Ellen Stuttle

Note re "Not Good - Iran Escalation" thread

Recommended Posts

Here are a few of Kirez’s letters and letters about him. Peter

Kirez Korgan Thu 2/17/2000 12:22 PM We put together an outline to the Moral Judgment / Toleration debate between Peikoff and Kelley. It includes material by Kelley, Peikoff, Schwartz, Tracinski, and Bidinotto. I think there are 10 documents all together. There are brief descriptions in the Table of Contents page, which is arranged in chronological order. I also wrote some funny annotations -- it's called the "Introduction to Objectivist Schismology."

If anyone (Chris?) wants to supplement this directory, please send me some links and I'll include them. cheers, Kirez

From: "Kirez Korgan" To: <atlantis Subject: ATL: The Virtue of Fractional Reserve Lending (was: RE: National Bank Run Day) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 19:16:02 -0600

I regard fractional reserve banking as an excellent innovation in the history of enterprise, and one of the chief sources of economic growth and development. As far as I can tell, when Objectivists rail against fractional reserve banking, they confuse a rational market institution with the federal government's coercive intrusions upon that process. I regard their dismissal of fractional reserve lending as the equivalent of rejecting joint stock corporations because of the SEC.

When a bank issues loans on fractional reserves, they are engaging in a form of entrepreneurship -- as every creditor does. They are banking on the ability of their debtors to repay the loan. Of course, this process is now exceedingly routine. In the information age, standard lending does not consist of judging the viability of an enterprise or investment, nor judging the merit of an individual's character. It now substitutes a few simple variables for this process, to determine whether the repayment of a an individual loan is sufficiently probable.

So the modern loan process looks less like entrepreneurship, and more like a simple statistical process (and one for which there is so much data and history of success, as to make it boring). We know that not all loans will be repaid, but the rate of incidence of default is accurately forecast, and covered as routine cost of operation.

The only legitimate issue against banks engaging in fractional reserve lending is if they some how pretend that's not what they're doing. I don't know the historical record on this issue; but I know that historically, fractional reserve lending _is_ the primary business of most banks. I always found myself wondering, who the hell doesn't know this? It seems to me that when I was a child opening my first savings account, fractional reserves were explained to me by the bank, including a brief statement on the possibility of a "run." And it made perfect sense, and just like the routine nature of the rest of the process, there was some roughly estimable probability of the kind of financial panic that could create a "run" – and this is readily dismissed, since there are similar probabilities of being hit by a bus, dying in an earthquake, etc.

Shit happens, but this is not an argument for shutting down the business of judging the future productivity of capital. As I mentioned, the frequency with which shit happens is already rationally judged by the lender. You can squeal about federal deposit insurance (and you should) but this does not constitute an argument against the basic business model of fractional reserve lending.

(And we can substitute the following statement in place of "fractional reserve lending": Estimating that a certain amount of investment today, will yield a certain amount of earnings tomorrow. That's exactly what lending reduces to, plain and simple.)

The more sophisticated argument against fractional reserve lending, regards the status of the newly "created" money... when, in Andrew's example, the banking industry unilaterally adjusts the dollar from 1/20 to 1/40 an ounce of gold, by lending out $20 million on circulated receipts for $20 million of deposits. (Again, I don't buy the "unilateral" bit. It's a market process: individuals agree to mutual benefit.) The money supply is not "doubled" -- those are loans, and the market will necessitate that the debtors use them for productive gain, not for consumption (they're paying interest!). The additional funds will ONLY be used for investment purposes.

This means that the money supply is not doubled; it is only the potential for future consumption which is increased. And this, indeed, is the source of economic growth: investment. A hamburger on Tuesday for a fraction of a hamburger today. The only "inflation" going on is in the present value of future product -- which is exactly the kind of "inflation" we want.

So the money in circulation, following the practice of fractional reserve lending, is not really different from all other money. Remember that the money itself is worthless; it is a probabilistic claim on some future consumption. Ah, BUT... the libertarian responds... in a rational world, that money represents GOLD.

