Would You Move to Galt's Gulch?

To recap: I respectfully request that you -- in any future interactions with me -- weight moral judgments heavier than the judgments about the arguments/ideas.

I'll make it easy for the both of us and not have any future interaction with you.

Post 41

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 7:34pm

I'm with Sarah. If I live to see the tech become available, I'm going to leave Earth to the meek, and take to the sky.

Post 42

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 8:05pm

I just saw Serenity tonight. What a fun movie! The theme song to the tv show is appropriate to cite here, because it explains how one's ship IS one's private world...

Take my love, take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free
You can't take the sky from me
Take me out to the black
Tell them I ain't comin' back
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me
There's no place I can be
Since I found Serenity
But you can't take the sky from me...

Post 43

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 8:17pm

Ed'ucator,-

I like the Giles farm, that's kinda why we settled it. It's ours, Ed.

Remember, the long-range goal is the increasing of human happiness. Some humans are likely to die, but it is worth it. The humans that are left will TRULY live

Thanks for the tip Jeremy Bentham!
Your Saintly Klingon alliance is trying to make us better, and I don't hold to that.

to gather into safe-zones. The aliens invade and set up a fully-free world. I don't understand why you don't understand the moral superiority here.

Pioneers and native peoples the world over are, in this age, gathered into nations. They have staked their claims, mixed their labour with the land, built their houses and made their homes. Many are the virtues and values, both familiar and exotic. Mainly we just want to eat, be sheltered, mate and raise young. Hangis, cow dung houses and hand-made cigars are part of the various solution sets- so too are nations.

As the nation isn't free, it is morally okay to invade it. We invade and take over -- using as much force as is necessary to remove the collectivists there.

I like how you want to initiate force on my family, overthrow Somerset Farm. Good goin' you supermoral genius! :)

My country, your country, the nation of Cuba- ain't none of us perfect. But we're not done yet. This whole 'freedom' concept is just fresh out of the oven- historically brand new! And we haven't got it all figured out just yet. Some of us haven't even managed to work out how to use a VCR yet, do you think that's more complex or less complex than an entire way of life?

Cuba is evil. Cubans are not evil, they're just uninformed. So they havn't figured out the delicate mechanics of how to govern a nation yet? Let the flag without sin cast the first stone then, will it be your flag? You guys have given away more freedom than most of the rest of the world has ever even had.

It is not morally okay to invade another land just because they're failing capitalism, failing at nationhood. That cannot be the benchmark. We don't live so we can be a good nation, we run a good nation so we can live! ie Cigars, cow pats and hangis.

Gather us into safe-zones? Not while Will Smith lives!

Post 44

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 8:18pm

===========
I'll make it easy for the both of us�and not have any future interaction with you.
===========

Robert, I will respect this current sentiment and not attempt to engage you further, either (until and unless you state a change of heart on the matter).

Ed

Post 45

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 8:57pm

Rick,

============
I like the Giles farm, that's kinda why we settled it. It's ours,�Ed.�

[break]

I like how you want to initiate force on my family, overthrow Somerset Farm. Good goin' you supermoral genius! :)
============

Rick, hold the damn analogy -- it's slipping through your fingers again! C'mon man, you're making contradictory assumptions here. IF the ETs were HYPER-moral, THEN they wouldn't take your farm, dude! The assumption of morality -- and remember, this was originally YOUR analogy, man -- the assumption of a morality that supercedes our own HAS TO INCLUDE all things of real value to us (and possibly more than this -- as our horizons are broadened by these hyper-benevolent creatures whom you've hypothesized).

=============
My country, your country, the nation of Cuba- ain't none of us perfect.
=============

Rick, I respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning/implication. It runs contrary to Randian politics -- where individual rights are absolutes, where governments of countries -- that've become not that much more than slave-pens -- can be criminal. Let's take this to the extreme case, Rick -- to test the implicit implication of the "nobody's perfect -- let all alone" principle (as faulty reasoning breaks down under extreme pressure):

Do you agree, or disagree, with Rand's statement that any free nation had the moral right -- to attack the Nazis?

================
Cuba is evil. Cubans are not evil, they're just uninformed.
================

Rick, I'm not advocating wholesale extermination of the Cuban citizens (that's what the safe zones were for!) -- though I am advocating a kind of "tough love" for the "idea" of collectivism (taking land from "it"). I'm advocating the taking over of land that is currently lorded over by anti-individual powers. What I'm advocating is -- for some, who don't have enough money to leave Cuba -- a kind of forced freedom. That is, until they make enough money (in the new, free market) to buy a house in another collectivist country and resettle there -- if collectivism is what they are after.

I'm not advocating the taking away of owned land (the folks will keep their farms)-- I'm advocating the taking away of the option of living under collectivism INSIDE Cuba. Folks would be free to leave -- and find collectivism elsewhere -- if that is their gig.

