Robert Baratheon

Kacy and Michael, It is a fact that the superwealthy family I describe in my anecdote uses dummy corporations to decrease their tax burden. It is a fact that they live in an opulent mansion and drive SUVs with a mammoth-sized carbon footprint. It is a fact that they treat their lower-class workers like human refuse. So the assumption that they voted for Obama because they share his progressive values strains all credibility, or at least makes them hypocrites to the extreme. By far the most likely explanation is the one SB and I offered. The wife was also appointed Art Director of a Federal Department shortly after Obama won the election. I didn't mention that part. Now you can say, "that's just one family," and you're right - which is why I spoke in generalizations and not absolute statements. But they aren't the only such family I've met, and the experience has been pretty consistent. So at what point can we start speaking meaningfully about observed trends?

There are only two people I've accused of hypocrisy on OL, and I didn't insinuate it - I was very clear. I called Kacy a hypocrite for rationalizing his furtherance of The System, attacking libertarian pundits and candidates across multiple threads on OL, and aggressively peddling progressive propaganda videos on his Facebook page. I've accused him of this behavior for years, long before I came to OL, and I've told him this directly as well. The only other instance was when you, Michael, inserted yourself into a very reasonable discussion I started on the limits of philosophy and began calling me a "preacher" over and over again ad nauseum. I called you a hypocrite for preaching about my preaching and being overly protective of the ideas your "flock" can be exposed to without your derisive commentary. So one example predates OL, and the other example you directly instigated with uncalled for behavior. A far cry from casting aspersions on "everyone" by any measure.

Present even one time I've advocated racism, or immorality as virtue, or called Rand's ideas crap. You can't. You're literally making things up. Please stop misrepresenting. Robert: I am certain that he was not putting you in those classes of folks. You are being well over sensitive on that one. Michael used the plural "they" to apply to all his accusations, meaning SB and I are these so-called operatives to be ostracized. It's nice that he's since clarified that I don't advocate racism - after I had to call on him to do it - but he still hasn't provided any examples of my other alleged transgressions. Why he won't do this, you'll have to ask him.

So by all means, expose me for the readers by presenting your evidence. If "all I do" here is advocate racism, immorality as virtue, and call Rand's ideas crap, then surely you are able to produce an example or two. Let's move your accusations out of the abstract and deal with some real concrete statements. I don't think that's so much to ask.

Present even one time I've advocated racism, or immorality as virtue, or called Rand's ideas crap. You can't. You're literally making things up. Please stop misrepresenting.

Absolutely, which is why representing competing interests is prohibited under most bar association codes of professional conduct. You can be fined or disbarred for it. Even representing two different defendants in the same case is frowned upon because there are so many areas in which their interests may diverge. Kind of raises the question of how a Congressman can effectively represent millions of different people... Both the selling and buying agents I worked with told me they categorically refuse to represent both sides of a sale for this reason, although they are technically allowed to do it.

I recently bought a townhouse and the amount of work my buying agent performed was enormous. By the time we were finished meeting all of our regulatory requirements, documenting everything for the loan, and preparing the contractual documents, there was a stack of papers at the closing as high as a triple-layer cake. Her advice in negotiations was also valuable - she had been buying and selling in the area for over two decades, so we were benefiting from her significant informational advantage. To be honest, for the amount of work I saw her do and at such odd hours, I'm not even sure I would have taken the sale in her place. Hopefully she enjoys the work because I've heard it's very difficult. I'm not looking forward to being on the seller's side of the arrangement in a few years time and having to pay that 6% out of pocket. My hope is our home will have appreciated in value to offset the cost by then. I've never had a door-to-door salesman come to my home. I don't believe it would end very well for them if they did - I have a short fuse for having my time wasted. When I do get the odd telemarketer on my cellphone, I just tell them to eff off and hang up.

