Lazy Fair City

[moralist]

Jonathan writes:

I'm very happy and successful.

Jonathan, no one with your attitude could ever be successful in life, because it would poison their business and personal relationships.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

Greg I'm pretty sure Jonathan could easily market his paintings. Artists can and do come in all different temperaments and personalities. It is the art that matters.

[Wolf DeVoon]

unlike the characters in Atlas Shrugged's Galt's Gulch, the characters involved in LFC didn't create any wealth in their gulch in Costa Rica. Instead, they fondled and massaged wealth created by others.


2/3 of the dough was paid in by a handful of bankers, names I won't divulge. One of them was like Midas Mulligan, without whom there could not have been a fictional Galt's Gulch. Did we have a John Galt? Yep, in terms of financial engineering and fractals, stuff I never understood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Orlin_Grabbe

[Wolf DeVoon]

On the topic of me promoting readership, whether I've done it badly or not, and despite whatever Google decides to index, it matters that new ideas get noticed. Maybe you don't like my ideas. Maybe no one does. That doesn't change anything.

Ayn Rand's achievement in defining the sanction of the victim was a big step, but didn't address philosophy of law.

I did.

[syrakusos]

It has been suggested, perhaps from kindness, that political progressives and other anti-capitalists denigrate the rich because it is difficult to conceptualize how a Fortune 500 CEO earns their money. We understand sports stars because we all play sports after some fashion. Very few people coordinate a complex organization. The result is that the work of CEOs is not perceived as value-production.

From what I've read of the LFC clusterfuck, it appears that, unlike Rand's fictional Galt's Gulch, no one seems to have had any notion of actually producing anything. There were apparently no Reardens, Galts, Taggarts, or d'Anconia's, and not even any fishwives, nor anyone even as productively competent as a Boyle -- no one who made or grew or invented anything of value, and no one who had any intention of ever doing so.

J

The best kind of misunderstanding of capitalism comes from within the Austrian school. They seek one essential distinguishing characteristic on which to bases a definition of entrepreneurship. Is entrepreneurship the bringing of new products and services to market? Is it risk reduction? Is it risk-taking? Is it increasing an efficiency? For some advocates of economic freedom, capitalism can only be the activity of a capitalist, i.e., an investor. Then, they have moral arguments about whether capital can come from the sale of risk ("credit" for instance via the "stock market") or must come from savings (Rothbard's claim).

One key difference between all of them and what goes on here is that actually having social status among themselves as college professors, they do not succumb to insulting each other. The Minnesota Fox challenged Wolf Devoon to a fistfight. Of course, the dreaded triple dog dare began with an insult. Like other forms of harassment, it exists largely in the mind of the victim. (It is nonetheless real, but the magnitude and direction have changed. Harassment is a vector, not a scalar.) The reason that IQ tests work at all is that for some problems, no amount of time will ever be enough: you either can find a solution or you cannot.

[Brant Gaede]

I mean that you appear to pretend a lot. You seem to be really bad and kind of desperate when it comes to marketing yourself and your "work" and the image that you want people to believe about you.

But, hey, I could be wrong. I'm willing to reconsider the vibe of phoniness that I get from you. Perhaps you could help me by addressing just one small area that I've asked you about twice already:

You call yourself a filmmaker -- here as well as other places online. Where may we see some of your films?

Have you actually produced any? I mean, you brought it up. If you're a filmmaker, and you obviously very badly wanted us all to know it, then show us your films. What's the problem?

J

Are you sure you're not being "the problem"? I was once a filmmaker-student at NYU. I, and my group, made a film. I guess that makes made me a filmmaker. Wolf said "filmmaking" in response to my question. What he "obviously very badly wanted us all to know" can't be adduced from that. Now, I was a Special Forces killer medic. How badly I want anybody to know that to the greatest degree is for me to tell you the actual specifics of what happened when I pulled the trigger? I don't care to. Thank me. I've only told two people in the almost 50 years since, one is deceased. But to really know me in any significant sense is to know what I have just told you here. Otherwise I don't make enough sense as a visible, understandable person. I've decided to illuminate myself to a greater degree so more know about me. This is only just the beginning. It has to do with marketing and salesmanship of products I intend to produce. It's not the actual things, for they could be other things--I just use those for they are mine or of me--it's a part of attaining visibility. You cannot do this abstractly but you can tell lies that illustrate a correct (true) abstraction as many are wont to do. I don't. That's why I say I can drive the big rig and fly an airplane. I have the licenses. I also can't swim worth a damn. There are some things of import I won't relate. Maybe I will come to later. The test stone is that aforementioned sales and marketing. Truths can be used against you as a form of banishment. Or even to destroy you. Like Blake said about it: "A truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent." It's not the truths; it's the lies slipped in with the package. I don't/won't tell all, I just won't lie but can live with the "lie" of omission.