Yeah, and what the hell does the gold represent? It's still just a store of value, and it's only value depends on whether you can exchange it for the goods and services you'll need to survive when the time comes, or engage in morally equivalent pursuits like nibbling godiva chocolates and sipping steamy, milky darjeeling while your masseuse takes a break to relight candles and reheat the vanilla oil . . . . Kirez

From Ellen Moore: Here's one tip-off for you -- It's not wise to insult members here until after you know and understand what they are offering on Atlantis.  Even Kirez advised you to listen, learn and think before you speak.  I think you have insulted Bill Dwyer with your ignorance of his intellectual, logical, argumentative acumen.  Bill is always a gentleman, and he is one of the most thorough practitioners of logical argument we have here, and beyond that he has the most consistent and persistent talent in presenting his case -- [even when others think he is mistaken :-)].  You could begin by treating his posts with the respect his ideas deserve rather than insulting his knowledge of the world which you know not of. It's also very likely that you failed to understand the context and content of what others are writing (e.g., Jason Alexander), and that it is your responsibility to have the patience to consider and grasp their ideas.  Just a thoughtful reminder that you should apply to more than one member here. Ellen Moore

But, most of all, I believe that you will find shooting enjoyable and relaxing.  It may even become the Objectivist sport of choice (that is, other than competing for the "I'm a more righteous Objectivist than thou" crown, which is a perennial favorite).  Try to envision for the future an annual WeTheLiving shooting competition in Galt's Gulch with Kirez as the Range Master.  Imagine the odd assortment of individualists drifting into town to shoot for the Ragnar Cup Finals.  The bad guys had better stay far, far away.  😉 Safe and happy shooting. -Ross Barlow. NRA Firearms Instructor life member:  Gun Owners of America 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more from Kirez? Peter

From: "Kirez Korgan" kirez@cornell.edu To: <atlantis@wetheliving.com> Subject: ATL: Berkeley's limerick Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:46:46 -0700

In high school I wrote 'colorful' essays -- in which I made up authors, wrote positively candalous sexual metaphors, I think I even swore in one once and somehow made it apropos -- and I included Berkeley's limerick in an essay, with the riposte:

This world came before man and God,

Complex, strange, yet physically lawed,

      With ghosts, and blaspheme,

      We restlessly dream,

And draw comfort from poetic frauds.

kirez

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I had the same recollection of Larry as Ellen. Apparently there was a police overreaction:

https://hammeroftruth.com/2005/rip-larry-libertarian-larry-fullmer/

I can't find the video but I remember Larry walking with a pistol? acting a bit crazy and he was being filmed from a cell phone? as he walked down a street. His eyes looked shiny and crazy and I assumed he was on meth or coke or whatever drugs he could get. Larry was a black guy. Peter 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Peter said:

I can't find the video but I remember Larry walking with a pistol? acting a bit crazy and he was being filmed from a cell phone? as he walked down a street. His eyes looked shiny and crazy and I assumed he was on meth or coke or whatever drugs he could get. Larry was a black guy. Peter 

Apparently Larry Fullmer did live in Pocatello.  I thought he lived in Utah.  Maybe I'm confusing where he was raised with where he was living when he died.  He was raised Mormon.

What Ross said about the supposed police standoff was that gunfire was exchanged.

The police had surrounded the house, alerted by Larry's sister that Larry was suicidal, but he may have been dead already by then.

A black guy?  Man oh man. That's a new one. Sure wasn't ever mentioned by his lady friend, with whom I had some extensive correspondence about his and her relationship.  (I remember her name, but don't want to drag her in if she's still alive.  She was a number of years older than me and than Larry.)

Where did you get a supposed video, Peter?

Was it from Bill Dwyer that we heard of Larry's death?  I was trying to remember how we did hear.

I think Larry posted all upset about having lost the dog  Or maybe that was something private he sent to me.

