About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 2:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

John,

You've got Steve on the whole sending money in defense of the fight for freedom, but he's really got you on the whole sending American lives thing. If you want him to admit wrong-doing / wrong-thinking, then you have got check that rancor, get off of your high horse, and admit your wrong-doing / wrong-thinking on the matter.

Suggestion:
Own your part of it, or let it go altogether.

Ed


So let me just understand clearly Ed, you mean to say Steve has no problem with tax money being sent overseas to help other democratic nations defend themselves like the example of Taiwan and Israel? It's only when troops are sent? Is that a matter of philosophy or strategy then? Because now I'm having a hard time understanding what is the philosophical difference then in what kind of resources we help an ally like Taiwan or Israel with? Money yes, troops no? What is the philosophical distinction?

I'll get off the high horse as long as the blatant philosophical contradiction is resolved, and the minute Steve gets off his high horse when he labeled me an altruist for taking many of Rand's own positions.
(Edited by John Armaos on 9/05, 2:53pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 3:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin is correct in saying that I do not object to paying local taxes for local law enforcement. I also don't object to paying national taxes for national protection. I do object to my money being spent to attack any dictator when there is no identified threat.

I would appreciate a little more respect in our discussion. You referred to my opinions as being old-fashioned and outdated. You should have checked first on what I know of modern, military technology, or futures studies and what I know of nanotechnology - wouldn't that make more sense than making statements that are so wrong as to make you look foolish? I had top secret clearance when working with DOD on many different software designs. One of my designs for shortening the research cycle in applied medicine was nominated for a national award and ended up becoming a DOD project implemented through the Army. I worked with Navy personnel at the sub base in Pearl Harbor and the Air Force at Hickam. My team prepared the briefing materials for COMPACFLT during several North Korea threats. I read Drexler's first book on Nanotechneology in the mid eighties. I familiar with Moores law, accelerated change in technology, AI, and the technical singularity (I too read Kursweil). I majored in microbiology and graduated phi beta kappa. Do you hear what I'm saying? I was reading Drexler while you were 10 years old and I've kept up to date.

It would also help if you didn't misrepresent what I actually say. You said, "so we must wait for a bullet to actually be flying at our head before we act in self defense" That is a totally false representation of my position. No where have I said anything like that.

You said my position was like, "Waiting for a battleship from the Iran navy to steam up the Hudson." Again, nothing I've said leads to that conclusion. It is just really bad argument on your part.

The word "threat" in this context means a specific indication of a specific, imminent danger to our country. An example would be where Iran was getting close to having a nuclear bomb and despite repeated warnings would not stop. Their statements about the US being "Great Satan", combined with their terrorist support would justify striking first.

Your misuse of the word 'threat' would make our country obligated to attack any nation falling below some as of yet undefined level of freedom - Even in the absence of a specific, indication of imminent harm to our country. There is no two ways to read this - either you throw out the concept of self-defense or you redefine it to mean that any significant lack of freedom in another nation is an attack on our country - both are wrong.

Going after some dictator that has made no verbal threats against the US and who is not associated with terrorist organizations hostile to the US and who does not even have WMDs can not be rationally justified as a threat. To say otherwise is to ignore the meaning of words.

If you would pay attention to what I've written you'd see that I'm already in favor of going after any terrorist organization that has attacked America (or threatened such an attack) and any nation that supports those terrorists. So your arguments about Bin Laden in twenty years don't apply to me. If we were not burdened by Iraq we could have applied far more resources towards stamping out Al Queda and its Saudi supporters.

You said, "The Soviet Union NEVER attacked us. Do you think they would announce it? You possess no crystal ball to determine the future course..." Didn't your read where I said, "...if it is an enemy in the sense that our country is at risk of attack (e.g., Soviet Union during the cold war) - that's different. Send money, send arms, and send military if there is an imminent threat of attack." You are the one claiming to have a crystal ball that tells you that every dictatorship is a threat to the United States.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve just sounds like he's backpedaling to me.

