Going Galt

[jtucek]

Look, I lived in a country that for 40 years had the borders lined with barbed wire. I am not comparing USA to that. But do you really claim that you are fine with your government saying, "leave if you wish, we still own you and you owe us a slice of whatever you earn, wherever you go."?

So ... how far do things have to go before you'd personally call them totalitarian?

[Derek McGowan]

Look, I lived in a country that for 40 years had the borders lined with barbed wire. I am not comparing USA to that. But do you really claim that you are fine with your government saying, "leave if you wish, we still own you and you owe us a slice of whatever you earn, wherever you go."?

So ... how far do things have to go before you'd personally call them totalitarian?

It's a fair question, but while we wait for MSK response, I'd like to ask you, what is the minimum amount of government influence that would define it as totalitarian?

Are there any countries today that do not fall under your definition?

[Brant Gaede]

Totalitar

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.

In a totalitarian state good luck in having a "worldwide income." Those IRS taxes are a comparative triviality. Here in the States we are watching the jaws close but they still have a long, long way to go. Frankly, they'll never close. Too many people with guns and gun mentality with guns not being needed, only the mentality. Symptomatically, the totalitarian state once established has one part responsible for the creation of that state turn on all power competing parts that also helped and destroy them. This happened in Nazi Germany and communist Russia, both in the 1930s. It happened in China at least twice under Mao. (The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.) The China model had significant variations off the other two and was somewhat copied by the Cambodian, not Vietnamese, communists. Each of the four also encompassed massive genocides. The Soviets used starvation, especially in the Ukraine. The Nazis went after the Jews. Etc.

--Brant

[jtucek]

OK, guys, maybe calling your country totalitarian is even offensive to you, when clearly your media are free, guns can be freely owned, etc. - all of them aspects that are unthinkable to the historic examples of totalitarian dictatorships. I take it back.

US is generally more free than Europe, but when I see your rules on expat taxation, it just screams 'barbed wire' to me. At the risk of offending you further, maybe the means of control exercised over society have simply gotten more sophisticated in your case.

[Brant Gaede]

OK, guys, maybe calling your country totalitarian is even offensive to you, when clearly your media are free, guns can be freely owned, etc. - all of them aspects that are unthinkable to the historic examples of totalitarian dictatorships. I take it back.

US is generally more free than Europe, but when I see your rules on expat taxation, it just screams 'barbed wire' to me. At the risk of offending you further, maybe the means of control exercised over society have simply gotten more sophisticated in your case.

No. It's offensive to understanding of what totalitarian really is. Barbed wire, literal or figurative, isn't enough although an essential part of it. Massive use of barbed wire started in the American west to control cattle in the 19th C. I suppose the cows had a complaint. It hits people when it's used to control them, but that still isn't enough for totalitarian which requires the creation and maintenance of rule by sheer terror starting out, then ossifying into general control of a thoroughly beaten down population ratting each other out to the masters of it all. For Americans that's only a little seasoning. Most IRS rat-outs are for money.

--Brant

[Derek McGowan]

Philosophical rhetorical burdens have no effect on real life.

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

Allow me to explain why I stand behind my above statement.

Speaking of ones lack of entitled income as an evil is/could very well be rehtorical in the real world because unless you own your own business than you don't actually feel the money being taken from you. I have real estate rentals, residential and commercial so I do my own taxes and I pay my own taxes but I am not of the majority. Most people either pay no taxes (seniors, disabled, or poor) or work for someone else who subtracts the taxes for them. If they weren't aware that taxes were being taken out how many of them would be outrage over this "thereotical" amount that is taken. And I mean let's be real here,the world is not full of heavily engaged capitalists looking to maxmize every working hour.

The rhetoric would have had no effect on Elke either because she would have been working for a corporation that did not reveal her tax "burden". I put burden in quotes because her budget is based on what she does get, not some number that she could get.

The same with pay among peers. If your job pays you enough( by your standards) how could possibly be militant about what you COULD be getting unless you knew about your peers getting more.

