RoR: Forum

Hi, Byron.

I liked what you had to say in your post, and I found this one sentence of yours the best summary of my entire purpose in this thread:

>>I can however, make enough of a pile of money that it would not matter as much how much taxes were taken away, and it is a far better choice I think than living in some mountain in Colorado where I do not have to pay taxes, but at the cost of my standard of living.<<

As you say, the glass is half full. Let's make the best of it.

Regards,
Bill

Post 41

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 6:59pm

Hi Byron,

It is obvious you came to understand and appreciate the quote entirely on your own, and like me, only discovered subsequently that Ayn Rand appreciated it for the same reason.

It is also quite obvious you apply those principles in your own life. I'm glad I was the one who made you aware of the Rand connection.

Thank you for the very interesting post.

Post 42

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 7:34pm

Hi Joe,

Our disagreement is purely logical.

And so here is the truth to your secret. If everyone acted as Citizen Rat, the freedom would be lost in a heartbeat. When the first encroachments to liberty begin ...

Since, the actions of Citizen Rat do not encroach on anyone's liberty, if everyone acted as Citizen Rat acted, there would be no encroachment on anyone's liberty.

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 7/12, 7:37pm)

Post 43

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 8:21pm

Regi:

" ....if everyone acted as Citizen Rat acted, there would be no encroachment on anyone's liberty"

Does "everyone" include all the non-productive bureaucrats, the lay-abouts, pandering socialist politicians and law makers?

Sam

Post 44

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 8:39pm

Hi Joe,

Regi, I can't imagine what you mean by "If you want freedom, you can have it, now, in this world".

No, I do not suppose you can even imagine it. Most cannot.

How is it that you can start a company, don't bother paying taxes, and not get arrested?

Hard to imagine for you isn't it? And you do not have to believe this, but there are at least two who post to SOLO occasionally who run businesses that pay not taxes.

I'm almost curious how you'll twist and contort the meaning of words so you can ignore the fact that governments around the world use force to varying degrees against people.

Funny that you could imagine that when you know I believe that is the only thing any government does, that is, use force to varying degrees against people. Anyone who ignores that fact is never going to be free.

And then there's the more curious things. Like you always say that you can't convince anyone, and so you never argue with people. And yet you spend a part of every day arguing here on SOLOHQ. Again, what twisting of meanings allows you to pretend you don't argue with people?

I guess I do it to annoy those who worry about what I do, even though it is none of their business.

And then there's the fact that you have a website!

Yes. A good one too.

Or are you going to drop the context, say that you're not changing their minds because only they can, but you're providing them the information?

What "context" exactly, would that drop?

It's all very curious. You claim that working towards a better world is pointless, futile, and probably immoral.

Good grief, when did I ever say that. If I ever said that, if I even hinted that, I here and now renounce it forever. I do say, that almost, and probably all, of the schemes which are usually proposed as methods of achieving a better world are wrong, and are bound to cause more harm than good. I do think it is immoral to waste one's life pursuing what cannot possibly succeed.

But how is it that you justify your own website?

Justify to whom? Since when do I have to justify my web site to anyone?

What's the part that makes it okay for you, but wrong for everyone else?

When did I ever say it is wrong for anyone else to have a Website?

I'm also curious why you think it's impossible to make a change in this world. Given the number of people that have written to me telling me that my articles have changed their lives, or that I've introduced them to Ayn Rand and now they see everything clearly ...

Well good for you and congratulations.

It's all nice and fine to know your limits, but setting them at zero is just a self-fulfilling prophecy waiting to happen. It may be that you personally have been unable to make a change in the world, but if that's true, it's your own problem.

Yes. We all have our problems. I appreciate your being understanding about mine.

I'm relatively new at this

Well, don't tell anyone; I'm sure they'll never guess.

And the next obvious mistake is to assume because we can't win everything overnight, nothing is worth doing. I hear that a lot. Impatient people who get frustrated at the rate of progress, and throw up their hands in defeat. No thanks.