Damn anyway, I do not have time to dig up the stuff from my old computer's storage drive.  My Larry and I have loads to do getting ready for our Vienna excursion.

Ellen

PS:  I tried a search in the Idaho State Journal archives for the original article, but the search didn't work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked thru my archives again, and on saved email on line and I could not find the video. Am I spelling his name correctly? Fullmer Peter

edit The archives of that Idaho newspaper were no help. Navigation was difficult. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said I'd be contributing $100/mo to OL starting in late July. Then I apparently made a mistake by putting an "if" in there. That "if" was I might contribute even more, not less and certainly not at all.

I thought people here could read. Even Michael fell down on that one. Michael's consistent fault is reading too fast and therefore sometimes incorrectly.

I was pissed off at Peter saying he'd take his money and leave. No one is going to get any special status here with money unless they can top me. Good luck with that.

As for my own status, it's all ready so high I can't push it up any higher with money regardless. Thus I am free to make the pledge while leaving my status entirely up to my brainwork as it's always been 

--Brant

I'm so pretty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant wrote, ". . . certainly not at all." Now I am confused. Just to play safe I will contribute just after midnight tonight so I don't lose my status. it's 11:24 now.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the newspaper article about Larry Fullmer's suicide archived on Wendy McElroy's blog.

 

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/blog/00000952.html

========== Start Blog Entry ==========

[Previous entry: "Tipline"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Leave My Child Alone"]

05/23/2005 Archived Entry: "Libertarian Larry Dead"

This news item leaves me speechless...Libertarian Larry is dead.

Deadly day in Pocatello: Standoff drives residents from neighborhood

By John O'Connell - Journal Writer 
JPOCATELLO -

He led two lives.

People throughout town knew Larry Fullmer as "Libertarian Larry." For decades, he made waves writing controversial letters to the editor on topics such as politics, war and evolution. Neighbors and co-workers knew the other Larry Fullmer - the pleasant but solitary man in his early 60s who surfaced only to walk his tiny dog in the alley behind his Garfield Avenue home.

He made two cries for help.

The first, an e-mail to his sister received Sunday morning. He wrote he was despondent and thinking of taking his own life. The second was a typed letter with a similar message, which he left in a neighbor's mailbox later that afternoon.

He fired two shots.

It was just after 9 a.m. Pocatello police officers went to Fullmer's small, yellow home at 1515 N. Garfield Ave. to perform a welfare check requested by his sister. They found no one at home and left.

Two hours passed, and a neighbor called to report the distressing letter. Officers returned and entered his home to find Fullmer inside, in his hallway, brandishing a firearm in an "aggressive manner." They backed away, and Fullmer ducked into another room. They heard the gunshots. Pocatello's immediate response team set up road blocks covering an area of several blocks. Police evacuated neighbors in the immediate vicinity, and at 1 p.m., told residents within 800 feet of Fullmer's home to evacuate via reverse 911 telephone calls.

It was 2:41 p.m. Police parked a trailer, which served as their mobile command center, in the parking lot of the nearby fire station. The immediate response team waited with shields in hand in a neighbors shady front yard. A sniper lied on the ground at the base of a tree, his gun aimed at Fullmer's open front door. Fullmer had no telephone and efforts to reach him by e-mail failed. A minute passed and the team's trained negotiator addressed him with a megaphone. 

[Photo caption: Members of the immediate response team cross the intersection at North Hayes and Gould Streets Sunday afternoon responding to a suicide note.]

"Larry, Larry, we need to talk to you. Larry, we want to make sure you're all right. Larry this is the Pocatello Police Department. We are here to help you. We will not hurt you."

At 2:42 p.m., the negotiator warned him to come out with his hands up, or his house would be filled with gas.

Nine more minutes passed.

"Larry come on, do it now!"

It was 3:03 p.m. "Bang!"

The group of neighbors gathered to watch the events unfold gasped and jumped. The officers fired a round of gas inside Fullmer's home.