In fact when you do find out, you only get mad because of human imagination which shows you what you could be doing, and not so much because of the principal of getting cheated. You (most people not all) just want the possibilities.

Now let's talk about the 20% who do have businesses and pay income tax. Not all of them have a problem with taxes. At least not allof them look at it as you do. I myself take issue with taxes mostly because they are involuntary. Not because they are involuntary to me, I don't actually mind paying what I consider to be my part, but because they are involuntary to others who may not hold my same feelings. I respect others freedom and indivduality to recognize that not everyone is the same or wants to be the same. We all have different motivations, therefore we should push for freedom. Meaning I would still be free to donate to NASA (the reason for my above statement) and to road crews. And if you didn't want to donate,and didn't still use or benefit from those service, then you would be free to retract.

See my book

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But do you really claim that you are fine with your government saying, "leave if you wish, we still own you and you owe us a slice of whatever you earn, wherever you go."?

JT,

No.

I'm going to assume you want to discuss this and not just make unwarranted assumptions to scratch an itch.

So please reread my words--or read them anywhere on this site--and see if I am fine with big government.

Here's where I'm coming from.

In my way of thinking, to most effectively use the prefrontal cortex, you have to use the cognitive before normative approach. It's an epistemology thing, not a political thing and certainly not a peer pressure thing.

This means you identify correctly in order to judge correctly. In that order.

Most people are comfortable judging first, then running after facts to fit it. What's worse, the lower parts of our brains are designed to do just that. In order to use reason effectively, though, you have to make an extra effort to get the identification correct because the lower brain is tugging to do the opposite.

If you misidentify something, or muck up identifying it with overextended rhetoric, your evaluations will reflect that. This will effect your actions--generally not in a good way.

Also, people will sense it and you will lose persuasive capacity with independents and those who think differently than you do.

You will get a following of people with your bias. So if you just want to spit on targets, that's one thing. That's for putting on a show for people with your bias.

If you want to convince people for real, though, meaning those who think differently than you do, you first have to get them to know you, like you and trust you. I'm not big on doing personality games for this (although I study them a lot), so my own approach to getting people to know me, like me and trust me is to be accurate and honest.

It's true, I haven't ramped up any efforts to persuade people (I have plans for encouraging cultural production in the future), but I do try to maintain accuracy as a starting point in all my thinking and interactions. That is the basis of all my future marketing (of novels, movies, etc.) where I will have to include the other stuff on top.

Using overextended rhetoric is like the online Hitler thing, Godwin's Law. After you call everything you disagree with Hitler, what do you call Hitler when you meet him?

To be clear, I don't like the IRS getting taxes from citizens living within the USA, much less making claims on those who move abroad. But that's not Hitler, who was the epitome of totalitarian. So I just say I oppose the IRS, don't agree with what it does, in fact, I think it's very existence is immoral, and I support politicians who wish to abolish it. I can do that while here in the USA and have a reasonable shot at pulling it off.

If the USA were to become totalitarian for real (secret police picking up people in the middle of the night over ideology, political prisoners, exit visas, etc.) and I got stuck here, I would take other measures. I certainly did in Brazil.

But that's nowhere near the case right now. The USA still has checks and balances. Clunky and imperfect, but still pretty effective at keeping the real-deal dictators away.

btw - I'm not offended by someone calling the USA names. I don't like it, but that's not a fundamental concern I have. My deal is epistemology: identifying correctly, then judging correctly, so I can afterward take effective action.

Michael

[Selene]

J man, this is part of what Americans see as a totalitarian state.

This article is about the secret police of East Germany. For its other common meaning, see Stasi Commission. For the regular police in East Germany, see Volkspolizei.
Ministry for State Security Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS)

The Ministry for State Security (German: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, MfS), commonly known as the Stasi (IPA: [ˈʃtaːziː]) (abbreviation German: Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), also State Security Service (German Staatssicherheitsdienst, SSD), was the official state security service of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), colloquially known as East Germany. It has been described as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies to have ever existed.[2][3][4][5][6][7] The Stasi was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. The Stasi motto was "Schild und Schwert der Partei" (Shield and Sword of the Party), referring to the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).

