Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

I will leave this country!

Rate this topic


th3ranger

Recommended Posts

Europe? Their political freedoms are great, but they've given up on laissez-faire economics.

Their political freedoms are great? Are you speaking of a parallel timeline Europe? I don't consider, for example, a Germany where you can be fined for flying a swastika a 'great land of political freedom', and let's not even talk about the corruption in Italy with Berlusconi...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this an April Fool's joke?

Oh, I see you edited your comment, you know, to make it all "clever" and everything. Well that is tremendously amusing Black Wolf, as always, nevertheless...I recall you originally asking where, so I'd probably say mostly around northern Europe, probably Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, also Iceland, maybe New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, or somewhere around the Scandinavian region, also Panama and some other "3d world" countries that are tend to be overlooked. I'm aiming for a place where I can make a successful living, enjoy good conditions and be happy, not some sort of laissez faire Atlantis, and many of these places perfectly allow me to do so, even more so if America becomes this dictatorship you mention.

No, but America is the closest thing to it.

Yeah? Probably...for the moment, in terms of freedom of speech and state coercion, but how close exactly? There is no such laissez faire country, not even close. America's renowned freedom is living on borrowed past liberties and success. There's not "much" difference by now with some of the countries that I mentioned really, and it's getting smaller every day. But you can stay and fight and all that.

I just did - Not blindly agreeing to Kyoto Protocol, not making the assumption that universal health care is some sort of landmark that an industrialized nation has to achieve, etc.

No, sorry, you didn't. What do you even mean by "sanity"? How does a country as such ensure my mental balance? How on Earth is this my "last hope"? Do you plan to go all (literally) crazy and demented when your country participates in the Kyoto Protocol, or when Obama gets away with his health care plan? I mean, I really have to assume you're only trying to sound all inspirational and rhetorically dramatic here, but if you say you're not, then please explain, go on.

Edited by 0096 2251 2110 8105
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er, never mind that. Sorry, I forgot all about Germany banning paintball, France banning the Burqa, and other things like that.

Yeah, I can't really think of a single reason why one would would leave the United States to go to Europe. Greece is failing, the Euro is doomed, and censorship is increasing more and more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I see you edited your comment, you know, to make it all "clever" and everything. Well that is tremendously amusing Black Wolf, nevertheless...I recall you originally asking where, so I'd probably say mostly around northern Europe, probably Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, also Iceland, maybe New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, or somewhere around the Scandinavian region, also Panama and some other "3d world" countries that are tend to be overlooked. I'm aiming for a place where I can make a successful living, enjoy good conditions and be happy, not some sort of laissez faire Atlantis, and many of these places perfectly allow me to do so, even more so if America becomes this dictatorship you mention.

But why leave this country if there is no trade-off? When you use Europe as an alternative to the United States, I would assume that you are suggesting there is a trade-off, ie., that there is something better than the United States. If the standards for your choice of country are simply not getting shot at or being forced to wear a burqa, that's one thing. But it's only reasonable to flee a country if there is some sort of trade-off. What is the net benefit?

Yeah? Probably...for the moment, in terms of freedom of speech and state coercion, but how close exactly? There is no such laissez faire country, not even close. America's freedom is living on borrowed past liberties and success. There's not much difference by now really, and it's getting smaller every day. But you can stay and fight and all that.

But how is Europe any better than this? And what do you mean by "living on borrowed past liberties"?

No, sorry, you didn't. What do you even mean by "sanity"? How does a country ensure my mental balance? How on Earth is it my "last hope"? Do you plan to go all (literally) crazy and demented when your country participates in the Kyoto Protocol, or when Obama gets away with his health care plan? I mean, I really have to assume you're just trying to sound all rhetorically dramatic here, but if you say you're not, then please explain, go on.

If you're going to be fussy about the semantics, then just refer to the bolded.

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why leave this country if there is no trade-off? When you use Europe as an alternative to the United States, I would assume that you are suggesting there is a trade-off, ie., that there is something better than the United States. If the standards for your choice of country are simply not getting shot at or being forced to wear a burqa, that's one thing. But it's only reasonable to flee a country if there is some sort of trade-off. What is the net benefit?