What a have related here is on the exact same level Wolf did with that one word response. I just armored myself up better. "Badly" or "very badly" has nothing to do with it respecting others. It has essentially to do with my inner state of being becoming more of my concomitant aura. BUFF IT UP! Everybody has one, after all. "Filmmaking" is part of Wolf's. You want him to come with specifics you can use as bullets to shoot him? WTF? WhyTF would anybody do that?

--Brant

So, you think that it's kind of a generally accepted practice that people who took a course once in filmmaking promote themselves, in online resumes and bios, as filmmakers rather than as one-time students of a filmmaking class? If I took a class on space travel, you wouldn't call it an exaggeration or a bit of phoniness if I went around calling myself an astronaut?

I think the context that you're missing, Brant, is that when "Wolf" showed up here again recently, I thought that I'd refresh my memory of who he was, or who he presented himself as being, so I spent a few minutes Googling and looking over the results, and I noticed what appeared to me to be some rather funny posings. It appeared to me that someone was badly, transparently attempting to craft an illusion. Do a little Googling yourself and see if you don't get the same vibe.

And as I've said, I could be wrong. I've got a pretty damn good nose, but sometimes I misidentify a scent. That's why I'm asking questions. If I've gotten it wrong, I'll apologize.

J

Oh, my vague memory is Wolf was more into it than taking a course--I took two--in filmmaking. I never got the sense he was still in the business, but he said when he took off last he had some kind of writing project that seemed to fit into that.

I experience Wolf as someone of many parts hard to add up to a complete person. I've got a little more info than others here for he once or twice or thrice contacted me by email, but the specifics are private except they represent more parts and I don't consider them more or less important than the other parts. (Edit: I can't add up those parts.)

As for you, I have a hard core strong sense of who you are, but, like anyone else here who reads your postings (except Greg), I know it's not enough to generalize to a person. You do have a harsh and raw way of addressing people on the Internet, but it's always reactively off what they have posted. It would be interesting to me to meet and interact with you and compare my sense of you now with that. Like Greg, I don't remember you ever starting a thread. (You may have.) I find that interesting in itself. You seem like an idea wood chipper and Greg seems like a people wood chipper. Or, such are your day jobs on the Internet (OL). I know this is too simple, but on OL the exceptions would be irrelevant at least until some threads are created. I occasionally start a thread, but I generally mostly react to something then get expansive off that if I can think of other things to say. I do that a lot, sometimes going over the top. Maybe it's a testosterone thing. Maybe that's why you and Greg keep tangling with each other. And maybe that's why women don't seem to find this and similar places amenable to their presence. Men, after all, go out to fight, hunt, work and play and some of them come here for some of that. Sometimes I think I'm back in junior high school or high school here, before the boys have learned to master their hormones. (After graduation many are harvested by the military and given guns.) That's the masculine universal with exceptions galore.

--Brant

"Welcome home sweetheart--how is the war going? Here's your drink. Let's get those boots off."

[Brant Gaede]

On the topic of me promoting readership, whether I've done it badly or not, and despite whatever Google decides to index, it matters that new ideas get noticed. Maybe you don't like my ideas. Maybe no one does. That doesn't change anything.

Ayn Rand's achievement in defining the sanction of the victim was a big step, but didn't address philosophy of law.

I did.

So did the Founding Fathers. They didn't have Rand. Did you make good use of her ideas? Did you use her "sanction of the victim" or is it not usable in political philosophy?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

unlike the characters in Atlas Shrugged's Galt's Gulch, the characters involved in LFC didn't create any wealth in their gulch in Costa Rica. Instead, they fondled and massaged wealth created by others.

