Welcome

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

So you are from Minnesota or Omaha Nebraska? How did you, or do you support the state now?

end quote

Ah. Zen, Rorschach test questions.

Where am I from, Minnesota or Omaha Nebraska?

end quote

At least once or twice in my life I was moving towards these places, then I was in or over these places, and then I left these places, usually by car or airplane. So now I am from those places too. However I inhabit The Land of Sky Blue Waters, (not the Minnesota lakes area) in a tri-state area called Delmarva. It is a peninsula with the Delaware Bay on the east side, and the Chesapeake Bay on the west and south sides. I live on the southern side of the Mason-Dixon line, so on the north side I am bordered by Yankees.

Do I support the state?

No. The state supports me through Social Security and the VA. I have been a teacher, and I have worked in printing and banking.

Do I support the state?

In some ways reluctantly, in other ways, less reluctantly. To paraphrase Madison, power will not be snatched from one branch of government, because of checks and balances, to make another branch more powerful. Rather the power will be snatched from the rights of the people. I am for a lesser state.

I doubt that the Federal Government could exist on the voluntary system Rand promoted, especially in an emergency, or war. However, war bonds, savings bonds, etc., added to paying for services, and a national lottery, could keep mandatory taxation to a minimum. Could we have defeated the world domination of Hitler or The Soviet Union without mandatory taxation? No.

You could argue that a complete rewrite is required, but you cannot prove that a better position would be to have no Constitution. I do not advocate a negation of the power-to-tax clause of The Constitution, but I pay few taxes.

I swore an oath to support The Constitution, and there is no time limit on my oath, so in this sense I do support the state.

Do I support the state?

Am I shrugging? There comes a time when it is necessary to accept that one's efforts are no longer supporting life but, instead, largely supporting its destruction. The Tea Party movement gives me hope.

The last spoken words in Atlas Shrugged are: "The road is cleared. We are going back to the world." I hope we do not need to leave.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

I enjoyed your answers.

Quick questions. I am assuming that the oath you referred to was the oath you took as a soldier..yes.

As to anarcho-capitalist or ism...are they workable phrases for you?

I totally agree with your anticipatory analysis of the hope that the Tea Party movement will exponentially grow with real hard work on the E.D. level, with Viagra, I have to explain that means election district level which is the foundational organizational brick where we must build to be maximally effective.

However, even with a real shift in 2010, we may only be able to block him rather than have enough to override his veto.

Adam

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Quick questions. I am assuming that the oath you referred to was the oath you took as a soldier..yes.

end quote

As a soldier and as a cop.

Adam wrote:

As to anarcho-capitalist or ism...are they workable phrases for you?

end quote

Laissez Faire Capitalism, Yes. Anarchism, No. You cannot combine anarcho with anything, without me, looking askance, at you, Adam. I have given it a lot of thought. Ask BB ) She has given the best answers to the Zero of Anarchism.

I think Rational Anarchism is the reification of the feeling of persoanl sovereignty we get as babies. You may do or say what you please but I will do what is best for me. Anarchy is what occurs when there is a collapse of a government as in Somalia. Anarchy exists breifly but not as a stable social system that guarantees individual rights. We are not Dudley Do Right Vulcans. People want a system that guarantees their rights.

No one can point to a Rational Anarchistic Society where individual rights were acknowledged. Not in the past. Not now. Not in the future.

I have heard Anarchists point to Old Iceland as a 300 year long anachic society. I don’t agree. There is no Capitalism in Anarchism. Capitalism requires long term multigenerational contracts. Ye olde Iceland was agrarian

Lets wait for the results of 2010 and 2012 before we lose hope.

Sorry if I am not making myself clear. Its past my bed time.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Here is a better answer to you Adam.

Successful humans must guide their actions by independent, rational thinking, using it to produce the resources needed to survive. The basic social requirement for a human’s survival is that other people not prevent him from acting in a rational, independent, and productive manner. Anarchism will not create or sustain a rational, viable society.