But how is Europe any better than this? And what do you mean by "living on borrowed past liberties"?

If you're going to be fussy about the semantics, then just refer to the bolded.

What? Did you even read any of the countries I just mentioned? Get shot? Wear a burga? What are you talking about? Would you please indicate from the above those countries where any of the things you said is true? And please don’t just evade the question, as you usually do. BTW, the context you’re giving here is that of America being a dictatorship. I’m not a U.S. American, but I’d be more than glad to live in any of the above, any time. Those are some of the top-rated “freest” most developed countries in the world. I can surely acknowledge that the U.S. was a magnificent and ideal nation once, but I don’t see what the huge indisputable absolutely evident superiority is today. America is being destroyed, and its famous reputation as the freest best country in the world now rests on its, as i said, "borrowed past liberties" meaning, the remnants of its early and forgotten former principles of liberty which are being ruthlessly neglected, ignored and dishonored every day. And if I’m being fussy about the semantics, it’s because you denied what you are now just accepting and emphasizing above when I asked you about the meaning of your statement.

Edited by 0096 2251 2110 8105
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did you have in mind?

I guess just advocate Objectivism and hope it spreads through the population enough that our people start voting better. xD

We still have the right to free speech and the ability to influence our government via voting. The political climate is a symptom of the philosophical climate. Spreading a better philosophy will result in changing the politics around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the plan:

Revolution. In the modern age, this is not as bad as that sounds. Since Gandhi, we have a civilized and prudent way of fulfilling these words: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security"

Here's how to do it. First, let's assume your three ifs come true and enough people agree with you that the final threshold has been crossed. The importance of this lies in enough people valuing the status quo far below its spiritual cost. Their jobs/assets not as valuable as their liberties in other words. This means they will be willing to do this:

Part I: All free-market, individual rights, constitutional originalists (well, it wasn't perfect, but that's later on in the plan...) that live in 'blue states' that are miserably hopeless - Wisconsin, Massachusettes, Maryland, etc. - move en masse to states that are purple but rich (I'm thinking California, Nevada, Colorado - Utah's a mess, but the mormons are pretty reliable about individual rights as compared to S. Baptists, and can be outnumbered and are otherwise good trade partners, half of them don't even really believe their religion) - avoiding red red states like Texas, the Bible Belt, etc. which are either already 'on the team' or hopelessly lost to religious fundamentalism. If all the 'conservatives' from the Northeast moved to CA, it would be redder than red, and some of the nuts might move out! Although, given Part II, the immigration issue might give the feds too much leverage to change the situation.

Part II: Challenge the federal government - basically abandoned to the blues - on every possible relevant constitutional issue. Exercise state authority, talk up the 10th Amendment, be a thorn. The power of judicial review isn't in the constitution, it's implicit. Since the federal government has moved beyond the constitution, a state governor with a committed state legislature and judiciary can decide to 'interpret' the constitution differently. You could push really hard along the 'implicit' rules, always dodging their appeals to 'constitutionality' just like they always have.

Part III: When push comes to shove, maybe there will be enough sympathetic states for a constitutional convention.

Part IV: When push really comes to shove, practice a combination of 'secession talk' and civil disobedience on the state-wide scale.

Part V: If the federal government completely abandons the constitution, and illegally uses troops or takes command of the national guard to enforce its will in the state, then massive civil disobedience is in order.

Part VI: Only when people are driven from homes, or vastly physically harmed, then that would be the appropriate time for violence. A NOTE ON VIOLENCE: It's hard to imagine a Northeast liberal pushing their leaders to that point against recalcitrant tea-baggers - but nobody saw the civil war coming. There were spectators at the first battle thinking it would be amusing! And, these sorts of liberals values' are hollow, their realities are shattered, their moral hypocrisy is unprecedented, and their leaders are ruthless. So, I wouldn't discount that sort of insanity being supported by them. They would say that the tea-baggers desire for leave-me-alone liberty is some sort of violent assault on their society. How dare people disagree, you know.

