Going Galt

[Francisco Ferrer]

You're a good ripper-downer. In capitalism it's called creative destruction, except for you it's sans the creative.

Again and again, Frank just keeps telling everyone that he creates nothing.

Greg

Per your Post #103, whom did Ayn Rand rob?

[moralist]

You're a good ripper-downer. In capitalism it's called creative destruction, except for you it's sans the creative.

Again and again, Frank just keeps telling everyone that he creates nothing.

Greg

Per your Post #103, whom did Ayn Rand rob?

You look pretty silly hiding behind a dead woman to excuse your own unproductive failure, Frank.

Greg

[Selene]

If I could remember how to post the link to an OL thread it would make it easier for you.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9359&hl=%2Bfire+%2Bdepartment

The links are in the post number (eg, #21) and for quotes the links are tied to this image:

Do the right-click thing on either link and you have the URL you need.

Thanks Bill...and right in front of me all that time.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15167&page=10#entry229974

A...

Post Script:

That is a Moose bone, one of my Wolf Pack Brothers gave it to me at the last No Justice No Peace rally.

He said the dead demonstrator did not mind his pack taking it back to our Hood.

[william.scherk]

Francisco, Greg has determined you are not a Real American. He has also determined that you are a complete and utter failure as a human being. He has determined that if you 'complain' about something, you deserved that something. You 'complain' about taxes because, well, Greg doesn't. Greg pays all his taxes without complaint. He submits to the state, passive and cheerful about the tax load squeezed out of him, because otherwise he would be complaining, and he doesn't complain about things other than what torments him -- sex and females.

I think he may vote now and again, and might even support a candidate that complains about what you complain about ... but he takes rather a weak path of concern, complaining foremost about people. So here at OL, he complains about me, you, Jonathan, Brant, Michael, whomever he disagrees with. He makes the complaint personal because, I guess, he doesn't mind appearing as a bitchy, claws-out nitwit.

I find Greg's complaints about other people to be psychologically underdetermined. He does not let ignorance of the details of other peoples' lives stand in the way of personally-insulting rhetoric. It has long been my contention that this is the good stuff for Greg, the mean-girl insult, that this is the orgasmic pay-off for him. He takes pleasure in insulting and trolling people he does not care to know. He like to get low and dirty.

It could be that Greg's appearence on an Objectivist-friendly site is the result of no thought. He didn't sign up at any other site among the sisters. He didn't advance a question about Objectivism or Rand, or speak to issues that concerned her in her life and work. The ignorant contempt he visits on OL regulars is likely the same contempt he feels for any intellectual -- the contempt is a function of ignorance rather than knowledge. I think he harbours contempt for the Randian project in a way that I do not. It wouldn't surprise me if he gossips nastily about her.

Other than that, I think Greg is a fraudster, not what he presents here -- he would never speak to a person in real life the way he has done so here above -- unless he wanted a physical altercation. The demeaning tone of the purely personal attacks -- here on Francisco by way of example -- tell us what we need to know about good faith. He says here what he would not dare elsewhere. That is what makes me sad he has achieved a favoured-nitwit status here at OL. His style weakens, cheapens and degrades debate. He drags down the general level of intellect on display. He rejects rational process not because his intuition is superior, but because he is too stupid or uninterested to follow a challenging or complex topic.

He cares nothing for anyone here, ultimately, nor for ideas, nor for rational discussion. The insults propagated in this thread could easily be turned to any person other than his target here. He is out of his depth on every significant issue he attaches to, and brings nothing but bigotry when challenged.

I don't know Francisco. I don't know if he runs a company, provides a service, leases fleets, administrates a business, raises orphan elephants, sells coconuts on the beach, or lives off the earnings of canny investments. I know nothing about this. But I do know that Greg pretends to know something, something intuited, not learned by matter of fact. Greg pretends to know things and has utter disdain for the necessary epistemological work of finding out what is and isn't so. He finds himself attacking the personal qualities of a discussant that he can't possibly know.

It's telling that Greg comes off not as a fan of unfettered capitalism, a la Rand or FF, but as a fan of things as they are -- he has no personal or political problem with expanding or intrusive government, he is entirely passive about these things. He is, as they say, supine and uncomplaining, taking it up the metaphorical ass and apparently liking it enough to utter no protest.

Where's Rand and Objectivism and her philosophical work in Greg's happy world of fettered capitalism? In the complaint box. Even if she would find such a passive anti-intellectualism to be repugnant, Greg does not give a damn. His contempt for the life of the mind is large enough to cover Rand herself and all her complaints.