One of its main tasks was spying on the population, mainly through a vast network of citizens turned informants, and fighting any opposition by overt and covert measures, including hidden psychological destruction of dissidents (Zersetzung, literally meaning decomposition). Its Main Directorate for Reconnaissance (German: Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung) was responsible for both espionage and for conducting covert operations in foreign countries. Under its long-time head Markus Wolf, it gained a reputation as one of the most effective intelligence agencies of the Cold War. Numerous Stasi officials were prosecuted for their crimes after 1990. After German reunification, the surveillance files that the Stasi had maintained on millions of East Germans were laid open, so that any citizen could inspect their personal file on request; these files are now maintained by the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records.

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

As the off stage horror in the hall, the State now has the technology with miniaturized drones to effectively monitor everyone.

Need I say more?

A...

[Derek McGowan]

in other news, Im about a mile from riots happening as we speak in Baltimore

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-university-of-baltimore-closes-amid-high-school-purge-threat-20150427-story.html

[Francisco Ferrer]

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.

If the 80% have no moral scruples against looting the 20%, the looters will win in the long run. A social order depends ultimately on the support or acquiescence of the majority.

That is the reason a libertarian political revolution can come only after a philosophical revolution.

[BaalChatzaf]

Hello, I have written a short story (~30,000 words) - Platonic dialog style - with the main protagonist gone on a limited form of a Randian strike. You can read it in full here

Someone is probably going to tell me that this is a wrong subforum, but I do not wish to discuss the literary merits of the text, only the nature of the protagonist's strike. If someone cares to read the manuscript, we can discuss these two statements in this thread.

1. The rebellion is badly inadequate, as the protagonists still contribute something of much value, albeit of intangible value, to the looting society.
2. The rebellion is unjust, as there are services the protagonists cannot opt out of, eg. national defense, and they blankly refuse to pay for them.

Proofread your text. You misspelled Ayn Rand's name...

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jtucek]

This means you identify correctly in order to judge correctly. In that order.

While what you say has some appeal, you are wrong. We do not judge what we have identified, we judge in order to identify. See for example the concept of a swan. For centuries, people have thought being white is a necessary quality of a swan. Then some curious black birds were discovered in Australia and it took somebody's judgement to say these are indeed swans too. Our concepts were wrong and what we identified as swans had to change.

It is the same thing with a totalitarianism. You see someone curbing mobility in a perverse way, and immediately judge that as a totalitarian quality. In this case, you are correct though, that while necessary, it was not sufficient in order to identify the concept in question as a totalitarian state.

[jtucek]

you only get mad because of human imagination which shows you what you could be doing, and not so much because of the principal of getting cheated.

I will have to see your book, because I do not understand this. It is all about principles, nothing else. The only "practical" aspect to it, is that if you just accept being cheated, because you still have enough, you send somebody a message that he can get away with much more ... and one day you may regret not making that stand when things were not that bad.

Just out of interest, even accepting that this is an idealised world, what do you think of the characters joining Galt? Were they misguided to walk away from their passions in order to remove their support and their sanction?

[jtucek]

Proofread your text. You misspelled Ayn Rand's name...

OK, guys, I do not understand why this riles you so much. I say this calmly, if the language insults you, do not read it. It is there offered freely in case you choose to read it anyway. It will be proofread once done.

As a curious note, that paragraph has been read by many people, including me several times, and you are the first one to notice the typo. So it is kind of naive to think that just having something proofread is a surefire way to remove all mistakes.

[Selene]

As a curious note, that paragraph has been read by many people, including me several times, and you are the first one to notice the typo. So it is kind of naive to think that just having something proofread is a surefire way to remove all mistakes.

J man:

Out of curiosity, roughly, how many have read that paragraph and did most of them know you, or, not?