Not illegitimate. Unethical. If that's truly your view, Robert... then you have just enumerated the price for which you have been bought: Doing what lying snakes in the grass do. I've done the marketing in my business for well over three decades and have never needed to resort to using "covert persuasion techniques" to manipulate others,. This is because the values by which I live differ from yours. Greg Greg, that was a quote from Michael, not me. I indicated it was a quote with quote marks, block paragraph dividers, and Michael's initials on the first line immediately followed by a colon. By all means though, you two fight this one out. Just let me get my popcorn.

Thanks for the laffs, Michael, but you have about as much a chance nudging me with Cass Sunstein's hokum as you have sneaking dawn past the rooster. You might not realize I worked under Sunstein in the White House on regulatory policy in 2011. Some people are so far behind in the race, they actually believe they're winning. You already acknowledged there's nothing inherently immoral about manipulating others in your sermon in the manipulation thread, so you have no basis to call me "creepy" for making that same argument now. It's like you aren't even listening to yourself anymore - you're just sermonizing and rationalizing all over the place, changing your argument to suit the needs of the moment. This is why I hold people to their words by going to the transcript: ------------------------ "MSK: So the people who train covert persuasion techniques and use them are either scumbags who are predators, or people interested in protecting themselves and letting others know what is going on (like you are doing). There's a gray area where you do this with marketing, political persuasion, and so on. There are no hard and fast moral rules here (and believe me, I've looked), but there are some really good guidelines. Let's take marketing. Is it illegitimate to stack on covert persuasion techniques until the customer can't stand it and can't wait to pull out his wallet? After a lot of study and mulling it over, I say it's OK because all of the competition from the big guys are doing it. So it's simple survival. But here's the caveat. When you do this, you have to have a genuine preoccupation with getting the customer's wants and needs right, and serving him with a top-quality product. Value for value. And you have to have a reasonable and rational guarantee and refund policy. Within that scenario, I say go for it. So long as there is an undo button and you're providing the good stuff, I believe nudging a person to acquire it is fine." ------------------------ I seriously doubt you can point to anyone I've harmed or preyed upon, so according to your own words, I'm just surviving and using the power available to me to do good in the world. To be honest, you've got me questioning one premise - whether it's worth even debating with someone who completely ignores every time I point out an inconsistency or make a valid counterpoint. On to your next sermon...

Michael, You've spoken here (some might say "preached") about what you find irritating about me. Here's what I find irritating about you: you gloss over the details. You get an impression - a gist - for something, and then the details are just so much "bullshit" to you. It's laziness, and it's led to you mischaracterizing several of my statements and missing key distinctions. Here is my unsolicited advice for you: stop phoning it in and read the transcript. The details aren't "bullshit." They matter, and how people phrase things is important. Give your posters that basic courtesy and inform yourself in the process. A) I've explained I'm a lawyer several times here. The fact that you don't know this leads me to wonder what else has been missed. B) I've explained my history with Kacy as well. You profess ignorance about it, then have the arrogance to offer your "insight" in the same sentence. C) My statements aren't "blah blah blah" any more than yours are. They convey ideas and information. If you don't want to listen to what I'm saying, that's your choice, but do us all a favor and stay out of it. Nobody asked you to torpedo my thread with your insults and accusations of "preaching." People can decide that for themselves. We were having a discussion and your only effect was to come in and shit all over it like a territorial animal. You have your own premises to check if you think that's helpful behavior.

No ambiguity there. Greg Quite a bit of ambiguity, actually. I never told you what was being bought or sold. You jumped to an absolutist conclusion because that's what you do. When I said "I know what my price is," I was speaking rhetorically. Meaning unlike Michael and Kacy, I acknowledge that everyone has a price - for everything - and knowing your prices ahead of time provides self-awareness that empowers decision-making.