One source for my denial of Anarchy’s validity is the presumption of many anarchists that their theories are exercises in rigorous, logical, almost scientific reasoning, whereas they are nothing of the sort. Anarchists tell us to read this person or that person, Rothbard or Smith, as if the magic formula can be found by reading, and then mumbling Harry Potter’s words, Alohomora Cave Inimicum: “Open the strengthened door.” Sorry, magic does not work in the real universe.

May I point to Atlantis, as proof that ancient civilizations once existed? Or may I claim Camelot as a wonderful Monarchy? Of course not. A basic problem with ‘successful’ anarchism as a valid political or scientific theory is that it has not fulfilled the requirement that you can point to it. To my knowledge you can’t even point to a successful Anarchist commune.

Some Anarchist have said that Iceland was an example of a 300 year long Anarchistic society. Why is there only flimsy proof of this? They had a written history, The Sagas. Try and use that barbarian story as proof of Icelandic civilization.

So what was ancient Iceland? It was agrarian. If it had a civilization, we could plumb its depths like the ancient pyramids. The closest place and people that I can think of that has a stable society, separate from Government, is the Amish in America. Will you point to that as your realized ideal, Anarchists? You don’t have anything better. I know this is psychologizing, but ‘some of’ the Anarchists that I have talked to are True Believers, beyond persuasion or a need for proof.

Anarchism lies within the domain of speculative philosophy. It typically presupposes the failure of all pretentious governments that claim they protect individual rights. Anarchism posits an inevitable decline from minimal government to totalitarian statism. They point at the decline of America, the best example of a Constitutional Government, as the proof. Still an anarchist can only speculate about their own success.

One more problem with Anarchy as a political theory or science is that it has not formulated any laws that are specific enough to be tested by empirical means. It can’t be tested because of its lack of any universal enforcer of justice. In a random fashion, anyone is free to do whatever they want to do in an anarchy, until and unless, another anarchist persuades or forces them to stop doing it. Humans are not super rational Vulcans. Anarchy will evolve into a rights protecting Government or it will devolve into chaos, or totalitarianism.

Anarchists can no more predict human behavior in detail than can a constitutionalist, but a constitutionalist compensates for this lack. Until anarchists exhibit a superior predictive ability, one that derives from anarchistic laws of human behavior, then they are merely philosophers arguing with other philosophers. Anarchism in the realm of human action is philosophy, not science, or demonstrable fact.

It might last for a few years or for a generation, or longer like Iceland and the Amish, but no great civilization would come of Anarchy. Trading would occur but no Capitalism, nor would huge surpluses of food or materials be produced, because of the lack of lasting, legally binding contracts, that might extend across multiple generations of people.

Agrarian. Yes. Industrialized? No. Capitalism? No.

I will have not have an epiphany about the validity of Anarchy. Anarchy is not a political system; it is a psychological feeling of self-sovereignty, extending from the individual towards others. It is that feeling we have as babies and children that you may do or say whatever you want, but I will do what is right for me. Pushed into the political realm it is the overextended aspiration that the individual should determine what is right for the individual.

Would someone please point to the country of Anarchism’s flag? Oh. Of course. They would not have a flag, not even a blank flag. No flag exists.

Would someone please point out Anarchism to me? Where is it? Oh. I see it! You’re pointing at your head. It exists in the Anarchist’s imagination.

Constitutionalism is a fact, and for all our sakes, let’s fix it.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

I am postulating a situation that is anarchic in nature, not utopian or mythic, yet not essentially bad either. The true, old American west perhaps, or Anarchy in Space, might fit the bill: Whatever happens in free space, happens. Anarchy in space is not a reified ‘Lack of a Code,’ it is just the absence of a prescription set in stone.