2/3 of the dough was paid in by a handful of bankers, names I won't divulge. One of them was like Midas Mulligan, without whom there could not have been a fictional Galt's Gulch. Did we have a John Galt? Yep, in terms of financial engineering and fractals, stuff I never understood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Orlin_Grabbe

There could have easily been a Galt's Gulch without Mulligan. Any one of several members of the Gulch, the ones who created wealth, could have purchased the valley, and without even noticing a dent in their wallets. On the other hand, Mulligan would not have been who he was without others' creation of wealth.

J

[Jonathan]

On the topic of me promoting readership, whether I've done it badly or not, and despite whatever Google decides to index, it matters that new ideas get noticed. Maybe you don't like my ideas. Maybe no one does. That doesn't change anything.

Ayn Rand's achievement in defining the sanction of the victim was a big step, but didn't address philosophy of law.

I did.

I don't see any examples of filmmaking listed. I don't see any links to films.

J

[moralist]

Brant writes:

You do have a harsh and raw way of addressing people on the Internet, but it's always reactively off what they have posted.

How a person behaves on a micro scale reveals how they deal with the macro world. The pattern of emotionally reactive behavior Jonathan displays here speaks volumes about himself and how he deals with his own life. It's the hallmark of a failure. Failures aren't the masters of their own emotions. Because by the sanction of their own negative reactions do they make themselves victims of the world around them. Being emotionally reactive poisons business and personal relations.

Whatever makes a person emotionally react controls them.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

unlike the characters in Atlas Shrugged's Galt's Gulch, the characters involved in LFC didn't create any wealth in their gulch in Costa Rica. Instead, they fondled and massaged wealth created by others.

2/3 of the dough was paid in by a handful of bankers, names I won't divulge. One of them was like Midas Mulligan, without whom there could not have been a fictional Galt's Gulch. Did we have a John Galt? Yep, in terms of financial engineering and fractals, stuff I never understood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Orlin_Grabbe

There could have easily been a Galt's Gulch without Mulligan. Any one of several members of the Gulch, the ones who created wealth, could have purchased the valley, and without even noticing a dent in their wallets. On the other hand, Mulligan would not have been who he was without others' creation of wealth.

J

I'm sorry, but deployment of capital is essential to wealth creation. J.P. Morgan created US Steel that way. It's true he didn't build the plants or the businesses from the ground up, but he did add synergistic value. It's also true his wealth when he died was only a fraction of Carnegie's. Carnegie was a much more valuable producer, but Morgan did produce and represented an essential capitalist function. There's a moral equivalence therein not measured by dollars. That's how we can throw artists into this mix. They are much less "essential" to the economy but not to human being. Even the cavemen made wonderful art.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

It has been suggested, perhaps from kindness, that political progressives and other anti-capitalists denigrate the rich because it is difficult to conceptualize how a Fortune 500 CEO earns their money. We understand sports stars because we all play sports after some fashion. Very few people coordinate a complex organization. The result is that the work of CEOs is not perceived as value-production.

From what I've read of the LFC clusterfuck, it appears that, unlike Rand's fictional Galt's Gulch, no one seems to have had any notion of actually producing anything. There were apparently no Reardens, Galts, Taggarts, or d'Anconia's, and not even any fishwives, nor anyone even as productively competent as a Boyle -- no one who made or grew or invented anything of value, and no one who had any intention of ever doing so.

J

The best kind of misunderstanding of capitalism comes from within the Austrian school. They seek one essential distinguishing characteristic on which to bases a definition of entrepreneurship. Is entrepreneurship the bringing of new products and services to market? Is it risk reduction? Is it risk-taking? Is it increasing an efficiency? For some advocates of economic freedom, capitalism can only be the activity of a capitalist, i.e., an investor. Then, they have moral arguments about whether capital can come from the sale of risk ("credit" for instance via the "stock market") or must come from savings (Rothbard's claim).

One key difference between all of them and what goes on here is that actually having social status among themselves as college professors, they do not succumb to insulting each other. The Minnesota Fox challenged Wolf Devoon to a fistfight. Of course, the dreaded triple dog dare began with an insult. Like other forms of harassment, it exists largely in the mind of the victim. (It is nonetheless real, but the magnitude and direction have changed. Harassment is a vector, not a scalar.) The reason that IQ tests work at all is that for some problems, no amount of time will ever be enough: you either can find a solution or you cannot.