I have not read it yet, however, your opening made me decide that I will. It will be piece by piece.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Proofread your text. You misspelled Ayn Rand's name...

OK, guys, I do not understand why this riles you so much. I say this calmly, if the language insults you, do not read it. It is there offered freely in case you choose to read it anyway. It will be proofread once done.

As a curious note, that paragraph has been read by many people, including me several times, and you are the first one to notice the typo. So it is kind of naive to think that just having something proofread is a surefire way to remove all mistakes.

We each have our quirks. Why do you think we're going to dequirk for you? Then we'd be second-hander quirks to your first-handed quirking. Wouldn't it be better just for everybody to continue to quirk away the way we've always quirked?

Welcome to OL.

--Brant

if you love your typos so much put some more in and those that care can continue to have a typo hunt--after all, Easter wasn't so long ago and even though the eggs are gone we can cash in on the momentum

[jtucek]

Out of curiosity, roughly, how many have read that paragraph and did most of them know you, or, not?

4 people did, of whom 3 knew me fairly well.

if you love your typos so much put some more in and those that care can continue to have a typo hunt--after all, Easter wasn't so long ago and even though the eggs are gone we can cash in on the momentum

I don't love the typos. I was just answering the attitude, stated clearly before by someone, and perhaps only imagined by me this second time, that it is somehow an affront on my part to post anything less than 100% typo-free here.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

While what you say has some appeal, you are wrong.

Actually, this is a great example of someone who has not learned how to do cognitive before normative thinking.

Notice the evaluation, not just one evaluation, but two in that quote. That's five words per evaluation.

Notice the dogmatic certainty, too. (This is typical of those who use the normative before cognitive form of epistemology to run their conceptual volition.)

Then observe the total lack of relevant fact--but fishing instead. Here's the rest of the post.

We do not judge what we have identified, we judge in order to identify. See for example the concept of a swan. For centuries, people have thought being white is a necessary quality of a swan. Then some curious black birds were discovered in Australia and it took somebody's judgement to say these are indeed swans too. Our concepts were wrong and what we identified as swans had to change.

It is the same thing with a totalitarianism. You see someone curbing mobility in a perverse way, and immediately judge that as a totalitarian quality. In this case, you are correct though, that while necessary, it was not sufficient in order to identify the concept in question as a totalitarian state.

I'm glad he agrees with my conclusion, but I can't resist looking at the following goofball claim.

We judge in order to identify?

Heh.

There's an epistemology for you.

Cognitive before normative is a learned thinking skill for the higher part of the brain.

Some people want to learn it. Others don't.

Some people actually learn it. Others don't.

Some (I won't say who ) even deny the skill exists.

I could make an issue about this poster not reading my words very carefully when I stated: "Most people are comfortable judging first, then running after facts to fit it. What's worse, the lower parts of our brains are designed to do just that. In order to use reason effectively, though, you have to make an extra effort to get the identification correct because the lower brain is tugging to do the opposite."

In other words, I said the mind does both cognitive before normative and normative before cognitive. He treated it as if I said the mind only does one, then presumed to correct me.

But I won't make a fuss because that would mean I expect him to read carefully enough to identify correctly what he is criticizing before judging it. And he has flat out stated he prefers to judge something without knowing what it is. Worse, he prefers to judge something so he can find out what it is. And even worst than that, it's not even a preference. It's a fact for him. That's just the way it is.

(God knows how he identified that fact. )

I'm riffing off of his words, not mine. If he meant something different, I'm all ears.

But that's the second time in a short amount of time he has gotten my words wrong. After a third time, I'll bow out of my discussions with him. I can't discuss anything rationally with a person who refuses to identify correctly what is right in front of him--like simple English--before he spouts off nonsense about it. A goof is one thing. I, too, sometimes make mistakes about what someone says in the heat of the moment. We all do. And we correct it and move on.

However, goofball epistemology--consciously chosen at that--is quite another.