People will bring their systems, mechanical devises, habitats, sense, and sensibilities into space but there will be zones beyond jurisdictions. This is Laissez Faire Capitalism. However, on the frontiers, agreements will be made without the benefit or detriment of a State backing up agreements. This sounds a bit like the chaotic society in Blade Runner, or Star Wars. Periodically, Harrison Ford may arrive to scuttle the Flying Barbary Pirates.

What will it be like living and working in Space? Some workers might have long term contracts with Earth and return periodically. Some might be ground workers operating remotely controlled equipment. Some Trekkers may have one way contracts with payment to relatives left behind, like America’s illegal immigrants today. Others may buy their tickets to travel and work as independent contractors. There are any number of combinations of free market solutions. What we need in Space are people, profitable factories and industrialization – and at some point PERHAPS military or generational ships.

Different free market solutions result in different organizational structures. The market will decide what will work depending on what technology and what societies develop. Getting government out of the way MAY BE a profitable first step.

In time and as populations in space increase, so inevitably will the laws. Most people want surety, more than they want to exercise their “Will.” They always have. It is our nature.

I have been neglecting one half of the population in my discussion of The Final Frontier. What does the inclusion of Women change? I can’t speak for women as a group, but from my observations, Women don’t appreciate a lack of surety. They want feathers in their nest. There may be multi-generational ships, with children, that won’t be going WAY off. They will just be going along with the men.

Simply by being born in a cosmic ray shielded, low gravity environment could affect the height and musculature of the next generations as in the movie Avatar. Nobody wants extra tall children who could never stand upright on a planet. Propulsion, Air, water, food and rotating space habitats, to supply centrifugal force to simulate gravity, would be a requirement in this fictional Deep Space Habitat.

At some point in our outward Trek, there will be exo-sociologists who will attempt to predict where the next generations of humans will go, and they will be half right.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Russell]

Note from MSK: Proven plagiarist (see here). Content removed and poster banned.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

The biggest problem I have with anarchy is that it ignores the fact that bullying and grouping around bullies to form gangs is part of human nature.

Actually, to be more precise, bullying is only one manifestation of the universal trait. The real part of the ignored human nature is the innate hunger for power. We all have that in varying degrees. Some people channel this one way and subject it rational rules and others prefer bullying. (Some people seek to expunge it from their inner life and some give up in cowardice and fear, but those are not as common.)

The best way I have found to deal with a bully is to pop him back real hard when he starts. Then he goes away or stops. But not everyone can do that. Thus we have a government to do it for us.

An example of how this plays out with initiating force for the more aggressive among us: some people become professional boxers or study martial arts and others join street gangs.

Rational governments are not made to promote professional boxers or practitioners of martial arts (they are already organized rationally), but instead to protect everyone from the gangs. And some governments are nothing but gangs organized around a personality. A gang-leader's whims is not the same as rational rules.

Once we get rid of the desire to dominate others (and herd behind bullies) in human nature, I will have no problem with anarchy. Until then, a rational government based on individual rights is the only practical solution.

Anyway, I have a suggestion. Why don't we move this discussion out of the Welcome thread?

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote that we should move this discussion off of the welcome mat. I will post a reply on (Is it called living room?)

Peter

[Russell]

Note from MSK: Proven plagiarist (see here). Content removed and poster banned.

[Peter]

Russell wrote:

A suggestion would be indeed to reply to Mr. Kelly’s post as mine as well on the subject of anarchism and create a new thread in the “politics” section. State your overall case against anarchism. It should be a very interesting conversation.

end quote

That is a better idea than mine, to put it into the politics forum, however I had already sent it to living room. Perhaps it can be deleted in living room and transfered to Politics?

Peter

[Tony]

Hi, I used to post at Greg Nyquist's blog, (and gave both Greg and his opponents, very hard time). My motive was based on ensuring that everyone uses the standard they claim to believe in consistently. Eventually I got bored and wasn't learning anything new so I stopped posting.

Is this board "real"? Most political forums are really nothing more than support group hosting for people celebrating what they claim to believe in, not a genuine exchange of ideas, and examination of the ramification of the values supposedly held.