Greg is a fundamentalist and describes himself as such. If you understand what fundamentalism is, then you know he isn't checking any premises. You tolerate - nay, you applaud - his knock-off guru bullshit because it vaguely fits within the Randian framework you work so hard to maintain here. It's interesting that you started from the emotional standpoint of feeling my "preaching" was "obnoxious" and reacted extremely hostilely toward me on that basis alone, only later arriving at the cognitive conclusions (justifications) you describe above. By interesting, I mean it's hypocritical because one of your favorite sermons on OL is that we should all train ourselves to think in the opposite direction - cognitive first, then emotional. From Kyle's thread on manipulation techniques: ------------------- "MSK: When we talk about manipulation or covert persuasion, we are talking about bypassing the slow thinking part (conscious awareness, which is logical) and communicating directly with the fast thinking part (the subconscious, which is emotional, HUGE and biased) until we get the state and behavior we wish in the persuaded person. Once that is achieved, we follow-up with rationales and reason-based arguments (no matter how convoluted or reasonable they may be) for the slow-thinking part to not undo the persuasion. As I became aware of this bypass process, I started telling people to use the cognitive before normative approach when dealing with new information or complicated subjects. In simple terms, in marketing, they say sell with emotion and justify with logic. That's how it's done and it works like a charm. To combat this when you believe you should, I say first observe and identify with logic (the colder the better), then after you are reasonably sure you know what the thing is, allow the emotions to run. You can't do this with everything, but it does keep you safe and unmanipulatable when you do. But doing this is not automatic." ------------------- Take your own advice, preacher. Check your premises, and know thyself.

Michael, You didn't answer my question because that's the way you are. I'll answer yours because that's the way I am: Robert Baratheon deposed the Mad King. I know myself - I'm the less bad alternative.

Michael, Sneer all you want from your position of holier-than-thou sanctimony, but I have done something tangible for the cause of limited government. Not only that, I'm just getting started. What have you done to stem the tide except bluster about "propaganda" on your corner of the internet? Every day, I make decisions and influence others' decisions that affect businesses and individuals across the United States. I do it from a libertarian values perspective. Often I have to compromise with the progressives around me, but always I am having a net positive impact on the direction in which government moves. The more I advance in the organization, the more of an impact I will have in protecting people from state overreach. Someday, maybe there will be enough of "us" to turn the whole thing around. You would prefer I resign to maintain some idealistic vision of Randian purity? They'll replace me tomorrow with an Elizabeth Warren clone, fresh out of social justice clinic at NYU Law. Would you rather she be making the calls or I? Neither is NOT a choice before you.

Reader, Just look at that. will ya'? Obviously, before such a dire state of affairs, the best thing to do is sell out. What can you do? What can anyone do? It's not our fault!!!!! I mean, morality is for fools. So it's OK to be corrupt inside. Here's the way to do it right: obey, suck up to authority, and get yours. Right on, bro... (If only there weren't that damn mirror.) Michael Michael, I've never advocated selling out to the system. Nor have I advocated abandoning one's libertarian values. You really don't get it. You're wholly invested in the here and now - the "short con" - which is why your posts focus on this blunder or that gaffe that you're always sure will spell Obama's imminent downfall. To listen to you tell it, small-government advocates are winning battle after battle. Yet government only gets bigger, stronger, and here in Washington, the plain reality is that Progressives are winning the war. I'm playing a much longer game, and it can't be won through gotcha videos of broken campaign promises. Defeat candidate Obama and there are only 10 more behind him, exactly like him, ready to take his place at a moment's notice. If my message were truly "selling out" and "getting yours," then I would be lauding Kacy instead of lambasting him. My objection to Kacy is he has been successfully assimilated into The System and now transmits its very values - a fact you have publicly recognized here. Kacy wholeheartedly feels he is out saving the world right now, and will explain exactly how he deserves every cent of his government pension, salary, and benefits. In other words, he is One with the Borg and now serves as its agent: I'm suggesting something more along the lines of gradual infiltration - a libertarian invasion of the bodysnatchers if you will. Play their game, win their trust, fill their ranks, but retain your own values. Undermine them at every turn and spread your own influence within their organizations, until they realize too late the transformation that has taken place:

SB, It's all "propaganda" within Michael's framework, and that is precisely the point. It serves the same function as impossible-to-meet fire or health codes for local restaurant owners. This hands the mayor a kill switch that can be activated at any time and for any reason as long as the pretext is violation. The key is only bringing down the hammer when someone actually threatens the regime. This is why blatant actual preachers like Greg are given free reign to continue their sermonizing as long as they stick to Objectivist tenets. Footnote: This is also why members here are free to rail against our very powerful government without a peep from its agents and enforcers. They pose no actual threat to its operations. The moment they became a real force to be reckoned with, they would be bought, harassed, or discredited. I know how it works - I'm one of THEM.

If anyone can explain the difference between what Michael calls "preaching" and how he characterizes his own behavior in this thread, I will literally mail you a Whitman's sampler.

Michael - Who are you to tell me how "awful" my choices are, or to tell me how to live? How do you know what *I* see in the mirror each day? Know thyself, preacher. The flock is yours, although I never considered them as such, and I hope everyone here (but you) knows that.

Misrepresenting again. My point has always been that everyone has a price. The difference is I know what mine is. What is the purpose of this forum if bouncing ideas off other people is "preaching" that invites your scorn? The fact that I began my thread with open-ended questions counters your assertion that I am "only" interested in preaching at people. But I'm a preacher, this you know, because your pop-psych tells you so. When was the last time you checked your own premise in this dispute? Is it even remotely possible that you aren't an expert in my own private motivations for posting here?

Is this another one of your notes for the reader? We can only assume because you've labelled me a preacher who can't be reached or reasoned with. If we accept your accusation, then what are your posts now except preaching to your flock? Maybe it really does take one to know one?

(NOTE FROM MSK: This mountain of garbage was split off from here.) Is this what serves as justice on OL? Denial as prima facie evidence of guilt? This is what happens when the bargain-bin pop psychology in Michael's library is taken to too far an extreme. As someone who spent years working in a prosecutor's office, I can confirm that there is a wide range of reactions displayed by the falsely maligned. Anger and denial are among the most common (and justified). This Salem-witch-trial-like logic is unbecoming of a forum that claims to be dedicated to inquiry and reason. If Michael were truly concerned about "preaching," then he would concern himself with the most prolific and obvious offender here. Since this individual happens to be preaching Objectivist-friendly principles, Michael sings his praises instead, despite the person having irritated and creeped out nearly every other poster on the forum. The fact that you know exactly whom I'm describing is evidence that what I'm saying is true, as opposed to the fallacious heads-I-win-tails-you-lose rationale provided against my own alleged offense. Michael felt threatened by my inquiry into the limits of Objectivism, so he thumped his chest, misrepresented my statements, and repeated his "preacher" accusation ad nauseum. I halted the thread because I don't take that kind of shit from anyone, not because I was "exposed" by a super-sleuth moderator moonlighting as a cognitive scientist. Addition: I have never showed any problem with "disagreement" on this forum. In fact, there are numerous examples where I have welcomed it. I do have a problem with misrepresentation and baseless accusations.

False displays of concern for the lower classes are one aspect of the Superwealthy's support for Obama, but there's also a more mundane strategy at play. Their hosted fundraisers and donations are literally buying influence within the political class. Many of them will receive political appointments or softer favors in return for their homage. Of course it all boils down to status and power in the end - awkwardly staged photos of them with the Obamas, the Clintons, the Reids, etc. litter the shelves of their fabulous homes. I recall from one of my economics textbooks the Bizarro concept of "luxury goods" where normal price laws of neoclassical economics no longer apply. In the cases of status symbols like Rolex watches or Porsches, or even a collector's item like Beanie Babies, raising a product's price can increase demand by enhancing it's value as an ostentatious display of wealth to impress peers and rivals.