Actually, I didn't insult "Wolf," but identified the reality of his hypersensitivity, after which he responded with an overreaction of even greater hypersensitivity. I merely accurately called him a name, "Pup," because he had whimpered and deleted his text. He replied to me with a literal threat of a fistfight, although a veiled one. So, get it straight about who is behaving like a barroom brawler (while alternately whimpering when his bluff is called).

As for your comments on economics, you're apparently reading into my comments what isn't there. You're inferring motives and positions that I havent taken.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

You do have a harsh and raw way of addressing people on the Internet, but it's always reactively off what they have posted.

How a person behaves on a micro scale reveals how they deal with the macro world. The pattern of emotionally reactive behavior Jonathan displays here speaks volumes about himself and how he deals with his own life. It's the hallmark of a failure. Failures aren't the masters of their own emotions. Because by the sanction of their own negative reactions do they make themselves victims of the world around them. Being emotionally reactive poisons business and personal relations.

Whatever makes a person emotionally react controls them.

Greg

By taking a likely valid generalization and applying it to one person you are traducing data not yet available to you. It might be a great even money bet if you can find a sucker to make it with and not a gamble if multiple bets about multiple people are waiting for you to put up the money, but what you know and what you think you know aren't necessarily the same thing.

Since you don't deal with ideas but people and their behavior you only come across as an ass-chewer and never someone who gets his ass chewed, because of your righteous deportments in your life. You're like an Ayn Rand heroic character that way--there is no sense of how you got to be you. Since you're a real person, that's a huge red flag.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

You do have a harsh and raw way of addressing people on the Internet, but it's always reactively off what they have posted.

How a person behaves on a micro scale reveals how they deal with the macro world. The pattern of emotionally reactive behavior Jonathan displays here speaks volumes about himself and how he deals with his own life. It's the hallmark of a failure. Failures aren't the masters of their own emotions. Because by the sanction of their own negative reactions do they make themselves victims of the world around them. Being emotionally reactive poisons business and personal relations.

Whatever makes a person emotionally react controls them.

Greg

Yes and no. You specialize in overgeneralizing. Pissing someone off and getting punched in the nose because I did is not my idea of "control." All emotions, btw, are "reactive." The problem is how they are expressed and if they are positive or negative. I'd rather be pissed off and deal with that up front than deal with a "cold fish" with no personality to speak of. People who are like bank vaults have little social or interactive value. My current assumption is there is likely not much of value inside. What they want to hide and protect I couldn't care less about; I'm outta there. No need to wait for any lies. (This does not apply to common trade.)

--Brant

[Jonathan]

unlike the characters in Atlas Shrugged's Galt's Gulch, the characters involved in LFC didn't create any wealth in their gulch in Costa Rica. Instead, they fondled and massaged wealth created by others.

2/3 of the dough was paid in by a handful of bankers, names I won't divulge. One of them was like Midas Mulligan, without whom there could not have been a fictional Galt's Gulch. Did we have a John Galt? Yep, in terms of financial engineering and fractals, stuff I never understood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Orlin_Grabbe

There could have easily been a Galt's Gulch without Mulligan. Any one of several members of the Gulch, the ones who created wealth, could have purchased the valley, and without even noticing a dent in their wallets. On the other hand, Mulligan would not have been who he was without others' creation of wealth.

J

I'm sorry, but deployment of capital is essential to wealth creation. J.P. Morgan created US Steel that way. It's true he didn't build the plants or the businesses from the ground up, but he did add synergistic value. It's also true his wealth when he died was only a fraction of Carnegie's. Carnegie was a much more valuable producer, but Morgan did produce and represented an essential capitalist function. There's a moral equivalence therein not measured by dollars. That's how we can throw artists into this mix. They are much less "essential" to the economy but not to human being. Even the cavemen made wonderful art.

--Brant

Yes, bankers can add value, or speed up the process of wealth creation, but they are not necessary to the creation of wealth.

J

But wealth creators are necessary for the existence of bankers.