Lately I became interested in certain aspects of Objectivism, as manifested by Howard Roark. My eventual ambition is to found an economic philosophy combining the best aspects of "Free Market Philosophy", fascism, communism, and Keynesianism in a manner similar to building a superior composite material from the basic pure elements.

p.s. FYI, I got banned in several different political forums (both "liberal" and "conservative", and "center") for supposedly causing trouble, even though I only pointed out the inconsistent application of the values held by the moderators and their pets, using their quotes in full relevant context.

[Tony]

Peter,

The best way I have found to deal with a bully is to pop him back real hard when he starts. Then he goes away or stops. But not everyone can do that. Thus we have a government to do it for us.

How would you identify someone is a bully?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How would you identify someone is a bully?

Red,

Welcome to OL.

I identify a bully by his behavior and manner of expression. On a forum, it is most often by how he posts.

Michael

(Edit: If you missed it, that was a quip...)

[Selene]

Red:

Interesting approach. Do you work extra hard at fulfilling your prophesy?

"p.s. FYI, I got banned in several different political forums (both "liberal" and "conservative", and "center") for supposedly causing trouble,..."

What do you do to sustain the current Statist economic model?

Welcome to OL. I believe you will enjoy the give and take.

Roark manifested your interests in aspects of objectivism. For example...?

Adam

[Peter]

Welcome to Objectivist Living, Red. Go look at the Political or stumping in the back yard topics, if you want to see if we are for real. Add an answer to a thread, and you may get a response. I’ve been here about two months. It is stimulating and informative.

Red Grant wrote:

Lately I became interested in certain aspects of Objectivism, as manifested by Howard Roark. My eventual ambition is to found an economic philosophy combining the best aspects of "Free Market Philosophy", fascism, communism, and Keynesianism in a manner similar to building a superior composite material from the basic pure elements.

End quote

If you stick with your first choice, “Free Market Philosophy,” you will get a better reception here. Though Roark was quite radical, he was a free market capitalist, and he would not speak favorable of the other three systems you mention. Nor do I.

It is better to just meet and greet here, then branch out.

The level of civility maintained here is due to the quality of the people and the even handedness of the owners, Michael Stuart Kelly and Kat.

Peter Taylor

[Tony]

How would you identify someone is a bully?

Red,

I identify a bully by his behavior and manner of expression. On a forum, it is most often by how he posts.

Michael

What kind of manner of expression and the ways how he posts would you identify as belonging to a bully?

Edited February 6, 2010 by Red Grant

[Tony]

Red:

Interesting approach. Do you work extra hard at fulfilling your prophesy?

Well, yes, I'm trying to make a lot of money in trading so that I can start my project.

"p.s. FYI, I got banned in several different political forums (both "liberal" and "conservative", and "center") for supposedly causing trouble,..."

What do you do to sustain the current Statist economic model?

Philosophically? I don't.

Roark manifested your interests in aspects of objectivism. For example...?

Adam

His speech during the trial in "The Fountainhead".

[Tony]

Red Grant wrote:

Lately I became interested in certain aspects of Objectivism, as manifested by Howard Roark. My eventual ambition is to found an economic philosophy combining the best aspects of "Free Market Philosophy", fascism, communism, and Keynesianism in a manner similar to building a superior composite material from the basic pure elements.

End quote

If you stick with your first choice, “Free Market Philosophy,” you will get a better reception here.

A hint that I join the herd? Just because....?

Though Roark was quite radical, he was a free market capitalist, and he would not speak favorable of the other three systems you mention. Nor do I.

No, he wouldn't, but I'm not he, and not interested in turning into his clone, just motivated by some of his character traits, which by the way, very similar to both Mao, Stalin, and J.D. Salinger.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Edit: If you missed it, that was a quip...)

What kind of manner of expression and the ways how he posts would you identify as belonging to a bully?