Putting aside for a moment Greg's, um, "unique" tendencies, I do think Objectivists would do well to shed some of their rich-worship. Since moving to DC, I've become acquainted with some superwealthy families, and it's exposed me to certain unflattering truths about the world of the "1 percent" - or since these are multi-millionaires and near-billionaires I'm discussing - more like the "0.1 or 0.01 percent." It's not exactly Downtown Abbey in these households. The superwealthy tend to treat their servants and workers like filth, and as a result, there is a constant turnover of servants, cooks, assistants, and even chiefs of staff. Although I don't base my entire opinion on the following anecdote, I do feel it's representative: my wife worked as a pseudo-chief of staff for a $500-million net worth family in 2010. That year, they eliminated Christmas bonuses for their workers - who were often working 20+ hours/week of unpaid overtime - because of the "economy." Instead they gave everyone a tin of biscotti as a bonus. They would constantly express frustration with their workers - even when a problem resulted from their own obliviousness or conflicting instructions - and lament not being able to find good people or "having to do everything themselves." Everyone was given a blackberry and expected to be on call at all hours of the day and night - warning: not being available at 9pm Saturday night to chauffeur can result in a thermonuclear meltdown. They are also highly skilled at using dummy corporations to shield their wealth and skirt taxes - lots of "companies" out there that don't actually do or produce anything. These families also tend to royally screw up their children by spending next to no time with them and parenting by proxy through staff and instructors. I've also met some of these types through work, and I've given chess lessons to their children as a side job. They are very superficially nice and will often offer to "help" you - usually by putting you into contact with one of their associates - but they will never do anything to actually improve your position or that requires any time, effort, or money from them. It's all about "look how connected I am, and these nice things I do for people." When money is no object, the competition becomes exclusively over social status and who is more connected than whom. In other words, whatever they may or may not have accomplished in business (some inherit or marry into it), not all the rich are good competent people, and they can have some very socially destructive tendencies.

I don't want to delve too far into the topic of "racism" because, as we both agreed, the accusation itself is incidental to how it is being used by the accuser. Kyle's anecdote illustrates this perfectly because the accusation can involve him being called either a racist or a sexist (takeaway: a bad and unenlightened person). Something else worth considering is that progressives would like nothing more for us to spend our time obsessing over who is racist, what racism means in the 21st century, what racism is and isn't, and so on, which is why I'm loath to even have such discussions on their turf. That's where progressives are strongest, and I prefer to hit back at my opponents where they are weak. Art of War and all that shit. You did raise an important related issue for consideration, which is state-sanctioned manipulation, and how to act in such situations. The most obvious example is in cop-"civilian" interactions. If you've ever been pulled over on the highway, you know that police do not speak to you as a human being speaks to another human being within a social context. They are speaking to you in "cop mode," from a position of nearly absolute power. I get pulled over a decent amount (less now that I moved from Massachusetts to Virginia), but I don't get the traffic tickets I used to receive in my youth (dozens of "warnings" instead) because I've learned there is only one way to handle a cop in cop mode, and that is total submission to them. I make myself as small as I can in the car seat, I apologize to them robotically in response to their questions and mind games, I avoid all eye contact, and I keep my hands palms-down on my thighs until they tire of their prey and drive off looking for another victim. At that point, I drive home, throw their warning in the trash, and curse them out to anyone who will listen. It's foolish to fight back from a position of true powerlessness. However, anytime somebody tries to pull rank on me by slipping into "military mode" or "cop mode" outside their professional context, I don't tolerate that kind of abuse for a second.

I view actual racism as treating individuals according to racial generalizations rather than according to their unique merits, especially when it comes from a perspective of superiority. It can mean anything to a progressive depending on the situation, because it's not really about "racism" - it's about using a social issue and all the stigmas associated with it as a bludgeon to preserve their gatekeeper status and hold people and ideas that threaten them at bay. It could just as well be gay rights, religion, income inequality, or whatever else serves them in the moment.