Now, the question becomes whose individual rights. The answer is: those who are paying the tax dollars - the citizens under the jurisdiction of the taxing entity. We pay taxes at the local level to get protection from local threats, we pay taxes at the national level to get protection at the national level, period.

Well, what about if some other country is being attacked by a common enemy? The word 'enemy' is ambiguous in this question. Does it mean ideological enemy or angry with us in the area of foreign affairs, and no more? Then no, our government shouldn't play altruistic robin hood games with tax payer money. But if it is an enemy in the sense that our country is at risk of attack (e.g., Soviet Union during the cold war) - that's different. Send money, send arms, and send military if there is an imminent threat of attack


The Soviet Union never attacked us. So what was the imminent threat? Imminent threat from whom? Who was the Soviet Union attacking?

The rational reason for us to continue our support of Israel is our shared enemy of Islamic terrorists and their supporting states - we should send everything but our military personnel until such time as we see an attack on us is imminent - then we go pedal to the medal.


This just displays the obvious philosophical contradiction. We should only send arms and money when there isn't an imminent attack because that's in our rational self-interests, but we should send troops to Israel only if there is an imminent attack? What was the moral justification then for sending arms and money when there wasn't an imminent threat of attack? If it served our rational self-interests to help Israel and Taiwan because we shared the same values, and we shared a common enemy, but we were never under threat of imminent attack, then when does it all of a sudden become NOT in our rational self-interests to send troops? Money and arms to a foreign nation like Taiwan and Israel in our rational self-interests, but sending troops no longer in our rational self-interests?

The fact is it the question of sending money in lieu of troops is a matter of strategy and empirical analysis, not philosophy. You've already admitted then that foreign interventionism can serve our rational self-interests, you just have a nit-pick over what type of assistance that is. Israel doesn't need American troops to defend itself, it does however need arms and money from the U.S. to defend itself, a massive amount. Richard Nixon sent a massive amount of military aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur war, to the extent that Golda Meir heralded Nixon for saving Israel.

But if it was in our interests to save Israel from destruction, as you seem to now think it was even though American tax payers don't live in Israel or were under threat of imminent attack from these Middle Eastern countries during the Yom Kippur war, then say if Israel had requested one batallion of American troops, what would you say then?

Steve: "Well Israel, we will send you a massive amount of arms and supplies to fight, because your destruction hinders our rational interests"

Golda Meir: "Yes Steve I agree, but we desperately need some man power too, just a battalion, and I think we can beat these scum-bags back to their borders"

Steve: "Oh no no no Golda, that kind of help is not in our rational self-interest, not men's labor, just men's money"

Golda Meir: "But Steve, we will be destroyed! I thought you said it was in your rational self interests to see that Israel is not destroyed? Even Rand thought we were a civilized nation worthy of help!"

Steve: "Well I do think its worthy of help, monetary help, if its destroyed because we didn't send a battalion of troops, then it is no longer a matter of rational self interests. Sorry, I know it's a total contradiction philosophically, but you see, I don't want to be an altruist"



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 4:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I was reading Drexler while you were 10 years old and I've kept up to date
Well, apparently you weren't paying attention. 

Kurzweil was our first large contributor to the Lifeboat Foundation, I was one of the first membes and vocal advocates of the Lifeboat Foundation.  Today we have leading members of the Extropy Institute and the Tranhumanist society on our board and as very vocal advocates.  Drexler founded the Foresight Institute with the explicit intention of identifying the serious threats that nanotechnology poses and enacting plans to mitigate those threats.  The Strategic Studies Group of the Navy War College considers the known and uknown threats from rapid technological growth disturbing enough to seriously investigate.  Almost every major figure in the transhuman and extropy circles are now supporters of the Lifeboat Foundation.  In short, everyone who knows what they are talking about considers these serious threats. 