Oh, I agree! But wait, what do you mean, "can't win overnight?" Do you meant in ten years, twenty, fifty, in our lifetime?

It really doesn't matter, because you do not state what it is you expect to win. What I have won and many others have won, or are in the process of winning, is what can be won within one's own lifetime. That is worth fighting for.

And finally, you assume that this intellectual war we fight is a sacrifice, because we're not out living our lives.

How do you know I assume that? You are only assuming I assume that. What do you mean by an "intellectual war?" Who are you fighting this war against? If you do not know that what you are doing is going to have the results you expect, for certain, it is only a gamble. If there are things one can do to win their freedom, without question, why should they give that up for the sake of a gamble?

Regi

Post 45

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 1:26am

Rat-boy, you should really learn what a straw man is. And while you're at it, look up utopian while you're at it. Are you implying that a world where most people take care of their own business is not practical or somehow impossible? Or do you think I was arguing for a perfect world? And if so, how does that explain why I think the resolve to fight for our freedom is going to be important? If it were utopian, we would need that would we?

Not to worry. I got the real point. I can see how a world where the initiation of force is outlawed would seem like hell to you.

Regi, you say "No, I do not suppose you can even imagine it. Most cannot." Shall I translate that to be "It's impossible to explain it to you...you either get it or you don't."? Well, not to worry. I understand that by 'freedom' you mean the ability to do what the government lets you to do. I don't consider hiding from government the same thing as freedom, but that's just me. I can see how you might side with the Rat, who also believes that coercion isn't coercion if they let you live.

You're welcome to your "victories", though. And if twisting the meaning of the word "freedom" makes that work for you, have a ball.

Post 46

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 4:56am

Sam,

" ....if everyone acted as Citizen Rat acted, there would be no encroachment on anyone's liberty"

Does "everyone" include all the non-productive bureaucrats, the lay-abouts, pandering socialist politicians and law makers?

Everyone includes everyone. If everyone acted as Citizen Rat acted there would be no non-productive bureaucrats, layabouts, pandering socialist politicians and law makers.

If there are non-productive bureaucrats, layabouts, pandering socialist politicians and law makers, it is because they are not acting the way Citizen Rat acts. The cure for their existence is for them to become productive, busy, self-sufficient individuals, like Citizen Rat.

Regi

Post 47

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 6:16am

Regi:

Everyone includes everyone. If everyone acted as Citizen Rat acted there would be no non-productive bureaucrats, layabouts, pandering socialist politicians and law makers.

If there are non-productive bureaucrats, layabouts, pandering socialist politicians and law makers, it is because they are not acting the way Citizen Rat acts. The cure for their existence is for them to become productive, busy, self-sufficient individuals, like Citizen Rat.

Congratulations. You've finally understood my point. What you've described is what you would call utopian and what you and Citizen Rat have condemned the rest of us for. You have a vision of what society could be like. Indeed, if there were none of those hangers on there would be no one to collect the oppressive taxes that were the central point of this thread near the beginning.

(Have you been a mole, all along, finally undermining Citizen Rat?) :-)

Sam

.

Post 48

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 6:18am

Hi, Regi.

Once again I thank you for pointing out the obvious to our friends: A fellow like me is no threat to their liberty.

However, they will not be persuaded. The discussion in this thread is cutting deep into what they value (assuming the sixty-plus "no-sanction" messages I have received in the past day are any indicator). They value Objectivism not so much as a personal philosophy for an independent, productive, and happy life but as an ideal for mankind that, by their lights, our present world miserably fails to meet. Therefore, to advocate that one can indeed lead an independent, productive, and happy life in the world as it is, rather than the world as they would wish for, constitutes a threat to what they value, because it contradicts what they WANT to be true.