================
So they havn't figured out the delicate mechanics of how to govern a nation yet? Let the flag without sin�cast the first stone then, will it be your flag?
================

Jesus man, this reasoning justifies ALL regimes! And to boot, this reasoning is fricken' biblical in both spirit AND letter. And you wanna' bring this reasoning up so soon after the Isaiah 65:22 debacle! Who's lost their mind now?! Salient point:

Moral judgment requires moral superiority, not moral perfection.

================
You guys have given away more freedom than most of the rest of the world has ever even had.
================

Sad, but true.

================
We don't live so we can be a good nation, we run a good nation so we can live!
================

That's EXACTLY what I am talking about here! Now -- if, for nothing else than as a favor to me -- would you please integrate that with what it is that I have said about a Cuba takeover?

Ed

Post 46

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 9:36pm

"I'm not advocating the taking away of owned land (the folks will keep their farms)-- I'm advocating the taking away of the option of living under collectivism INSIDE Cuba. Folks would be free to leave -- and find collectivism elsewhere -- if that is their gig."

Thanks for clarifying, Ed.

Post 47

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 10:15pm

Unless you mean something else, and fast, you're going to get all squished. No doubt about it.

IF the ETs were HYPER-moral, THEN they wouldn't take your farm, dude!

Does that mean then that Team Ed isn't going to fly over and drop brochures, giving residents 2 months to get out of Cuba or at least get into pre-defined areas that Team Ed won't attack?
This was my distinct impression.

My country, your country, the nation of Cuba- ain't none of us perfect.

Rick, I respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning/implication.
governments of countries -- that've become not that much more than slave-pens -- can be criminal

Wont say 'criminal', but that it is in rebellion against its citizens. And that's a good reason to take that government down (and I don't think that's your job as an outsider- but lets not go there today).

However, it is no good reason to take the people down. Take their farms, their cow-dung houses, their boats and tree houses and caves? No!

Do you agree, or disagree, with Rand's statement that any free nation had the moral right -- to attack the Nazis?

I don't. But lets not go there either.

Rick, I'm not advocating wholesale extermination of the Cuban citizens (that's what the safe zones were for!)

I'm not reacting to you as if you were. But there are worse things than extermination, and what you're advocating is one of them (Oh, safe zones? You're all heart! Not!).

I'm not advocating the taking away of owned land (the folks will keep their farms)

Hell of a property right you're leaving us when we're confined to our safe zone. What do we plow our fields with, 100 foot poles?

Maybe you need to state again exactly what kinda mischief you and your invasion force has on its mind.

Let the flag without sin cast the first stone then, will it be your flag?
================

Jesus man, this reasoning justifies ALL regimes! And to boot, this reasoning is fricken' biblical in both spirit AND letter.

Hey, it's a good book.
That's not a statement about justified regime. I'm trying to give you some perspective here because I think you're a tad prejudice against Cubans. Would you do it to New Zealand too? Would you suffer it for USA from the hand of E.T.?

Salient point:

Judge not least ye be judged.

Baring in mind what Ayn Rand thinks of this. She submits to it, if you recall.

And you wanna' bring this reasoning up so soon after the Isaiah 65:22 debacle!

Hoy you! My point back there about was that Aristotle wasn't such hot stuff because The Bible was sure to have economic meta-theory in it. You provided the welcome evidence to support my claim. 'Debacle' pah-hah!

Moral judgment requires moral superiority, not moral perfection

Requires neither!

We don't live so we can be a good nation, we run a good nation so we can live!

That's EXACTLY what I am talking about here! Now -- if, for nothing else than as a favor to me -- would you please integrate that with what it is that I have said about a Cuba takeover?

I have, and you've just read the result. You freekin' loonytik!

Seems to me you're thinking of The State, not the people. Putting the cart before the horse. Dude.

Post 48

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 12:53am

Rick,

=========
Unless you mean something else, and fast, you're going to get all squished. No doubt about it.
=========

Them's fightin' words. Bring it on brother -- I am ready, willing, and able to crush you, my "friend."

=========
Does that mean then that Team Ed isn't going to�fly over and drop brochures, giving residents 2 months to get out of Cuba�or at least get into pre-defined areas that�Team Ed�won't attack?
=========

To recap: Team Ed doesn't EVER attack peoples without warnings to get into safe zones. This is the difference between Team Ed and Team Bush. Team Ed is concerned -- indeed, motivated -- about the cause of human happiness. And, praytell, how much human happiness can be gained via wholesale slaughter? Very little, I'm afraid. As a moral perfectionist, I understand that aspect of reality.