Oh, but Steve Wolfer, whose read a few books, wrote some secret software, worked with Navy Personel - knows they are not, saying things like:
Some piss-pot, banana-state dictator hasn't a hope of launching an attack on our country and if he tried, it would be his last act
So given the rapid technological growth, the clear reduction in cost of technological, and the new technologies that biotech and nanotech will enable, you still insist that a 'piss pot banana state dictator has no hope of launching an attack'  Absurd!  I suspect that this is just merely a connection have not explicitly made, and are now backpeddling.  Unless you are prepared to argue that no significant threats will arise from these new technologies and that all the leaders in these fields are wrong to be concerned about these threats.

It would also help if you didn't misrepresent what I actually say. You said, "so we must wait for a bullet to actually be flying at our head before we act in self defense" That is a totally false representation of my position. No where have I said anything like that.
Actually you did say exactly that. 
Some piss-pot, banana-state dictator hasn't a hope of launching an attack on our country and if he tried, it would be his last act. Threat means threat - it means that America will be at the receiving end of a specific initiation of physical force
"At the recieving end of a specific initiation of physical force" is far different that "looks like you will be at the receiving end of an initiation of force" 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 4:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you squint your eyes, and imagine John in a dress and wig, he does sort of look like Golda Mier.

John, you are being just too silly. How could you ask "What was the imminent threat from the Soviet Union..." you really don't know? Try missiles targeting American cities, attempts to put missiles in Cuba, attacks on our submarines by theirs, attacks on our forces by Russian 'advisors' in Vietnam, verbal threats to bury us... do I need to go on?

I've stated my principles again and again and again. You go ahead and advocate making wars where ever you think there is a dictator or where ever you think any American 'trade interest' is 'threatened' or where ever you think a democratic nation is under attack.

You explained you position in your article titled "Foreign Intervention is Moral" - I explained my objections to what you wrote - and we have been around and around as often as I want to go. Playing little mouse-trap games on this or that hypothetical imaginary twist of history instead of addressing the principles has lost my interest.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 4:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Look at what the words "will be" does to the sentence. I included them, but you left them off. It means that if the other country continues we will be harmed. If someone is standing near a pile of rocks, that is one thing, but if they say they are going to hurt me and bend over to pick up a rock, then it is time to act - because I will be hurt if they continue.

I suspect you want to argue more than you want to understand or communicate - and the reason I say that, is that had I been you, I would have wondered what was being said and I would have looked at the examples given - I said if Iran were close to developing a bomb - does that sound like a bullet in the air. You need to show more of a willingness to see my side and to get it right before I will have any interest in further discussions with you.

If you really cared about what I know or don't know in the related fields you wouldn't be so insulting and condescending. Or, maybe you would... in either case it turns me off from any interactions with you.

You and John should get together and post a list of the countries that America should attack - all of them - don't just cherry pick the few obvious ones that are easy to defend. Seriously, the specific names of those countries we should attack - unless this is all just blustery, Internet swaggering or unless you don't know despite all of your studying and all of those groups with their scientists.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/05, 4:25pm)


Post 26

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 4:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve you missed the point. I obviously agree the Soviet Union was a threat to the United States. But helping nations who were under attack by the Soviet Union, even though those nations were half a world away, and helping them with money and arms, does not square with your principle that America should only take action if its in the self-defense of American tax payers from an imminent threat of attack, and especially absurd when you now try to distinguish philosophically sending "arms and money" as opposed to "troops". Israelis and Taiwanese were not American taxpayers. If it's just pointing weapons and threatening language that then justifies Americans sending money to countries that share a common enemy with us, countries that are not America, you then you have essentially adopted my position. You can keep professing your principles and chide mine, but you have taken a huge back peddle here.