To wrap it up, I think Greg is pissing in the pool and laughing at every one of us. He is poisoning the well and quite enraptured at the stink.

By having Greg on ignore I only have to write this post every few months or so. At this rate I will never catch up with Greg's posting numbers, but hey, life is short, the sun is shining, and my mark is made.

Edited May 3, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Then then residents of Chicago should hire private protection agencies to investigate, arrest those responsible and try them in a private court--all under one law, of course. And the City of Chicago should stop collecting extortion fees taxes.

What should you do (1) then what should others do (2). Not your sarcasm indicating impotence. You're a good ripper-downer. In capitalism it's called creative destruction, except for you it's sans the creative. You seem to need a partner. The best secondary argument for government is at least when someone shows up at your door and says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," you'll know immediately he's full of shit.

--Brant

In a libertarian legal framework, it's called putting violators of property rights behind bars.

But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. --John Galt

You find me "sans creative"? Then by all means please spend less time on my posts and go read some original libertarian thinkers like Frédéric Bastiat, Étienne de La Boétie, Auberon Herbert, Gustave de Molinari, Albert Jay Nock, or Herbert Spencer.

The reference is to your postings in which you rip nonsense a new one. I'm out of the loop with Greg's silly deductions about the totality of what you are. I can't agree with what I do not know. That's not a problem for Greg who cherry-picks what I say and ignores what he can't respond to. He ignores it because he can't deal with it or his whole merry-go-round cosmology disintegrates. That as a practical matter what he says works for him works for him, I take his word, but that gives him little basis for saying it's the same for you or me even if it's a general truism--something else he cannot demonstrate. He can't deal with logical analysis so he reduces everything to ad hominem while we attempt to be rational with our abstractions. "Indicating impotence" is not saying you are impotent. That's what Greg does. That's why I asked you what I asked you. "Sans creative" in your posting does not mean in you as a human being. Let's say you and I are involved in tearing down a building to make way for a new building. Your job is to remove the old and mine is to put up the new with no overlap. In fact we are sub-contractors hired by the primary contractor. You are told to do a controlled demo then remove the debris. That's what I mean by "sans creative" physicalized as a metaphor. I then put up the new building. That's what I mean here by creation--or "creative." Based on your postings I said it sounds like you "need a partner." Your response is to tell me to screw off and read some books the reading of which seems to have done you no good for you aren't coming with a good summary to entice me in to do that. This leaves us still on the wrong side for it's not the only side of "creative destruction." You're still not coming with the positive. I'm asking you to be, if you can be, the primary contractor, but if that's not your wont it's not your wont. That still doesn't leave Greg enough to go on but he goes on anyway, like he can hike the Grand Canyon without carrying any water.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Bill, I'm going with "coconuts on the beach."

--Brant

how about some more choices?

[william.scherk]

I suspect FF is a white-collared animal of some kind, who like Greg takes on projects/clients for cold hard cash. I'd guess just the sort of independent profession Greg boasts, but without the mud and plaster and wires and wood. As we know, only stringing wires and pipes are viewed as a 'creation.' so Francisco probably earns enough to employ the creators like Joe's Plumbing and Gas. He'd be the guy keeping Joe in model trains and wet nurses while flipping the renos for even more coconuts.

The beach-bum I had in mind, Brant, was a real-life contender on the family-favourite TV show Survivor. He had feathers in his hair and his profession was stated as Coconut Vendor. He was a bit of a no-collar emotional freak and was sent packing.

On the other hand, Francisco could be a Manager. We all know what Ayn Rand had to say about the danged managers, don't we?

_______________________________

Vince Sly

Coconut Vendor, no collar tribe

Personal Claim to Fame: Traveling through 39 countries; all done on whim, wit and self-actualization.

Survivor Contestant You Are Most Like: I'm flirty and use my sex appeal like Parvati. I also have a bit of Coach and Fabio too

Why You’ll “Survive” Survivor: I'm a pillar of support, nearly unshakeable. I'm a conflict resolver and controller. Also, my survival skills almost match my people skills.

[moralist]

Greg pays all his taxes without complaint.

(shrug...) I can't complain when my customers pay all of my taxes just as they pay for all of my other business costs. It's called making money. American Capitalism 101. Something of which nonproductive bureaucratic blind scribes are ignorant.

The government is not my enemy... and it's not my friend either. I don't hate it like Frank does because I don't need it like Frank does.

