory of rights" at all is a first-rate howler -- a claim that only someone with mush for brains would even think of, much less defend.

Rothbard presents a good case for common law copyright in The Ethics of Liberty. He actually argues for his position within a broader theory of property rights, so it will probably be of no interest to you.

Ghs

[sjw]

What makes you think that I am debating you? I learned the hard way that this would be a waste of my time. Mocking you may be a waste of time as well, but it can at least keep me amused from time to time, when I have nothing better to do.

Like I said, you're unethical. You follow the Leninist tactics of your hero: http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/005.pdf

Unlike how you enjoy trying to mock me, I get no joy from mopping the floor with you. I merely respond as a defensive measure, to counteract the dishonest spin you put on everything. Note that I never comment on those threads of yours where you're giving us your life story, even though (as some have tastelessly demonstrated) there's plenty of opportunity to take pot shots.

Even if I were the "crackpot" you fantasize me as being, at least when I say something, it's coming from the heart, and unlike you, without the unethical motive of stalking someone just to get a vile thrill from taking pot shots.

Shayne

[sjw]

This is an prime example of your bone-headed reasoning. The most that Rand's position on patents and copyrights could show is that Rand did not apply her own theory of rights consistently.

To claim that it shows that she had "no theory of rights" at all is a first-rate howler -- a claim that only someone with mush for brains would even think of, much less defend.

Are you calling Rand incompetent? How dare you.

But if this were true, then you should be able to point out precisely where in her theory that her views on copyrights/patents contradicted it. But you can't do that can you? You're just posturing and going for the cheap shot.

Rothbard presents a good case for common law copyright in The Ethics of Liberty. He actually argues for his position within a broader theory of property rights, so it will probably be of no interest to you.

Ghs

I think Kinsella has pretty much ripped that one to shreds. He's good at that kind of thing. (Speaking of "howlers", you ought to know -- I recently read his response to your wacky views on inalienable rights).

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

This is an prime example of your bone-headed reasoning. The most that Rand's position on patents and copyrights could show is that Rand did not apply her own theory of rights consistently.

To claim that it shows that she had "no theory of rights" at all is a first-rate howler -- a claim that only someone with mush for brains would even think of, much less defend.

Are you calling Rand incompetent? How dare you.

Where did I say this? Rand was faillible; you are both fallible and incompetent. There is a difference, you know.

But if this were true, then you should be able to point out precisely where in her theory that her views on copyrights/patents contradicted it. But you can't do that can you? You're just posturing and going for the cheap shot.

I don't need to prove anything. You are the one who made the exceedingly dumb remark about Rand's position on copyrights and patents supposedly showing that she had "no theory of rights." Your assertion is a flagrant non sequitur, regardless of what the reason for Rand's position may be.

Rothbard presents a good case for common law copyright in The Ethics of Liberty. He actually argues for his position within a broader theory of property rights, so it will probably be of no interest to you.

Ghs

I think Kinsella has pretty much ripped that one to shreds. He's good at that kind of thing. (Speaking of "howlers", you ought to know -- I recently read his response to your wacky views on inalienable rights).

Kinsella didn't address Rothbard's arguments in the OL thread, if that is what you are referring to. I should know, since I was an active participant in that thread, and I took Kinsella's side.

So you followed the link I gave to Kinsella's article? I don't suppose you read my original article in Liberty, which dealt with capital punishment (and with theories of punishment generally) and only tangentially with inalienable rights. No, of course you didn't.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

What makes you think that I am debating you? I learned the hard way that this would be a waste of my time. Mocking you may be a waste of time as well, but it can at least keep me amused from time to time, when I have nothing better to do.

Like I said, you're unethical. You follow the Leninist tactics of your hero: http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/005.pdf

Unlike how you enjoy trying to mock me, I get no joy from mopping the floor with you. I merely respond as a defensive measure, to counteract the dishonest spin you put on everything. Note that I never comment on those threads of yours where you're giving us your life story, even though (as some have tastelessly demonstrated) there's plenty of opportunity to take pot shots.

Even if I were the "crackpot" you fantasize me as being, at least when I say something, it's coming from the heart, and unlike you, without the unethical motive of stalking someone just to get a vile thrill from taking pot shots.

Shayne

Poor Shayne is being stalked! Someone call the cops!

But please, Shayne, please don't mop the floor with me any more. Oh, the humiliation of being used as a mop by the OL janitor!

This just gets better and better. I have so many vile thrills to look forward to!

Ghs

[sjw]

I don't need to prove anything.

LOL Yeah that's what I thought, pure posturing. But if Rand actually had a theory that covered this, it should be fairly easy to point to it. You can't, because she doesn't.

Kinsella didn't address Rothbard's arguments in the OL thread, if that is what you are referring to. I should know, since I was an active participant in that thread, and I took Kinsella's side.

No this wasn't on OL.

So you followed the link I gave to Kinsella's article? I don't suppose you read my original article in Liberty, which dealt with capital punishment (and with theories of punishment generally) and only tangentially with inalienable rights. No, of course you didn't.

Ghs

No.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I don't need to prove anything.

LOL Yeah that's what I thought, pure posturing. But if Rand actually had a theory that covered this, it should be fairly easy to point to it. You can't, because she doesn't.

You need to learn how to read. Here is what I wrote and all that I wrote on this topic.