[Jonathan]

Brant writes:You do have a harsh and raw way of addressing people on the Internet, but it's always reactively off what they have posted.

How a person behaves on a micro scale reveals how they deal with the macro world. The pattern of emotionally reactive behavior Jonathan displays here speaks volumes about himself and how he deals with his own life. It's the hallmark of a failure. Failures aren't the masters of their own emotions. Because by the sanction of their own negative reactions do they make themselves victims of the world around them. Being emotionally reactive poisons business and personal relations. Whatever makes a person emotionally react controls them.Greg

By that theory, you behave in real life as stupidly as you did in regard to the doomsday predictions that you believed and promoted, and about which you sneered and snarled and judged others as inferior.

Heh. As for your notion that I'm not a master of my emotions, you're projecting. I'm cool as a cucumber. You're the one who is all worked up. I'm calmy defeating your (and others') arguments and poses, and I'm laughing while doing it. You're mistaking your anger as being mine.

J

[Jonathan]

I mean that you appear to pretend a lot. You seem to be really bad and kind of desperate when it comes to marketing yourself and your "work" and the image that you want people to believe about you.

But, hey, I could be wrong. I'm willing to reconsider the vibe of phoniness that I get from you. Perhaps you could help me by addressing just one small area that I've asked you about twice already:

You call yourself a filmmaker -- here as well as other places online. Where may we see some of your films?

Have you actually produced any? I mean, you brought it up. If you're a filmmaker, and you obviously very badly wanted us all to know it, then show us your films. What's the problem?

J

Are you sure you're not being "the problem"? I was once a filmmaker-student at NYU. I, and my group, made a film. I guess that makes made me a filmmaker. Wolf said "filmmaking" in response to my question. What he "obviously very badly wanted us all to know" can't be adduced from that. Now, I was a Special Forces killer medic. How badly I want anybody to know that to the greatest degree is for me to tell you the actual specifics of what happened when I pulled the trigger? I don't care to. Thank me. I've only told two people in the almost 50 years since, one is deceased. But to really know me in any significant sense is to know what I have just told you here. Otherwise I don't make enough sense as a visible, understandable person. I've decided to illuminate myself to a greater degree so more know about me. This is only just the beginning. It has to do with marketing and salesmanship of products I intend to produce. It's not the actual things, for they could be other things--I just use those for they are mine or of me--it's a part of attaining visibility. You cannot do this abstractly but you can tell lies that illustrate a correct (true) abstraction as many are wont to do. I don't. That's why I say I can drive the big rig and fly an airplane. I have the licenses. I also can't swim worth a damn. There are some things of import I won't relate. Maybe I will come to later. The test stone is that aforementioned sales and marketing. Truths can be used against you as a form of banishment. Or even to destroy you. Like Blake said about it: "A truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent." It's not the truths; it's the lies slipped in with the package. I don't/won't tell all, I just won't lie but can live with the "lie" of omission.

What a have related here is on the exact same level Wolf did with that one word response. I just armored myself up better. "Badly" or "very badly" has nothing to do with it respecting others. It has essentially to do with my inner state of being becoming more of my concomitant aura. BUFF IT UP! Everybody has one, after all. "Filmmaking" is part of Wolf's. You want him to come with specifics you can use as bullets to shoot him? WTF? WhyTF would anybody do that?

--Brant

So, you think that it's kind of a generally accepted practice that people who took a course once in filmmaking promote themselves, in online resumes and bios, as filmmakers rather than as one-time students of a filmmaking class? If I took a class on space travel, you wouldn't call it an exaggeration or a bit of phoniness if I went around calling myself an astronaut?

I think the context that you're missing, Brant, is that when "Wolf" showed up here again recently, I thought that I'd refresh my memory of who he was, or who he presented himself as being, so I spent a few minutes Googling and looking over the results, and I noticed what appeared to me to be some rather funny posings. It appeared to me that someone was badly, transparently attempting to craft an illusion. Do a little Googling yourself and see if you don't get the same vibe.

And as I've said, I could be wrong. I've got a pretty damn good nose, but sometimes I misidentify a scent. That's why I'm asking questions. If I've gotten it wrong, I'll apologize.