Hate arises from dependence...

...and because I don't need the government to educate me, or to give me Veterans benefits, or to guarantee my mortgage, or to discharge debts I can't afford to pay, or to indemnify me against every contingency known to man, or to give me healthcare, or to make others pay my bills, or to give me disability benefits (the new welfare), or to give me a useless parasite pencil pushing job, or to make me ~feel~ safe and secure, or to "care" about me...

...because I don't need the government, it simply leaves me alone and free to work and to earn and to build and to enjoy my life...

...because that's what Americans do.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

The government is not my enemy... and it's not my friend either. I don't hate it like Frank does because I don't need it like Frank does.

If you don't need it, then there can be no objection to a campaign to starve the beast by depriving it of taxes. Once taxation is abolished, you can still go on paying money to government if that's what makes you happy, Morrie.

[moralist]

The government is not my enemy... and it's not my friend either. I don't hate it like Frank does because I don't need it like Frank does.

If you don't need it, then there can be no objection to a campaign to starve the beast by depriving it of taxes. Once taxation is abolished, you can still go on paying money to government if that's what makes you happy, Morrie.

That's the same fantasy as every other government needy unproductive parasite, Frank. People who don't have enough money with the government wouldn't have enough money without it, because losers lack the virtue necessary to make and properly manage money to begin with. You are smaller than your money.

"Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it."

[Brant Gaede]

Greg pays all his taxes without complaint.

(shrug...) I can't complain when my customers pay all of my taxes just as they pay for all of my other business costs. It's called making money. American Capitalism 101. Something of which nonproductive bureaucratic blind scribes are ignorant.

The government is not my enemy... and it's not my friend either. I don't hate it like Frank does because I don't need it like Frank does.

Hate arises from dependence...

...and because I don't need the government to educate me, or to give me Veterans benefits, or to guarantee my mortgage, or to discharge debts I can't afford to pay, or to indemnify me against every contingency known to man, or to give me healthcare, or to make others pay my bills, or to give me disability benefits (the new welfare), or to give me a useless parasite pencil pushing job, or to make me ~feel~ safe and secure, or to "care" about me...

...because I don't need the government, it simply leaves me alone and free to work and to earn and to build and to enjoy my life...

...because that's what Americans do.

Greg

Since you are into barbequing Frank instead of real ideas, let's continue with the assault.

Frank needs government in order to have a hate object?

--Brant

that's why the Jews needed the Nazis--back then and now?

[moralist]

Frank needs government in order to have a hate object?

Yes.

The government fills any loser's need for something external to blame (unjustly accuse) for their own personal failure to be productive and financially independent. After all, that is a functional definition of American freedom...

...living a meaningful productive prosperous life regardless of the government.

"If you closely examine your chains... you will discover they were forged by your own hand."

--Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

If you don't need it, then there can be no objection to a campaign to starve the beast by depriving it of taxes. Once taxation is abolished, you can still go opaying money to government if that's what makes you happy, Morrie.

That's the same fantasy as every other government needy unproductive parasite, Frank. People who don't have enough money with the government wouldn't have enough money without it, because losers lack the virtue necessary to make and properly manage money to begin with. You are smaller than your money.

"Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it."

"People who don't have enough money with the government wouldn't have enough money without it."

First of all, just what constitutes "enough money"? A million, a hundred million, a billion? Secondly, since it's been quite a long time since the world has been without government, how would you know what people's financial needs would be in a state of anarchy?

Once again: big theory, zero evidence.

Regarding my proposal to abolish taxation, provide evidence that there is a single "unproductive parasite" who endorses that idea.

If you cannot, then that will add one more bogus claim to your record.

Finally, if, as you say, you don't need government, then you can have no objection to efforts to abolish government or deprive it of its coerced source of revenue. Your objections to critiques of taxation are pointless.

[Selene]

Once again: big theory, zero evidence.

Go Frank go!!

[moralist]

First of all, just what constitutes "enough money"?

You'll never know.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

First of all, just what constitutes "enough money"?

You'll never know.

Greg

While that's a neat reply--if he could know he'd know by now--you are only blocking one of his punches.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Once again: big theory, zero evidence.

Go Frank go!!

Thanks, Celly!

[Francisco Ferrer]

First of all, just what constitutes "enough money"?

You'll never know.

Greg

If it is unknowable, then your theory is useless and inane.

[Brant Gaede]

First of all, just what constitutes "enough money"?

You'll never know.