The most that Rand's position on patents and copyrights could show is that Rand did not apply her own theory of rights consistently. To claim that it shows that she had "no theory of rights" at all is a first-rate howler -- a claim that only someone with mush for brains would even think of, much less defend.

Do you still believe that Rand's position on patents and copyrights shows that she had "no theory of rights?" What about the theory that she presents in "Man's Rights" and other articles? Do these not count? Do they somehow disappear because you disagree with Rand on copyrights and patents? Some explanation would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

Kinsella didn't address Rothbard's arguments in the OL thread, if that is what you are referring to. I should know, since I was an active participant in that thread, and I took Kinsella's side.

No this wasn't on OL.

Pardon my skepticism, but you are usually so full of shit that I have my doubts as to whether you even know what Rothbard's basic argument for copyright is. It can easily be summarized in two or three sentences. Care to give it a try?

Ghs

[sjw]

Do you still believe that Rand's position on patents and copyrights shows that she had "no theory of rights?" What about the theory that she presents in "Man's Rights" and other articles? Do these not count? Do they somehow disappear because you disagree with Rand on copyrights and patents? Some explanation would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

On my view if she actually had a theory she wouldn't have been able to fly totally off the rails and positively argue for the usurpation of the second inventor's property rights. It would have been cognitively impossible. But that is because I actually have a theory of what a theory is, in contrast to you, who only have a mushy-headed view of what a theory is.

Pardon my skepticism, but you are usually so full of shit that I have my doubts as to whether you even know what Rothbard's basic argument for copyright is. It can easily be summarized in two or three sentences. Care to give it a try?

Ghs

You can read Kinsella on your own. If you don't believe that he refuted Rothbard do a google search.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Pardon my skepticism, but you are usually so full of shit that I have my doubts as to whether you even know what Rothbard's basic argument for copyright is. It can easily be summarized in two or three sentences. Care to give it a try?

You can read Kinsella on your own. If you don't believe that he refuted Rothbard do a google search.

I didn't ask about Kinsella. I asked you to summarize Rothbard's basic argument for copyright. Do you know what it is? If you read an article by Kinsella, you should. So what is Rothbard's argument? Or are you full of shit?

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is anything like a moderated 'Corner' possible, Michael, or are there objections in your mind?

William,

I don't have any objections, but I also don't have any plans.

I am setting up some blogs of my own for other stuff. I intend for these to be a bit more moderated, but maybe not. The aim of those is to generate money.

Later, here on OL, if there is an occasion for a formal debate, say between specific famous people with a specific topic and for a specific purpose, with something like putting it on for a target audience with specific benefits in mind, maybe it would be worth the time experimenting.

As it stands, OL is what it grew into being.

In fact, here's an idea. We pay for the OL blogging feature and very few people use it. If I am not mistaken, an OL blogger can moderate comments to it. How's that for a moderated space for anyone interested?

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Do you still believe that Rand's position on patents and copyrights shows that she had "no theory of rights?" What about the theory that she presents in "Man's Rights" and other articles? Do these not count? Do they somehow disappear because you disagree with Rand on copyrights and patents? Some explanation would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

On my view if she actually had a theory she wouldn't have been able to fly totally off the rails and positively argue for the usurpation of the second inventor's property rights. It would have been cognitively impossible. But that is because I actually have a theory of what a theory is, in contrast to you, who only have a mushy-headed view of what a theory is.

So this is your "view," is it? Well, quack-a-doodle-do.

Ghs

[sjw]

Pardon my skepticism, but you are usually so full of shit that I have my doubts as to whether you even know what Rothbard's basic argument for copyright is. It can easily be summarized in two or three sentences. Care to give it a try?

You can read Kinsella on your own. If you don't believe that he refuted Rothbard do a google search.

I didn't ask about about Kinsella. I asked you to summarize Rothbard's basic argument for copyright. Do you know what it is? If you read an article by Kinsella, you should. So what is Rothbard's argument? Or are you full of shit?

Ghs

So first you utterly fail at telling me where in Rand's "theory" of rights she contradicts her IP article, and now you ask me to summarize a very particular and easy to find argument of Rothbard's? That's pretty deranged George.

Shayne

Edited February 22, 2011 by sjw

[sjw]

Is anything like a moderated 'Corner' possible, Michael, or are there objections in your mind?

William,

I don't have any objections, but I also don't have any plans.

I am setting up some blogs of my own for other stuff. I intend for these to be a bit more moderated, but maybe not. The aim of those is to generate money.

Later, here on OL, if there is an occasion for a formal debate, say between specific famous people with a specific topic and for a specific purpose, with something like putting it on for a target audience with specific benefits in mind, maybe it would be worth the time experimenting.

As it stands, OL is what it grew into being.

In fact, here's an idea. We pay for the OL blogging feature and very few people use it. If I am not mistaken, an OL blogger can moderate comments to it. How's that for a moderated space for anyone interested?

Michael

Well, the idea was that it would be moderated by principle, not by a person. And I was hoping it could be self-policing for the most part, where if you point out what rule someone broke then they would be honor-bound to apologize and try not to do it again. So "hard" moderation would only be used for particularly egregious cases. Also I think it's important to have competing rules and not just one person's rules.

Here's another idea: Maybe require people to pay in order to post to the area I was talking about. It'd be like a "perk" for subscribers to be able to post there. Or maybe anyone interested in the idea can pledge, and if you get enough pledges then maybe it's worth your while to try it out.

Shayne