===========
And that's a good reason to take that government down (and I don't think that's your job as an outsider- but lets not go there today).
===========

My job?! How mischaracterizing of you, Rick! I'm not speaking of a duty here (and that should be obvious to anyone with a 3-digit IQ). I'm speaking of value. You say that you'd rather not "go there." My Ed'ucated guess is that that is because you are wrong there (about it being morally okay to overthrow dictatorships).

===========
However, it is no good reason to take the people down. Take their farms, their cow-dung houses, their boats and tree houses and caves?
===========

Nice tactic, Rick. Take what I say, and boldly deny it. Then -- now that you have a straw-man (ie. all that you are able to "work with") -- tear it down. I stated plainly, for all eyes to see, that farms would not be taken. You, living in some reality unto yourself, defy and deny that which is plainly typed for all to see. How much support do you expect, Rick? Plainly evading that which I've said, that which is available to all, in black & white, on the SOLOHQ server, to see.

Question: How in the world did you think that you would be thought of as anything other than an intellectual moron -- plainly denying that which is stored (in black & white) on the SOLOHQ server? How Rick, can you -- of obvious intelligence -- be so brazen in your ascertations of me when the argument (the one proving you wrong) is recorded in cyberspace?

==============
But there are worse things than extermination, and what you're advocating is one of them ...
==============

???

Put that into a syllogism -- and it will be evaluated justly. What's that? You'd rather rely on ineffable emotion? You'd rather keep the argument less defined? Hmm. Why's that? Maybe ... it's because ... you're more wrong than I am -- and precise premises would show this inherent inferiority of your position on the matter!

==============
Hell of a property right you're leaving us when we're confined to our safe zone. What do we plow our fields with, 100 foot poles?
==============

I've already stated the rebuttal to this (you've merely practiced selective omission, in maintaining it as an argumentative point -- something that is intellectually dishonest, on your part.)

==============
I'm trying to give you some perspective here because I think you're a tad prejudice against Cubans. Would you do it to New Zealand too? Would you suffer it for USA from the hand of E.T.?
==============

Ohh, those poor, blameless Cubans. Darn tutin' I'd take down NZ and the US -- if I had it in my power to create free market capitalism in these countries. My very initials are E.T. dammit! I can't believe that you are calling me "prejudice" against Cubans. What kind of pomo B.S. is that, huh? And, nice try, trying to make me out to be unpatriotic to the US -- you statist-enhancing f@#$!

On whether moral judgment requires mere moral superiority (or moral perfection)...
===============
Requires neither!
===============

Whatever dude! What this means, in principle, is that 2-year-olds can pass moral judgment! Nice ethics, man!

===============
Seems to me you're thinking of The State, not the people. Putting the cart before the horse.
===============

I can't believe that you charge me with this nonsense, Rick. You are truly amazing. If I put the State before the people -- would I view invasion (which harms the state, to the benefit of the people) -- as morally okay???

Talk about moral inversion (you're acting like you are the King of moral inversion)!

Ed

Post 49

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 2:35am

This thread provides all the evidence you want that Galt's Gulch won't happen any time soon. At least not on a large scale.

Post 50

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 4:17am

Hey munchacho! You don't have to talk to me like I'm one of the idiots. You know me.

Unless you mean something else, and fast, you're going to get all squished. No doubt about it.

Them's fightin' words. Bring it on brother -- I am ready, willing, and able to crush you, my "friend."

What I'm sayin' is that if you mean what I take you to mean then Solonaughts big and small will squish you without any help from me.

(and I don't think that's your job as an outsider- but lets not go there today).

My job?! How mischaracterizing of you, Rick! I'm not speaking of a duty here
I'm speaking of value. You say that you'd rather not "go there."

I said I'd rather not go there because I considered it a tangential subject. However, I'm starting to think maybe it isn't??? Jump in any time here....

Isn't it quite clear what you want? I read that you want to implement a Benthemite scheme to "take Cuba". I read you will give due warning to the population to get the hell gone (start swimming?) or else be forcefully moved into Indian Reservations ("safe-zones"). You want to "invade the nation", want to "colonize Cuba".

I'm not advocating the taking away of owned land (the folks will keep their farms)

Oh yeah, and the displaced natives get de facto ownership of their land, for what it's worth....nice touch generalissimo...

I've already stated the rebuttal to this

...Or, and I'm having to read your mind here, is your idea of "invading a nation" rocking up and popping off & supplanting the Castro Gang? I don't think it is, but if that's what you've meant all along don't blame me! If it is, if this isn't a tangent, that's a whole 'nother ball game.

But there are worse things than extermination, and what you're advocating is one of them ...

???

Better to be exterminated than what you're advocating; Better to live on our feet than to die on our knees. You're talking about destroying my way of life, your way of life, the Cuban way of life. I say to you that extermination is more appealing.

I can't believe that you are calling me "prejudice" against Cubans. What kind of pomo B.S. is that, huh?