Two minutes later, there was a second bang. A third bang followed at 3:15 p.m. At 3:17 p.m., there was another one. The officers fired a fifth and final round of tear gas at 3:22 p.m.

"You got your gas mask?" one of the officers asked a colleague in the emergency response team. It was 3:44 p.m., and the team started moving toward the house.

Garry Pritchett, of the Pocatello Police Department, approached the crowd of neighbors.

"Hey folks, we're trying to listen to the officers. Please keep it down, or we're going to have to ask you people to leave," Pritchett told them.

It was 3:46 p.m., and the officers were in position on Fullmer's front porch and side yard. They shattered two window panes and entered.

At 3:53 p.m., the officers gathered on Fullmer's front porch stood at ease and started conversing with each other. A few walked away from the house, back toward the command center. Others remained to rope off Fullmer's property with yellow police tape.

Larry Fullmer was never one to shy away from an argument, and his letters to the editor frequently spurred seemingly endless debates with other letter writers.

Take Fullmer's Aug. 6, 2004, letter on the war in Iraq. He wrote about his lack of empathy for families of soldiers killed in Iraq.

"Those families did nothing to oppose this war - not for liberty, but for empire. They did nothing to keep their sons and daughters from going, either ... The blood of their children is on their very own hands."

On Oct. 31, 2004, Fullmer denounced both John Kerry and George Bush and encouraged voters to pick the Libertarian Party candidate, Michael Badnarik. He weighed in on evolution Aug. 6, 2004, and responded to a letter written by Albert Gius, who claimed science's take on the topic is flawed because it differs from the Bible. "Is all of modern science guided by the devil, or what? It's a fair question Albert. I await your response. In the meantime, Albert, I'm glad you're around. With friends like you, who take it seriously and thus expose it for what it is, religion - faith without evidence, even despite the evidence - needs few enemies."

Priscilla Hearst met Fullmer on a few occasions, but she knew him best through his letters. She liked that he stood his ground, even when she disagreed with him. "Even under circumstances that were hostile, he stood his ground, and he had a message to give. I respected him for that," Hearst said. "He took a different approach. I think sometimes newspapers need to publish that kind of stuff."

For a man with such strong opinions, outside of print, he kept them to himself at his job at Heinz Frozen Foods. "I don't think I've ever seen anybody say more than a couple of words to him," said coworker Dave Millward, whose mother Judy sold Fullmer his home at 1515 N. Garfield Ave.

It was just after 4 p.m. Police cars started pulling away from their road blocks. Pritchett addressed the media. He explained police fired no shots during the encounter. As for Fullmer, Pritchett couldn't say if his two shots were aimed at police, himself or nothing in particular. But an emergency medical technician could find no vital signs, and his body was cold to the touch and surrounded by blood. 

Fullmer had been dead for several hours. 

========== End Blog Entry ==========

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the police come unto these situations they don't leave until they're resolved. When they fired in the gas that was the end of him. They made him make an immediate choice and he chose not to surrender. General MacAthur carried a derringer in WWIi to put a bullet in his head in case it was that or being captured by the Japanese.

--Brant

I guess they fired in the gas because they wanted to go home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant Gaede guessed, “. . .  they fired in the gas because they wanted to go home.“

If the perp is a showboat my sympathy is with the brothers in blue who had to take a leak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

When they fired in the gas that was the end of him.

Not according to the article, which says that the first round of gas was fired at 3:03, the police were leaving just after 4:00, and "Fullmer had been dead for several hours" by then.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if Fullmer didn't have a phone and there was no way to contact him other than bullhorn, I believe the police would have been extra-cautious before going in, especially around that time. The silence of a few hours after the gunshots would not have allayed their fears of dealing with an armed no-compromise "get off my lawn" dude. Even though he was dead (the article Ellen posted said he shot himself between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM if you tease out the time from the details), there was no way for them to have known he was dead without going in. 