So, the idea here is instead of abandoning the USA when it abandons you - instead of that you might consider exploiting the remaining federalism to abandon the bad part of the USA for the good part. Not only would having a couple state governments already in place to protect your rights make the effort more civilized, it would also have the effect of making the goal of 'opting in' to the original constitution more likely.

The one key is coordination. If 2012 is a failure like you describe, there needs to be a movement of folks willing to pick up and move - at great personal cost - to certain states strategically in order to have a place where they and their rights belong.

You'd need:

1) A common manifesto; some understanding or compromise about individual rights that many people can practically agree with, and is simple enough to require no charismatic leader advocating it.

2) The act of moving to that state.

3) Enough people who will commit to political activism in the new state to make the whole effort worth it - chances are if they've moved they will.

But remember, the tea party movement lost a lot of steam from the big April 15th protest until the end of the Sept 12 rally. Organizers began to lose trust in each other. There wasn't agreement on action, there wasn't agreement on motive, there wasn't a leader that united the various factions. Oh, and I'm not supporting the tea party as a movement. Although the more active groups (cleveland, St. Louis, and the radio guys in CA) seem to be more about individual rights and less about 'conservatism'.

So, let's start it now! Which state will you move to to dominate if the poo hits the fan in 2012?

How about a list- MO, CO, FL, NV, UT, CA? Let's pick three, come on, let's have the discussion. I suggest states with big deal ANG units - I think MO and UT have - because in a crisis - yes, those bombers belong to the guv'ner Mr. Prez.

Edited by ZSorenson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Media is the answer.

If you want ideas to spread then you have to sell ideas in the right way.

ARI does a lot of great and valuable promotion, but look at it in terms of dollars... and consider how insignificant the chirp over at ARI is compared to the kind of distorted world views being spewed from the nightly news out to hundreds of millions of people... 7 days a week, every day of the year. These entities have long ago stopped telling people "what" and have established an accepted role of telling people "what to think." Chirps the size of what ARI does will never amount to anything in the drowning pool of dis-information people are absolutely flooded with. Occasionally they're cast a life saver, but these sharks are reactive... any time the mere mention Rand or Objectivism comes up its a complete foaming-at-the-mouth shit storm until everyone involved in the conversation is just completely exhausted from being involved and ready to move on.

For a perspective look at it this way, in 2009 ARI boasted an all time high in Atlas Shrugged annual book sales... at over 500,000 copies in one year (which is fantastic because book sales keep increasing). Do you know how many people bought the latest Harry Potter book when it was released? Over 9 million copies in the first 24 hours. It's the value of commercialism, and having the media in the right format. Those book sales were boosted by alternative forms of the same media, mainly Theater, DVDs, Video Games... Modern forms of Media that are more palatable for more people.

Art, such as Ayn Rand's novels, has undeniably been the biggest influence on the general population for promoting Objectivism... these books are what capture our minds in the beginning and what inspire us to continue when things get shitty. We absolutely ~need~ an Atlas Shrugged movie, and corresponding DVDs, More Informative Documentaries (I've seen all the ones that currently exist). If these shitty trilogies like Lord of the Rings have shown us anything it is that the attention span of people isn't quite as short as commonly thought... so break Atlas Shrugged up into a 9 hour Trilogy and do the same for The Fountainhead. Fuck a TV series, we need something with staying power... a Blockbuster.

Consider, as it stands the main exposure most people have to Objectivism is the kind of shit BioShock tells them, what idiotic college professors tell them, or when Fox News invites Yaron Brook on momentarily to promote an isolated idea about the free market (which in that context the average viewer doesn't even recognize as Objectivism). I hear so many bull shit accusations about "what Objectivists believe" and "what Ayn Rand believes" that it really is simply a matter of the dominance of dis-info. It drowns us out.

I think that an Atlas Shrugged movie should be the #1 focus for ARI until its done, period. I would donate money to the project, maybe others would as well. It's 2010! Why is there no Atlas Shrugged movie? The movie is already a blockbuster considering the shit-storm of criticism it would receive from all sides, and the publicity of Objectivism (including authoritative answers to everyones questions) is inevitably going to spike tremendously... This needs to get done...