The word is prejudiced Ed. When petty people around here want to score points by quoting typos they usually underscore it with a '[sic]'. That thing you just did was only medium-level pettiness for want of knowing this. So now you know you can be more unduly horrible to me next time if that's what you want to do these days.

Okay, so I thought maybe if you saw that your logic applied to a US invasion of NZ or an Independence Day movie-type invasion of your place you might bend a bit. It was worth a crack.

On whether moral judgment requires mere moral superiority (or moral perfection)...

Requires neither!

Whatever dude! What this means, in principle, is that 2-year-olds can pass moral judgment! Nice ethics, man!

Don't make me quote from The King And I....but yeah. My ethical measure of a man isn't based on how long it took him to acquire his rationality. But if you could give us the exact time in years, months, days, hours, minutes and seconds when one acquires the power to make moral judgements don't think I wouldn't be impressed to hear a thing like that explicated.

can't believe that you charge me with this nonsense, Rick. You are truly amazing. If I put the State before the people -- would I view invasion (which harms the state, to the benefit of the people) -- as morally okay???

Yes you would, if you thought- and again, fix me if I'm wrong- that the most important thing in the world was having a capitalist state and everything else came second.

Your invasion, btw, doesn't harm the state. The state does quite nicely, the collectivists are given the boot and libertarians installed, all the policy paperwork and legislation reads like Thomas Jefferson. The invaders/colonizers of this stolen Galt's Gulch will all be top people. Like you.
Peoples do this to each other all the time, it'll be 1066 all over again. It'll be Alexander The Great, The Roman Empire, Charlemagne, Angles and Saxons vs Britians. The state's going to do great and you'll have a dabadoo time.

As for the incumbents....not so good.

Post 51

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 5:52am

If you kids aren't going to play nice, then we'll have to take away all the toys and send you both home.

Seriously. Can we engage some ideas without threats of physical violence? Please?

Cuba's too hot all the time.

Post 52

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 5:59am

Who the heck sanctions Ricks twist of Ed's words? (You don't have to answer of course.) Ed is talking about removing the oppressive control from the Cuban's lives, and all Rick tries to do is make claim that it is horribly evil and must involve the unjust slaughter or permanent displacement of all Cubans. Rick, why don't you stop talking about that, and try to come up with less violent ways to free Cubans?

"This thread provides all the evidence you want that Galt's Gulch won't happen any time soon. At least not on a large scale."

Oh? Where is this evidence?

Post 53

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 8:57am

Thank you, Dean.

Rick, I will take a seat and let you have the last words here. My argument (for Cuban liberation -- with folks like me, as liberators) will stand or fall by its own merit. Folks (Dean shows) can see whether I aimed it at value or not.

I'm also sorry that I lost my temper so -- I think that it might've been more civil of me not to do that.

Ed
[contemplating my current distance from perfection]

Post 54

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 9:49am

Putting Castro in a dumpster by force, including force that kills some innocents would be a heroic act.

No comparison can be made between NZ and Cuba. Cubans have no property rights. They are the �property� of the state, and they are treated worse than animals. There is no free speech, no right to leave, no right to own farms (so I wonder at concern for farm owners.) There is no right to a trial; there are secret puttings to death.

When America is that bad, I will cheer my liberators.

Jon

Post 55

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 9:57am

Jon wrote: "When America is that bad, I will cheer my liberators."

Ah, but that's the rub, isn't it? Remember WE THE LIVING when discussing the state of the country, a character replies, "ah, it's not that bad" (paraphrased)? America isn't THAT bad, yet, but there are people in other countries where it is that bad who say the same thing and resent the liberators because they bring change which they are unready or unwilling to deal with. Same happened with the freed slaves in America. (Nietzsche's quote is appropriate here, the one that says some slaves, when they throw off their shackles, throw off their last value, or something to that effect.)

I see that as the American fate if people don't turn off from the breads and circuses of complacency. One leash leading to one pen.

Post 56

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 2:35pm

Ah, the ex-slave who dislikes the uncertainties of freedom. Liberator Ed dealt with that already�Cubans who dig tyranny would be free to move somewhere that is under tyranny. I�m sure some New Hampshire residents don�t want libertarianism�so they can move to Massachusetts. I�m sure a handful of the girls forced into the sex trade in Eastern Europe like their situation. If the tragedy of liberation of their brothel occurs, they can go somewhere else and place themselves under a new pimp. Should liberation be held up for the sensibilities of these nut-jobs, though?

Jon

Post 57

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 3:09pm

Of course not, Jon. I'm just saying that there will be people who don't share your appreciation of liberation and will have to be dealt with should they become obstacles.

Post 58

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 5:30pm

No need for apologies, Ed. It's a miracle that Rick's sarcasm & wordplay didn't make anyone lose his temper before it did you. I've found that skipping his posts is good for my blood pressure.

Post 59

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 5:54pm