Red,

Dayaamm!

It looks like you missed it.

Anyway, bullies are people who are mean and cruel to others because they get off on it. They often deny that, and some bullies play word games, pretend they are on a crusade, or express some other kind of rationalization, but it's obvious that they get off on it.

An online bully engages in in-your-face kinds of taunts, threats, low-level name-calling, baiting, etc.

Everybody does these things to a certain extent, of course, but a bully crosses the line into trying to dominate others, not by argument, but by intimidating behavior.

I know that adapting to the feel of a community is different for people of different backgrounds, so I generally cut a lot of slack to everyone on OL at first. I try to talk the more aggressive things down and show people where the balance lines are. This usually works. With a few posters (very few in fact), I have had to let them know that OL is not the venue for the obnoxious behavior they practice and value.

On another forum there is a pretty well-known Objectivist bully, Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo. He tries to keep up a stream of hate speech against productive people I value and admire. He helped get one of them thrown out of New Zealand and was hell-bent on wrecking the reputation of several others. By popping him back real hard from this site, some people started checking their premises and others, who were disgusted at his behavior, found a place to express themselves. The result over time is that he and his bullying have generally become discredited in our little subcommunity.

Some people have complained about my actions, but I don't care. This hit-back-real-hard strategy has worked so far. So long as the bullying persists and this manner works, I will keep doing it. If the bullying stops, I will stop. And if this manner stops working, I will find other manners of shutting the bullying down.

Back to here. If you are concerned that your own behavior will be seen as bullying, I can only wait and see. Please do be advised that this is not a bash-Rand-at-all-costs site, although reasoned criticism of her (and Objectivism) is welcome. This is not a love-Rand-at-all-costs site, either, but reasoned appreciation of her (and Objectivism) is also welcome. The focus is on independent thinking, not following any party line (or following any bully, for that matter).

Sometimes a person will bash Rand hard (or stereotype all Objectivists in an extremely derogatory manner) to bait other posters, not because he or she wants to discuss an idea. Or the opposite happens from a pro-Rand side. In other words, the baiting is the same, just the Rand side has changed.

I usually let that kind thing play itself out unless it gets way out of balance. Then I will step in and say, "Cut the crap." And if that doesn't work, I make it stop, or at least bring it into a tolerable state.

The bottom line is that, although I try to be as fair--and even as wise--as possible, this is a private forum participation-wise. It is open for the public to read, but private for posting. Kat and I own it. So we look after it as we do all our possessions. If someone tries to destroy it or severely downgrade the quality of it, we take measures to protect it. That trumps (and will always trump) any "fairness" an abusing poster might claim he or she is owed.

As to the rest, bring it on.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, he wouldn't, but I'm not he, and not interested in turning into his clone, just motivated by some of his character traits, which by the way, very similar to both Mao, Stalin, and J.D. Salinger.

Red,

I am curious. You are motivated to do what? And do Mao, Stalin, and J.D. Salinger motivate you?

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

The interesting aspect of preparing a solution for a bully is having the power, and the right, to take action. It makes you and Kat's options complete, in that you can "expel" the bully.

One of the failures of the inept public indoctrination centers and all their touchy feely no name calling solutions, is that they cannot effectively expel a student who is a bully, but a doodler!

This week, the imbeciles at Forest Hills, Queen's NY City, P.S. 190 [a.k.a. Public Stalag 190] public indoctrination system's Junior High School had a twelve (12) year old girl arrested and taken out in handcuffs, for, apparently, doodling on her desk.

http://www.nydailyne...sk.html?ref=rss

This must be part of the no child left behind program, wherein, we just cuff em and move them out, even if it is to a new gulag.

Red:

One of my favorite pieces of Ayn's great works is Roark's "case" to the jury. I did an oral interpretation of it when I sat in on my colleague's advanced oral interpretation class. It was my final project.

Very difficult to sustain the 11 to 13 minutes. I frankly find it one of her best pieces.