Our friends are so enamored with one Big Idea that they have subordinated all else to it. In this they are no different in temperment to all the other rationalists of modern times. Thus, the utopian dream, the belief that the world can in fact be re-organized by the Big Idea. (Galt's Gulch is a blueprint for the real world.) Thus, the celebration of ideas over reality. (Why do you think our friends are such staunch supporters of intellectual property, despite our repeated demonstrations that all the things they claim to value would be better protected without intellectual property? Because, it would not make sacrosanct the one thing they value above all else: The idea.) Thus, the destruction of that which does not conform to the Big Idea is preferred over the creation of a happy life in the here and now. (The preference for the revenge fantasy of "Atlas Shrugged" over the story of personal liberation in "The Fountainhead".)

I know I'm treading upon psychologizing our friends, which is seldom a reputable course for argument. However, we are witnessing in this thread the exposure of a core contradiction that I do not believe our friends have resolved. Is Objectivism first and foremost a personal creed for happiness or is it an organizing principle for mankind? If the former, then the good life can indeed be had in the world as it is. If the latter, what but disappointment can be realized in a world that will never ever submit to one Big Idea? Our friends surely recognize which is best for themselves, yet they plunk down for the latter. Why? Because, I suspect, it is righteousness, a disease that inflicts many a believer in which it is more important that others know you are right than to know for yourself that you are right.

Well, that's where I think all this sound and fury over Joe's water-cooler chat with a co-worker has taken us.

Regards,
Bill

Post 49

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 6:22am

Hi, Sam.

Your last post addressed to Regi is a hoot -- and you call me the spinmeister!

Regards,
Bill

Post 50

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 11:08am

Well, Citizen Rat, if you are to regain any credibility whatsoever you should refute previous arguments instead of evading them.

I accused you of spinning that John Galt was attempting to destroy the economy when, in fact, he was retiring from the field of combat and letting the oppressors destroy it by themselves. You declined to comment.

You accused me of spinning Regi's vision of a society devoid of non-productive bureaucrats, layabouts, pandering socialist politicians and lawmakers. If you are to actually say something other than,"It's a hoot" you have to address my statement that it's utopian.

Sam

Post 51

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 2:45pm

Hi, Sam.

>>Well, Citizen Rat, if you are to regain any credibility whatsoever you should refute previous arguments instead of evading them.<<

Not to be obnoxious but about this, but it's probably best if I just say this bluntly: Do you really think I care? My words speak for themselves. Reasonable people will consider the message and not the messenger. Then there are those folks, like many here, who will not judge a statement until they know who made it.

>>I accused you of spinning that John Galt was attempting to destroy the economy when, in fact, he was retiring from the field of combat and letting the oppressors destroy it by themselves. You declined to comment.<<

I did comment. Read my response to Robert Bisno. In any event, if you want to be free to employ the hyperbole of equating taxation to slavery, you can't rightly work up much of a fuss over my characterization of Galt's mission.

>>You accused me of spinning Regi's vision of a society devoid of non-productive bureaucrats, layabouts, pandering socialist politicians and lawmakers. If you are to actually say something other than, "It's a hoot" you have to address my statement that it's utopian.<<

Lighten up, old boy. I accused you of spinning your previous vehement disagreement with me and Regi. It was a flip remark that you are taking much too seriously. As for any substantive discourse, Sam, let's be honest. It's doesn't appear possible between you and me. I tell you plainly what I think and suggest where common ground might exist, and you implacably assure me that there is none. What's the point?

Upon reflection, however, that is not an excuse for fun at your expense. I apologize for the spinmeister crack.

Regards,

Bill

Post 52

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 3:55pm

"Then there are those folks, like many here, who will not judge a statement until they know who made it."

Justice in action.

Post 53

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 6:23pm

Sam, sam, sam,

Look what you've done...

Have you been a mole, all along, finally undermining Citizen Rat?

You've blown my cover, and now I won't able to get away with anything.

Regi

Post 54

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 7:26pm

Citizen Rat, Robert Bisno,

Thank you for the kind comments, Bill, but you know I am not defending you (as if you needed it) but the concepts that you conveniently represent. Why the "Objectivists" are not applauding your real life practice of the principles epitomized in the fictional Objectivist hero (Roark) simply amazes me.

