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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 10:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While science and industrialization have eliminated many of the hazards of nature, every once in a while something happens that simply makes one say 'Damn!'  Hopefully human knowledge of seismology will one day serve to eliminate - or at least reduce the devastation caused by - such occurences. 

I can't even imagine relaxing on the beach on a calm sunny day and seeing a wall of water come smashing through. 


Post 1

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 2:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes.  I've not looked deeply into the calamity, but were there any advance warnings?

Post 2

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 4:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just saw that the death toll is estimated to be over 100,000... A 9.0 magnitude quake plus tsunami, it's hard even for me to imagine how devastating it is.

If anybody remembers, there was a reported 7.6 magnitude earthquake in July 28, 1976 in Tangshan, China. I say reported because it was suspected to be more severe than that. There were more than 200,000 casualties in that quake. China's then government refused all  international aids offered by other countries, just to show its independence and pride.

My hometown is about 100km from the center of the quake. The room my family lived in was on the second floor of a concrete building. It cracked a 2-inch wide crack on the floor and through one side of the wall. Fortunately nobody lived in that building was hurt. We then lived in a tent made by bed sheets on the street until winter almost came. It then finally dawned on my parents that nobody was going to do a thing. For two weeks, from morning till dark, I went with my father to various collapsed building sites, digging for usable bricks, door and window frames, and any other useful material. Then with the help of three of my parents' friends, we built a little hut and lived in it for four years. It took the government four years to patch the cracks and put a few strengthening steel rods through the walls of our building, and we moved right back in. Well, hopefully, the victims in this disaster will fare better than we.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 12/29, 8:05pm)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 12/29, 8:09pm)


Post 3

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 4:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A big question is, how many lives could have been saved if people were warned of the wave before it hit. It took like 5 hours before it hit Sri Lanka and if they had the technology, they could have known well beforehand. The US has buey's in the Atlantic, Pacific, and the Gulf so unless it starts right on the coast, we can evacuate.

Post 4

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 4:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That’s right, Clarence. Even without buoys and fancy systems, the mere fact that a very large quake occurred across the sea from those beaches should have been on every TV and radio channel, given the likelihood of it causing waves.

Jon

Post 5

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is true that a more technologically advanced society would have had some forewarning, and would have saved many lives.  Sadly that isn't the case here.  These hurricanes are like Michael Jordan - you can't stop 'em, you can only hope to contain 'em. 

Post 6

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 7:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Such a horrible tragedy.  Just curious, are any of you going to donate any money to the relief effort?  (Not out of obligation or perceived virture in charity, but just because it would make you feel better to help out).


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Truthfan:

Today's ARI op-ed expresses my take on this quite succinctly. The government has already taken any choice away from me. If it hadn't done so I, as a person of good will, might be inclined to donate. One would hope that if such a tragedy were to occur here other individuals in other countries would likewise help.

U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims

Our money is not the government's to give.

As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.

The United States government, however, should not give any money to help the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is not the government's to give.
 
Full article: 
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10688&news_iv_ctrl=1021


Post 8

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have a different take on US government's action to help the tsunami victim: since I am willing to help as well, this is one of those occasions that there is no conflict between my own will and that of US governments. So I consider Bush is doing the job for me. I just hope the money will be spent efficiently.

Post 9

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 2:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the government vs individual giving point is a valid one, but in this case I don't believe they are mutually exclusive.  I.E. The government infringed on your right to keep all of your money, but that does not mean that they also took away your choice to give more of your money to the cause individually.  I don't know if you meant it Sam, but you implied that your choice of giving or not had been taken away by the government. 

I think an individual can morally give to the cause today if they choose, and also keep protesting government taxation tomorrow. 


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 3:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong Zhang wrote:
I have a different take on US government's action to help the tsunami victim: since I am willing to help as well, this is one of those occasions that there is no conflict between my own will and that of US governments. So I consider Bush is doing the job for me. I just hope the money will be spent efficiently.
If you haven't yet encountered it, I suggest you read Not Yours To Give.

"We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."

My, how Congress has changed!

Post 11

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Truthfan: You've almost hit the nail on the head, but not quite. By my donating money implies (to all those altruist out there) that the government should have donated more. Does this impact negatively all those unfortunate victims? You bet. Thus are the fruits of government intervening where they have no business.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 6:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The ARI and others put this stuff out to make an impact, to reach people, right? So I always wonder why they choose topics such as these at moments such as this. I have no problem with Sam’s points or with the cited ARI piece. However, if reaching people and attracting them to Objectivism is the goal, then it’s foolish. Right now people are watching video of unspeakable loss. They are wishing planes and boats moved faster. No one is thinking: “Damn that government of mine that helps instead of letting ME do the helping.” Thus, no one is approached positively by that ARI piece at this moment. If I was new to Objectivism and today that ARI piece was my first introduction…

Jon


Post 13

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 7:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon: I agree with your observation that the ARI is not doing Objectivism a favor by exploiting this situation. Newbies would certainly be turned off as they would have no understanding of the underlying principles of Objectivism.

Sam


Post 14

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 3:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Truthfan: " Just curious, are any of you going to donate any money to the relief effort?"

I am.

Truthfan: "I think an individual can morally give to the cause today if they choose, and also keep protesting government taxation tomorrow."

Agreed.


Barbara

Post 15

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well I have to support ARI here, I think we have a somewhat romantic view of the United States giving world wide aid; if you’re a person who wants to see such action stopped, then this article should make you more receptive, not less. Even if you want to give aid, imagine the greediest and stingiest (I know, I know) person you know. If this abuses his rights, then its wrong.

That said, I do support aid in some circumstances. When the US benefits strategically like alliances or economically like general trade, then its good for the US to give. Of course its not strictly aid if we want, for instance, basing rights in return but we can say it is to get the leftists off our backs. The Marshall Plan (they way it was enacted, not planned) was a perfect example of how aid was used well. We rebuilt Western Europe and, for a time, they helped curb the communist threat.

Post 16

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 5:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An American military base in the region was forewarned by the warning system set up for the Pacific-they called ahead and said there was a danger because of the Earthquake. But none of the affected nations notified each other-the earthquake wasn't a secret, some of the waves hit in minutes, others took a number of hours to reach the farther shores. No one called to warn them.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 7:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I posted this in another forum by accident but it belongs here

This is an excerpt from The Life of Colonel David Crockett that I found in this article that I think is really revelent.

http://www.trimonline.org/congress/articles/crockett.htm

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker -- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Post 18

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 8:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Clarence Hardy wrote:
I posted this in another forum by accident but it belongs here

This is an excerpt from The Life of Colonel David Crockett that I found in this article that I think is really revelent.
And I had already referenced the story in post #10 in this thread.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 11:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick, thank you for posting the "Not Yours To Give" link. I had just mentioned this, my favorite Davy Crockett story, to my father in conversation two days ago. Your link gave me the opportunity to read this classic again after many years.

Regarding the ARI op-ed by David Holcberg , I agree with this op-ed completely and consider it proper for ARI to publish it now, with no reservations.

(Edited by Bob Palin on 1/01, 11:28am)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.