J

Oh, my vague memory is Wolf was more into it than taking a course--I took two--in filmmaking. I never got the sense he was still in the business, but he said when he took off last he had some kind of writing project that seemed to fit into that.

I experience Wolf as someone of many parts hard to add up to a complete person. I've got a little more info than others here for he once or twice or thrice contacted me by email, but the specifics are private except they represent more parts and I don't consider them more or less important than the other parts. (Edit: I can't add up those parts.)

As for you, I have a hard core strong sense of who you are, but, like anyone else here who reads your postings (except Greg), I know it's not enough to generalize to a person. You do have a harsh and raw way of addressing people on the Internet, but it's always reactively off what they have posted. It would be interesting to me to meet and interact with you and compare my sense of you now with that. Like Greg, I don't remember you ever starting a thread. (You may have.) I find that interesting in itself. You seem like an idea wood chipper and Greg seems like a people wood chipper. Or, such are your day jobs on the Internet (OL). I know this is too simple, but on OL the exceptions would be irrelevant at least until some threads are created. I occasionally start a thread, but I generally mostly react to something then get expansive off that if I can think of other things to say. I do that a lot, sometimes going over the top. Maybe it's a testosterone thing. Maybe that's why you and Greg keep tangling with each other. And maybe that's why women don't seem to find this and similar places amenable to their presence. Men, after all, go out to fight, hunt, work and play and some of them come here for some of that. Sometimes I think I'm back in junior high school or high school here, before the boys have learned to master their hormones. (After graduation many are harvested by the military and given guns.) That's the masculine universal with exceptions galore.

--Brant

"Welcome home sweetheart--how is the war going? Here's your drink. Let's get those boots off."

I think you're wrong about your views on what women think, or what they dislike. I get private messages from female members here, generally from ones who don't post often, if at all, expressing that they love my takedowns of the puffed up alpha male wannabes. Unlike the boys here, they tend to see the humor, and they don't misidentify me as being the one who is emotionally out of control.

J

[Selene]

... I get private messages from female members here, generally from ones who don't post often, if at all, expressing that they love my takedowns of the puffed up alpha male wannabes. Unlike the boys here, they tend to see the humor, and they don't misidentify me as being the one who is emotionally out of control.

J

I think they may be jockeying for some intimate body painting...

A...

[Brant Gaede]

I think you're wrong about your views on what women think, or what they dislike. I get private messages from female members here, generally from ones who don't post often, if at all, expressing that they love my takedowns of the puffed up alpha male wannabes. Unlike the boys here, they tend to see the humor, and they don't misidentify me as being the one who is emotionally out of control.

J

I didn't say you were emotionally out of control. Did I imply it? If I did that's not what I think. I think you've got them under control--with iron, in fact. (If iron is needed.) Sometimes I manage to piss off Greg at least a little. I can see it seeping up through his floorboards. I don't mean too, but enjoy it when it happens.

--Brant

emotionalist and no expert on women--no man's man* is

*not a man's man--I'm a man's man man**

**I can't help myself from eating up all the fun--never mind what I really am, I just enjoy laughing at myself and my constructions

[Jonathan]

I think you're wrong about your views on what women think, or what they dislike. I get private messages from female members here, generally from ones who don't post often, if at all, expressing that they love my takedowns of the puffed up alpha male wannabes. Unlike the boys here, they tend to see the humor, and they don't misidentify me as being the one who is emotionally out of control.

J

I don't think I said you were emotionally out of control. Did I imply it?

--Brant

No, you didn't. Others did. Sorry for the confusion.

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan writes:

I'm very happy and successful.

Jonathan, no one with your attitude could ever be successful in life, because it would poison their business and personal relationships.

Greg

The reality is that in real life, as opposed to online participation, there is rarely ever a situation in which I have to deflate someone's puffing and posing, or their attempted belittling of others. When face to face with people in reality, I don't run into angry mystic zealots who, due to their own massive stupidity, misidentify me as a "feminized leftist" or other such nonsense. I don't encounter people who ignore reality and repeatedly insist that I can't possibly have succeeded at anything because I disagreed with one of their kooky, fallacious opinions. In real life, I'm usually dealing with very rational, productive people who aren't intellectually insecure or emotionally unstable, and therefore they're quite easy to get along with.