In 2005, the spate of government sieges against armed right wing organizations was winding down, but not exhausted. I imagine this was still on the minds of the cops. To a cop, the difference between a right wing militia member and a government-hating libertarian was probably too much nuance for them to care about when real bullets were involved. Also, the Iraq war had been underway for a year or two and hardline libertarians were quite outspoken against it. Emotions were high and toxic back then among people who hated the war.

Not to mention the generalized fear of terrorists.

In that context, if I were a cop, I, too, would have thrown tear gas and plenty of it just to make sure before going into a possible booby-trap or ambush.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 10:12 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Michael's consistent fault is reading too fast and therefore sometimes incorrectly.

Brant.

That wasn't the case for what you said (I have my own reasons for the way I posted--and don't forget, I only have your words as you write them to go on), but that criticism for other places is fair.

Oddly enough, it's a bad habit I picked up from trying to learn speed reading. You can find a review I left on Amazon back in 2015 for one of the best books out there (see my review here - btw - Butler's system is very good for light-to-medium reading with no vocabulary issues. It's worth learning for that, but not other things.) I've gone through several methods. Alas, my mind is not great material for speed-reading.

I am going to make efforts to slow down on what I read if I intend to post about it. Maybe even run it through my audio TTS thingamajig to make sure. (I do that sometimes anyway.)

Thanks.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 6/25/2019 at 10:00 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Wanna see something?

Go to Solo Passion right now. Or RoR.

They're both closed down.

Good news.

I visited both today and both are back online.

RoR still has a few problems I get a server error 500 on the login page.  If you can't log in, then you can't post, which means no new material.  

Sounds like a database issue; hope Joe still has a competent person to repair the configuration files. 

RoR_Last_Weeks_Posts.png

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 2, 2019 at 2:16 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if Fullmer didn't have a phone and there was no way to contact him other than bullhorn, I believe the police would have been extra-cautious before going in, especially around that time. The silence of a few hours after the gunshots would not have allayed their fears of dealing with an armed no-compromise "get off my lawn" dude. Even though he was dead (the article Ellen posted said he shot himself between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM if you tease out the time from the details), there was no way for them to have known he was dead without going in. 

In 2005, the spate of government sieges against armed right wing organizations was winding down, but not exhausted. I imagine this was still on the minds of the cops. To a cop, the difference between a right wing militia member and a government-hating libertarian was probably too much nuance for them to care about when real bullets were involved. Also, the Iraq war had been underway for a year or two and hardline libertarians were quite outspoken against it. Emotions were high and toxic back then among people who hated the war.

Not to mention the generalized fear of terrorists.

In that context, if I were a cop, I, too, would have thrown tear gas and plenty of it just to make sure before going into a possible booby-trap or ambush.

Michael

Michael,

No one was objecting to the police using tear gas before they went in.

Brant had said - and I corrected - "When they fired in the gas that was the end of him."

The gas was not "the end of him." Larry Fullmer was well and truly dead before the first canister of tear gas was fired. (His body had completed the growing-cold postmortem stage by the time the emergency medical technician examined the corpse.) 

The police, however, weren't guessing as to what sort of person they were dealing with - not a violent person (for all his swearing when he got drunk, which he did often).

Consider:  If the police had the fears you suggest, they would have been disgracefully remiss to have allowed a "crowd of neighbors" to be on the scene watching.

Hindsight and all that...what I wish the police had done was to tell Larry through a bullhorn when they arrived, "Larry, we'll put out an all-points alert to find your dog if she's still alive.  You can help us."

I think that that would have worked, at least for awhile - since the dog was alive and findable.  (Larry had been especially afraid that she'd been eaten by a coyote,  She'd have made a nice morsel for a coyote.)

He was so despondent generally that even if he didn't kill himself that time, he might have later.

I wished so that I could help him.  He had unusual substance - along with his demons.

Ellen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

He had unusual substance - along with his demons.

Ellen,

Don't we all?

Even Rand...

(You just made a well-formed pithy comment on the human condition of exceptional people, and from one angle, humans in general.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...