RoR: Forum

I'm with you on this one, Barbara. Wasn't it "Galt" who "said": "We are on strike against martyrdom"? Or as Rand said in a very early piece advising against "protest" law-breaking: "Why throw yourself under the juggernaut?"

Contra Marcus, this has nothing to do with our telling someone how to spend his life. But on the grounds of an ethics of rational self-interest, Barbara rightly asks: Why deliberately choose a course that will lead you to spend your life in captivity?

Post 41

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 9:38am

He has the resources to comfortably evade capture. I can't for the life of me think of a reason why he would allow himself to be captured.

Post 42

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 10:16am

Why deliberately choose a course that will lead you to spend your life in captivity?

Barbara and Robert,

Why on earth do you think it was his intention to get caught?

Getting caught was part of the risk. I think his only intention was to not pay taxes.
So what is your problem?

The fact that he has now been caught gets this reaction from you - "Ha, ha. I'm so clever for knowing that he couldn't have gotten away with that. What folly! He could have been smarter and gone through the media."

If this is not the case. Please clarify your point.

Post 43

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 10:24am

Good god, Marcus, OF COURSE he didn't intend to get caught and spend his life in jail. He merely committed repeated actions of law-breaking, each of which magnified the chances that he would wind up there. That, to me, is not very smart. Normal "risks" we take in the marketplace don't put our very freedom in jeopardy.

Post 44

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 10:38am

Robert,

"He merely committed repeated actions of law-breaking, each of which magnified the chances that he would wind up there."

Not true. He was VERY good. Like I mentioned above, he was undone by a woman...

//;-)

Michael

Post 45

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:52am

Marcus, what is it with you? Neither Robert nor I have been commenting on how smart we are. And I don't like being told that I would decide Galt's Gulch was impractical if Galt had died under torture. Why don't you calm down a bit and stop answering intellectual points with personal criticisms.

Barbara

Post 46

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:11pm

I think I can argue this from both sides of the fence. While I agree with Barbara and Robert that this isn't exactly what I would choose to do, being that there are many ways to hide it legally (even though these are closing up more and more each day). I also think that what they think is rational and what this fellow may of thought was rational are different. Maybe he thought it's a waste of his time to fight something that he thought wasn't about to change in his lifetime. Rather, maybe he thought that he should do his best to keep his money from a bunch of thieves, and spend more time in actually creating value for the world.

I also don't really think what he did was necessarily a waste, he seemed to me to live a fun, happy and productive life. (Even though I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in jail)

The real tragedy here is that we have someone that is very productive and made this much money, legally from what I can see, and the rotten parasitical IRS and politicians are going to send him away. When all they do is ruin our lives.

This kind of makes me think of the disagreements between the Mises Institute and the Cato Institute, which I suspect is the real thing that's going on between Palmer and Raimondo. I personally think both of these institutes are of considerable value.
But, the Cato institute believes they can change politicians minds, while the Mises Institute thinks that they are wasting their time, being that the true obligations of politicians are not to the people of the country, but to the special interest groups that fund their campaigns. Plus, the politicians themselves do not necessarily have any interest in becoming a libertarian country, when they themselves live of the taxes of the people.

I did find it rather funny that the Cato institute would go give a talk for Putin, like he gives two shits about becoming free.

Think what you want of Lew Rockwell (and I myself disagree with quite a bit of things on his site) but I do agree with what he said about trying to change the majority of politicians minds and becoming buddies with them " in the end it will tend to change the individual that seeks to change the politician much more"

(Edited by shane hurren on 3/18, 12:50pm)

Post 47

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:12pm

The guy might just need a good lawyer - PayNoIncomeTax.com :-)

Edited to add: I'm not training in US law, so obviously I'm not sure how accurate that website is.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 3/18, 12:14pm)

Post 48

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:24pm

Why don't you calm down a bit and stop answering intellectual points with personal criticisms.

Barbara,

Could you please tell what your point is again? Then I will calmly reconsider it.

MH,

Thanks. Looks interesting.

Post 49

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:27pm

I think there's a little more to this guy. Reading about his life reminded me of a rock climber documentary I saw once. This guy was the best, most courageous rock climber. He would attack the hardest climbs and do outrageous things to accomplish them. The interviewer asked him about the risks he was willing to take. He said he felt so alive during his difficult climbs that it was worth the risk. He knew that someday he would die on a difficult climb, but it was worth it. Not doing it was worse.

Perhaps Mr. Anderson was an adrenaline junky and really, really enjoyed taking the risks. More power to him.

Post 50

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:28pm

Shane, puleeese reread my posts on the issue. I have carefully answered every point you made in your first two paragraphs, which are the ones most relevant.

Barbara

Post 51

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:35pm

Barbara insists I haven't addressed her points:

It seems as if he spent most of his life scheming and plotting to avoid the law and to hide his money and his identity. . What a waste!

My objection is to this man's futile and wasteful way of fighting. Futile because all he will win is prison; wasteful because so much of his life has been spent hiding and skulking when he might instead have been a leader in the fight against governmental injustice.

I had responded:

You mean then that he has wasted his life?

Why? Because you think that his ideal should be the same as yours? To fight it out in the media?

No. Not wasted. He earned a lot of money and found ingenious ways of not paying taxes.
There was a risk of being caught, but now he can fight it out in the courts.

She also made the point:

Wouldn't he have been better off to have paid his damn taxes and lived like a human being?

I had responded:

When anyone else violates your rights - including the Government - surely you have the right to self-defence!!! Come on!!! You want him to treat a thief with respect?

So, how am I not addressing her points?

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 3/18, 2:03pm)

Post 52

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:43pm

Barbara,

I think the point I was trying to make was: that you believe that he would have been better off paying his taxes, and trying to fight the system that takes his money. ( I agree with you actually) He on the other hand, may have thought it is irrational to spend his time fighting it because he see's no hope in doing so. He may also think it's irrational to live his life on any other terms that are not just to him. In making his decision, he obviously knew the consequences, and he chose them. So he may have thought that it was worth it to go about his own business, and let others believe as they wish and do as they want. He, on the other hand, may think they are fooling themselves by waisting their whole lives paying into the fraudulent system and thinking they can fight it, when not many people really care about freedom in the first place. Thinking that his alternatives were utopian, he may have thought that for every moment he was paying into and fighting this system, he could have been out creating something and adding value to the world.

So, at least he could say A) that he never wavered from his principles, and B) that he added value to the world.

Post 53

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:58pm