J

[Jonathan]

Here's a thread which is a fun little study in certain folks dishing out much more of last fall what they can't take themselves today:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14641

Heh. All sorts of vicious speculations. And even harsh judgments of the film by people who hadn't yet seen it!!!!

Post 107 is especially precious. "No brag. Just fact." Hahahaha! Posing and puffing at its most ridiculous.

J

[Peter]

Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy. George Carlin

Everyone knows what we are talking about here. It is “The Freeman’s Constitution,” so we should just quote it as needed, without attribution.

The Freeman's Constitution does not ordain or establish a state. Rather, it is the organizational law of the laissez faire bar . . . . Laissez faire law does not recognize the "sovereign power" of a state to levy taxes, issue passports, coin money, or regulate banking or commerce.

In it, Wolf quoted Robert Gordon: The power exerted by a legal regime consists less in the force that it can bring to bear against violators of its rules than in its capacity to persuade people that the world described in its images and categories is the only attainable world in which a sane person would want to live.
end quote

Some of the conglomeration of concepts Wolf deals with are: Persuasion (and in a sense culture) is paramount. Retaliatory force is a last resort. Only individuals or their private defense agencies can use retaliatory force. His world is the only attainable one. His ideal world is the only world where a sane person would want to live. The government only consists of a judiciary. And he calls his jurisdiction a city.

Do you see any problems with that?
Peter

[Peter]

Wolf wrote: . . . persons ruled in contempt shall enjoy no standing to sue, no right to due process, and no right to public justice . . . . . To be outlawed for contempt is a heavy punishment. Stripped of the protection of law, an outlaw has no right to life or liberty, innocent or otherwise. His bankers can empty an outlawed account, his friends and associates are forced to think twice about entering into or continuing to honor what are now illegal, unenforceable agreements with an outlaw, and his personal safety is put in jeopardy, since an outlaw may be detained or harmed by any law abiding person with impunity.
end quote

What about stoning? Wolf’s wild kingdom is starting to sound Biblical or medieval. So, if the condemned has a faction, clan, or family, who support him, I suppose they are also dishonored? And they live right next door? Why this means war! Wolf is not going forward in thinking. He is reverting to Oligarchies, with ruling houses like the Shakespearean Houses of Montague, and Capulet where the NEW SUPER MAN AND LADY use computers, cell phones, Bit Coins and they all exist simultaneously in Cyber territories. This sounds like video game mentality touted as having real world applications. Perhaps Wolf can persuade Raj, Howard, Shelden and Leonard from The Big Bang Theory, to emigrate when he finds new, unused land, but Penny, Amy, and Bernadette won’t fall for the spiel.
Peter

[Wolf DeVoon]

It was nice of you to mention The Freeman's Constitution again.

However, this interpretation is 100% goofy:

Some of the conglomeration of concepts Wolf deals with are: Persuasion (and in a sense culture) is paramount. Retaliatory force is a last resort. Only individuals or their private defense agencies can use retaliatory force. His world is the only attainable one. His ideal world is the only world where a sane person would want to live. The government only consists of a judiciary. And he calls his jurisdiction a city.

Persuasion is never mentioned in the Articles or my comments. Exactly the reverse. Every Article provides for judicially sanctioned use of force, including bills of attainder tantamount to a death sentence for flight to avoid prosecution. Article IV authorizes personal use of force for self-defense or defense of the life of another. Article V is a declaration of war.

No individual or private agency is permitted to use retaliatory force (punish another). The only thing any person is legally permitted to do is bring a complaint to be adjudicated by a court of first instance as provided in Articles I and II.

"My world" (whatever that means?) is not discussed in The Freeman's Constitution. Nor is a government established. Jurisdiction of laissez faire courts is global and perpetual, not tied to geographic territory. Laissez Faire City was not a city. The purpose of The Freeman's Constitution was to articulate the constitutional law of freemen, including those who represent others in courts of law. Election of judges was borrowed from Benjamin Franklin's proposal at the Federal Convention of 1787, a proposal that was ignored in favor of political appointments for life, which produced the bizarre and shameful legal system you have today in the United States -- a political trainwreck with no definition of justice.

How you got so much wrong amazes me.

[more text deleted]