Only dictatorships start wars, not democracies, and your latest cop out to any objective criteria to what is or isn't a dictatorship or democracy is just a plea for epistemological subjectivism. All dictatorships are not equally a threat to the U.S or its allies, going after all of them with equal measure and equal resources would of course be irrational and utterly stupid, yet you seem to think that's my position? Some dictatorships may never become a threat, but we do know only dictatorships start wars, and we don't ultimately know whether a presently minimally or non-threatening dictatorship will not become a larger threat in the future to us and our allies. But taking small measurable steps against the least threatening dictatorships, like cutting off economic trade, or giving them incentives to become a democracy "take some baby steps towards democracy and we will slowly open up trade with you" is a step in the right direction towards minimizing the threat of future wars. To dictatorships that are more threatening, more extreme measures need to be taken and more resources devoted to it. But ultimately a world where dictators are afraid of ever invading another country because it knows it would mean certain self-destruction, would eventually end all wars, which is always a rational goal, especially considering what so much inaction during the 20th century lead to one of the most devastating wars humanity has ever seen and an expansion of the Soviet Empire which killed more people than Hitler ever did.

You originally regarded our entry into the Iraq war as altruistic, even though you now say Israel is worthy of American help because it shares some of the same enemies the United States has, yet Iraq was without a doubt an enemy of Israel. It funded Palestinian terrorists that killed Israelis, it launched SCUD missile attacks against Israeli soil, it called for its destruction, but then you sanctimoniously condemn me as an altruist for supporting the Iraq war. Is the tea-pot calling the kettle black?

You go ahead and advocate making wars where ever you think there is a dictator or where ever you think any American 'trade interest' is 'threatened'


By saying this Steve, you prove two things:

1) How grossly ignorant you are of my positions. I have never advocated making wars with every dictatorship on this planet. The more you keep using this straw man despite my explanations of my position, only reveals you have no interest in any honest discussion.

2) That you keep saying war with where ever you think any American 'trade interest' is 'threatened' is a cop out and an argument for epistemological subjectivism. I can only assume by this you mean there is no such thing as an international trading interest, and that there is no such thing as that international trading interest being threatened. And therefore you don't advocate free trade, or at least you don't advocate preventing others from interfering with that free trade. It is without a doubt the most anti-Objectivist position one can take. If you don't think Americans have a right to defend their right to trade freely with other peace-loving nations, you don't value trade and have no business calling yourself an Objectivist.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

We aren't going to change each other's minds. I find if very unpleasant to have my positions mis-stated and to be misunderstood. And the constant labeling and name calling are offensive. On this subject of intervention, your replies to often feel like an attack by someone who is enraged at my very existence - not fun.

I know that there have been occasions where I've mis-stated your positions, but I don't feel that there has been anything near reciprocity or fairness or balance in the discussions in these areas - you see it differently.

For the sake of my enjoyment and to stop my part in this larding of ROR with endless, repetitious quibbles, I'm going to limit my replies to your posts (in some way or another) to put things back on an even keel for me.

Post 28

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 10:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, could you expand on the Law of Accelerating Returns, the Doomsday Curve, the Fermi Paradox, and the Lifeboat Foundation?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 10:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I know that there have been occasions where I've mis-stated your positions, but I don't feel that there has been anything near reciprocity or fairness or balance in the discussions in these areas - you see it differently.


I definitely do, you've consistently misstated positions, not occasionally, consistently, even up to post 24 of this thread stating I think we should militarily invade all dictatorships. I never ever said that. You did that with Michael Dickey as well and accused him of taking the 'nuke em all' approach. The fact is you reacted emotionally, and completely butchered the meaning of my posts. You've never honestly looked at my positions and immediately went into name-calling against me by calling me evil and an altruist. You're lack of enjoyment is purely of your own creation.

Post 30

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 7:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote:


Michael, could you expand on the Law of Accelerating Returns, the Doomsday Curve, the Fermi Paradox, and the Lifeboat Foundation?


Ted, I'll do a write up on this and post it later.

Post 31

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 8:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Law of Accelerating Returns
by  Ray Kurzweil


An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.
 
On the Doomsday Curve -
 
On the Fermi Paradox -
 
 
On the Lifeboat Foundation -
 
 

(Edited by robert malcom on 9/07, 8:32am)


Post 32

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 3:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Thanks for those interesting links.

jt

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.