Now I want to bring up a small disagreement I have with you, and Mr. Bisno. I quote from a much earlier post:

Bill said: You mean like John Galt recruiting Hank Reardon to abandon his business to help Galt ruin the economy?

Robert said: you really did miss the point of atlas shrugged if you think that the "shruggings" of those galt recruited were an act of sacrifice for galt's "higher cause". the entire point is that IT IS IN THEIR INTEREST TO SHRUG, that the world they live in now HAS NOTHING OF VALUE TO OFFER THEM, is only getting worse, and with each passing day is more and more of a threat to them. thusly, it is in their self interest to disappear from the world into galt's gulch.

I believe you both are wrong about the purpose of "The Strike," (which was Ayn Rand's original title for the book). Ayn Rand makes the reason for the strike quite clear in both Atlas Shrugged and other writings. The expression Ayn Rand herself used was, "the sanction of the victim." The only power the government had against the industrialists and business men it was oppressing in the novel (and actually oppresses in real life) is the power given to it by the very business men who are its victims. The purpose of the strike was to cut off the supply of nourishment to the cancer that was consuming all value and virtue.

To this extent, I agree the oppression had become intolerable and possibly the world under that government had, "nothing of value to offer them," but that is not the reason for the strike. Those who saw no more value in that country could have gone somewhere else, (like Galt's Gulch), but there would have been no reason to try to induce other's to go there, which is one of the main plot features of the book. The idea was to teach those who were financing their own destruction that is what they were doing, and the solution was to, "quit," because they could get along without the government, but the government would collapse without them.

Maybe this will seem like a small point to either of you, (or both), but to me it is the fundamental message of Atlas Shrugged. When an individual discovers their own productive efforts are being used to enslave them, they are in effect creating the chains by which they are bound. This is the only question I have about those who continue to produce and allow the government to confiscate a major portion of what they have produced. This is the only thing the you might be doing, Bill, that I would question.

I mentioned to Joe Rowlands that I know two who occasionally post to SOLO who run businesses that do not pay taxes. In one case the business is incorporated off-shore, in the other case, I will not say how the taxes are avoided for obvious reasons.

This is not a major quibble. Just some thoughts for those who are really interested in being free.

Regi

Post 55

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 9:40pm

Citizen Rat:

There was no need to apologize for the "It's a hoot" comment. I understand. It was the only alternative to continue engaging in a rational argument.

Regi: Your friends have nothing to fear if they are avoiding taxes � that's what tax lawyers and planners help you do. Evading taxes is unlawful.

Sam

Post 56

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 5:17am

Sam,

I like you nice pithy responses.

Evading taxes is unlawful.

When laws are immoral, it is immoral to obey them.

Regi

Post 57

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 6:08am

Hi, Regi.

>>The idea was to teach those who were financing their own destruction that is what they were doing, and the solution was to, "quit," because they could get along without the government, but the government would collapse without them. ... This is the only question I have about those who continue to produce and allow the government to confiscate a major portion of what they have produced. This is the only thing the you might be doing, Bill, that I would question.<<

I did understand the point of The Strike. Indeed, Rand taught me to view history in a different way. I won't bore you with the details of this hobbyhorse of mine, but there is pattern in Western history going back at least to 500 B.C. of the productive battling the parasites.

Nonetheless, it is only honest of me to say that I found the most interesting part of "Atlas Shrugged" to be Dagney's and Hank's struggles to keep their businesses running amid the crisis. Furthermore, the book really is a fantasy. I do not see how history would ever play out such a scenario; so, it is prudent to take its lessons metaphorically. However, I am confident if the time comes when real change can be had, I'll be prepared to take radical action to help bring it about. Until then I will perservere to be productive (and so be independent) and admire those who do likewise.

Now, let's see if I can get back to this ontology stuff. ;)

Regards,
Bill

Post 58

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 6:15am

Yeah, that's pithy also. I like aphorisms, especially "HeeHoo" ones such as, "He who has a hammer will look at every problem as a nail."

Sam

Post 59

Friday, February 24, 2006 - 12:36pm