Greg

If it is unknowable, then your theory is useless and inane.

He did not say it was unknowable, not to you nor to others, only that you will not know it consequent to the choices you have supposedly made and he doesn't think you will change. Note that he is saying he knows and you don't therefore it must as a generality be knowable unless he is claiming something only he can see, understand and know as per his super-human or supra-human status.

--Brant

[moralist]

...and he doesn't think you will change.

Exactly.

That's why Frank so desperately needs to argue... and I don't.

The validity of his view is dependent upon trying to convince others by arguing... while mine does not.

This is because I understand that every adult has already chosen their view... and short of a genuinely life threatening or life altering experience, they will take what they chose and all of its consequences to their grave just as they rightly deserve.This applies equally to everyone. Some regard it as a blessing... while others regard it as a curse.

It all depends on what each of us has already chosen.

Greg

[Selene]

It all

depends on what each of us has already chosen.

Greg

Greg:

A serious question...in your way of thinking, generally, how early in life can an individual chose?

I realize there are exceptions, however I am looking for the "general" answer.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

(edit--for Greg:) You don't need to argue for you really don't. Such is the consequence of the choices you made and got locked into too. But Francisco embraces logic and since you don't he's structurally in a better place than you are qua epistemology. You are in turn in the metaphysics. You can't get out of where you are for you have eschewed the epistemological means which Francisco has retained. If his thinking is incorrect then show how it is logically incorrect. Only that's completely beyond you.

--Brant

Edited May 6, 2015 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

It all

depends on what each of us has already chosen.

Greg

Greg:

A serious question...in your way of thinking, generally, how early in life can an individual chose?

I realize there are exceptions, however I am looking for the "general" answer.

A...

Not speaking for Greg, but I became what I am today consequent to the remembered start of my conceptual thinking, how and why I thought and tried to learn and understand, at 2 1/2 years. Everything I add to that is easy. Everything else is hard to change. I am now on the verge of making the most profound change of my life. Genetically I'm too laid back and passive. This is good, I suppose, for a long life, which is also part of my genetic endowment. I'm going to throw a lot of wood into the firebox; say goodbye to all that by narrowing of focus. How this will affect my tendency to broad abstractions and their integration, I've no idea. Bet on stop chewing my cud. I figure I likely have 20 years to do this getting on with it. I figure I have tremendous assets to exploit already on hand. A lot of people achieve tremendous things with second-hand egos. Then, like Peter Keating, they give out. They stop flying. Their planes never really did fly so well. You* should see what I have in my hanger. Maybe you will and maybe you won't. Maybe I'll fly off and you'll never see me** again. Maybe I'll crash and burn. It's not what others see; it's what I see. It's not what you experience of me but what you experience of yourself.

Brant

*generic "you"

**generic "me" plus me as in my raw ego walking around naked unbuffered by social clothes and niceties (I ain't pretty)

Is he "The One"?

I am "The One"

You are "The One"--aren't you?

[moralist]

It all

depends on what each of us has already chosen.

Greg

Greg:

A serious question...in your way of thinking, generally, how early in life can an individual chose?

I realize there are exceptions, however I am looking for the "general" answer.

A...

In my opinion, people generally choose as a result of becoming self aware of the moral accountability of their actions. For Jews, it's traditionally at the age of 12 (bar or bat mitzvah ). But life changing events can always happen to change that choice.

Every child in America starts out as a liberal with the need to be cared for, the need for indemnification so as to feel safe and secure, and with the feeling of being entitled to getting everything free because someone else pays for it...

...but in America not every child grows to mature into an American. Today, less and less do. This is why the government will never stop growing until it experiences its own life changing event... collapse. But that collapse will not be a cause. It will be only as a consequence of the collapse of the lives of hundreds of millions of children who never grew into adults.

Most all changes of view are from European liberal (child) to Conservative American (adult)... and only the pain of objective reality from getting the clubbing we deserve from the consequences of our actions has the power to make us change our chosen view. But even that is a choice between acknowledging our moral accountability for our actions... or angrily blaming (unjustly accusing) anything external... rich people, big corporations, the Federal Reserve, international bankers, or the government.

Greg

[moralist]

You don't need to ar Such is the consequence of the choices you made and got locked into too

My choice is the opposite of being locked in... because what I chose sets me free from the emotional (and financial) slavery as the result of angrily blaming (unjustly accusing) others for the just and deserved consequences of my own actions.

I enjoy God given rights most people couldn't even begin to imagine.

Greg