His speech during the trial in "The Fountainhead".

This is from American Rhetoric - the text and the video and I loved the way Coop delivered it, but then again I am so in the bag for Gary Cooper that I cannot be objective.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthefountainhead.html

I particularly like the part that ...they probably burned him at the stake lit by the fire he taught them to light.

Adam

[Tony]

(Edit: If you missed it, that was a quip...)

What kind of manner of expression and the ways how he posts would you identify as belonging to a bully?

Red,

Dayaamm!

It looks like you missed it.

Anyway, bullies are people who are mean and cruel to others because they get off on it. They often deny that, and some bullies play word games, pretend they are on a crusade, or express some other kind of rationalization, but it's obvious that they get off on it.

An online bully engages in in-your-face kinds of taunts, threats, low-level name-calling, baiting, etc.

Everybody does these things to a certain extent, of course, but a bully crosses the line into trying to dominate others, not by argument, but by intimidating behavior.

I generally agree with your definition with one qualification. I enjoy tormenting bullies by pointing out their persistent logical fallacies, and get off on it, which is the reason why I got banned in many political forums, where the bullies happend to be the moderators and their pets, specializing in "piling on" and editing what they had written after response to make honest debaters look foolish.

Back to here. If you are concerned that your own behavior will be seen as bullying, I can only wait and see. Please do be advised that this is not a bash-Rand-at-all-costs site, although reasoned criticism of her (and Objectivism) is welcome. This is not a love-Rand-at-all-costs site, either, but reasoned appreciation of her (and Objectivism) is also welcome. The focus is on independent thinking, not following any party line (or following any bully, for that matter).

Hey, that's my kind of philosophy.

[Tony]

No, he wouldn't, but I'm not he, and not interested in turning into his clone, just motivated by some of his character traits, which by the way, very similar to both Mao, Stalin, and J.D. Salinger.

Red,

I am curious. You are motivated to do what?

Michael

I am motivated to found an economic/political philosophy that will better the part of mankind I find to be worthy.

And do Mao, Stalin, and J.D. Salinger motivate you?

Certain parts of their characters and what I find to be their real personal philosophies motivate me.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Red Grant

[Selene]

Red:

...I find to be their real personal philosophies...

Interesting, can you provide, for example, three aspects of their "real personalities"?**

Additionally,

...that will better the part of mankind I find to be worthy.

A new altruism based on the worth of whom it is trying to help...is that a fair statement of your intent?

Adam

**

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/oliver-stone-history-america.html

"'Stalin has a complete other story,' Stone said. 'Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person. We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good.' Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and its been used cheaply. He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect ... People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII ... I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions ... Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated.'"

[Tony]

Red:

...I find to be their real personal philosophies...

Interesting, can you provide, for example, three aspects of their "real personalities"?**

As I analyze these three, based on published bios and articles I have read so far.........

1. Ability to see beyond superficial, and comprehend the real cause and effect(as they saw it).

2. Courage to defy the crowd even at the risk of their lives when risk/reward ratio (as they perceive at the moment) is in their favor in matters they perceive to be worthy.

3. Fortitude not to be swayed by cheap sentimentality, but still capable of mercy/compassion (that is, real mercy/compassion), not phony mercy/compassion for pr purpose.

Above apply to Stalin, and Mao.

As for Salinger,

1. Analytical ability to see beyond the superficial

2. Courage to defy what other want in favor of what he wanted.

Additionally,

...that will better the part of mankind I find to be worthy.

A new altruism based on the worth of whom it is trying to help...is that a fair statement of your intent?

Adam

What is your definition of altruism as you used in your question above?

Note to Mr.Kelly, my purpose for the recent edit was to correct my misquote of Selene,due to mistake during my original post, not to put words into Selene's mouth something he had never said. Moderators in other forums used to engage in that kind of bs, and I don't want anyone to imply I'm doing the same.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Red Grant