Michael

[jtucek]

I do deny that normative and cognitive can be divorced from each other, you do not have to hold back saying that by any means.

It is your judgement on what something ought to be, that allows you to judge whether something you examine matches that vision and so enables you to identify it.

I'll be fishing to you again, but I can live with that. Consider the concept of a nail. Your mind tells you that nails ought to be thin, strong and able to be driven into wooden walls, which enables you to judge an object lying in front of you - maybe made from a material you've never seen a nail made of - as fitting that or not, and identify it as a nail or reject it as such.

Now are you going to dissect that process into normative and cognitive aspects? That's artificial. They are inseparable in establishing a standard and applying that standard to a particular in question.

It is the same with humans as with nails, only more complex.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

JT,

You have some thinking to do and some premises to check.

I like it that you're trying. I'm not so keen on you correcting others dogmatically with your own misunderstanding.

Ditch the dogma, read a bit more carefully, and we're cool.

Michael

[moralist]

If the 80% have no moral scruples against looting the 20%...

The 80% can only loot their own kind

who also have no moral scruples.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think I'm getting grumpy...

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

If the 80% have no moral scruples against looting the 20%...

The 80% can only loot their own kind

who also have no moral scruples.

Greg

You're not following what was said earlier. "The top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes," If, as you say, "the 80% can only loot their own kind," then the top 20% would not be paying 86.3%.

One can observe the world--or one can close his eyes and make a wish.

[Derek McGowan]

you only get mad because of human imagination which shows you what you could be doing, and not so much because of the principal of getting cheated.

Just out of interest, even accepting that this is an idealised world, what do you think of the characters joining Galt? Were they misguided to walk away from their passions in order to remove their support and their sanction?

Many of them didn't leave their passions, they simply relocated to a different area to practice them again. The others who did leave their passions all together to work for another in the gulch.... I had a big problem with that when I read it the second time.

Seemed like it would lead to big frustration as people who spent there whole lives working out of joy in a particular industry suddenly had to put that life satisfaction on the back burner. But then it was pointed out by a OL member that the gulch was not a permanent settlement and by the end of the book they went back into the world

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Many of them didn't leave their passions, they simply relocated to a different area to practice them again. The others who did leave their passions all together to work for another in the gulch.... I had a big problem with that when I read it the second time.

Seemed like it would lead to big frustration as people who spent there whole lives working out of joy in a particular industry suddenly had to put that life satisfaction on the back burner. But then it was pointed out by a OL member that the gulch was not a permanent settlement and by the end of the book they went back into the world

Derek,

You might be interested to know you are not the only one with that perception. A very famous public relations dude, Ryan Holiday, came to a similar conclusion (this was back in 2007), except he mixed it up with Plato's Cave, Alinsky (of all people), Theodore Roosevelt and Marcus Aurelius:

The Gulch and the Cave

So I read Atlas Shrugged and I liked it. I ended up heading over to UCLA and attending a lecture on Objectivism and Ayn Rand philosophy just to hear more about it. But here is what I don’t like about it–the idea that it is somehow noble to just quit and leave.

. . .

There is that Roosevelt quote about the gladiators in the arena, or the Aurelius line about how nothing provokes change like seeing the virtues embodied in the people around you.

Even if you push it just one step forward, so long as you hand it off to the next in line. Maybe it’s just me but it seems like there is more dignity in that than in cavorting around in a hidden valley in Colorado reciting verbose creeds to unlock magical doors. I’m not saying I want to die on a train like Eddie Willers, not knowing what I was working for or why, but if they’d never turned it around and the world had ended, I’d have rather gone out as Dagny Taggart than as John Galt. Because at least she tried.

His take on Plato's Cave is different than the standard one in O-Land. He sees it more in a social context and learning in general, not necessarily the inability to see idealized forms

I find it attractive. And he wrote that when he was 20--before he blew the lid off of media manipulation in Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator.

I like this guy, I've read two of his books so far (the other was on growth hacking). That blog post of his in interesting as well as the comments.

Michael