Another issue is an outlet for Objectivist Media, a news station or a talk show somewhere online... something small that can grow. Something where discussion of current issues can take place outside of a forum, like a podcast or something... but it needs to be Audible and Portable. Nobody talks about sweet new thing is out there on an internet forum. The perspective needs to be out there, not funneled through trash stations like Fox, it needs to be an authentic and pure presentation of the Objectivist perspective in todays world.

All of this "I'm moving away" garbage is funny.

Mobilize! There are no other fronts on which to fight! America is it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a New Zealander living in Australia, and would happily change places with you, and I am an unskilled worker, and would make much less in America than I do here.

Australia has UHC and everybody pays for it, a long with the welfare system which is huge. Youth allowance, aboriginal allowances, single mother allowances, disability pensions, student allowances, you name it we have it.

You need a license to do basically anything. In fact a lot of these social restrictions are why I am moving back to my native NZ in a month and a bit, I am a keen shooter/fisherman/general outdoors stuff, and in Australia you need licences and have to pay fees and meet silly requirements (for my firearm license I must go to a shooting range every 3 months and fire a few rounds, as if I don't go I don't have a genuine reason to own a firearm and they will take it off me - the application forms state in big red block letters that protection of person or property is not a genuine reason to own a firearm, but shooting paper targets is).

Our internet will soon be censored. Australia has no real bill of rights.

As a factory worker, every element of my employment almost is dictated by the Government - in fact I lost 2 days work this week because of a Government mandated public holiday, I don't lose pay though, as the Government forces my employer to pay me. I have no experience working in white collar industry, but I can imagine it is the same.

Out of the top 4 political parties in Australia, none of them believe in individual rights as we do. You have Labor, a social democratic party - The Liberal Party, who are conservative but far to the left of the Republicans - The Nationals who are probably pretty Conservative but are only in Government because of an alliance with Liberals, and the Greens, who are pretty much flat out Socialists. You have much more of a voice and much more chance of getting things fixed in the U.S. than Australia - Australia is heading the same way as the U.S. is, but it's had a massive head start.

When I saw you say your destination was Australia, from a political point of view I did not understand it. For sun, great beaches, etc. Sure, it's awesome. Politically? Perhaps watch some Australian news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our internet will soon be censored. Australia has no real bill of rights.
In my opinion, such attention to fundamentals is important in evaluating the choice to shrug/flee. The historical philosophical core of the US is really the epitome of what an Objectivist nation would look like. Even though our rights have gotten eroded over the past 200+ years, that foundation still has a persuasive influence on how government functions. It is still the case that the burden of proof is on the government to show the necessity of depriving individuals of their liberty, and that burden is not imposed on most other governments. If you plan to flee to location X, you ought to determine what fundamental right you are pursuing, which is being denied here and is constitutionally and factually protected in X. Vague ideas like "the country is going to hell in a handbasket" should be replaced with actual knowledge of what freedoms you will gain and lose my moving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Did you even read any of the countries I just mentioned? Get shot? Wear a burga? What are you talking about? Would you please indicate from the above those countries where any of the things you said is true?

I was exaggerating when I said that was the best you could hope for in Europe.

And please don’t just evade the question, as you usually do.

I've given you answers, you just don't seem to like them.

BTW, the context you’re giving here is that of America being a dictatorship. I’m not a U.S. American, but I’d be more than glad to live in any of the above, any time.

Well, my comment was directed at the OP, who is a resident of the U.S., and my advice was specific to HIM not to move somewhere else. That was the point. If you're not a resident of the United States, and you're comfortable living wherever you do, good for you. But don't come into this thread pretending as if my advice applies to you.

And if I’m being fussy about the semantics, it’s because you denied what you are now just accepting and emphasizing above when I asked you about the meaning of your statement.

I'm not accepting anything. If I wanted to respond to your question, I would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Media is the answer.

If you want ideas to spread then you have to sell ideas in the right way.

The problem is that Objectivism has be made only partially digestable by a mass audience. Even if it was, ideas never drive masses of people. Narratives do, and poorly at that. Even with leaders, it's still difficult. Look at the American Revolution, the G-D army couldn't even hardly get enough funds to operate from an almost indifferent nation. What people were more fickle than colonial Americans? There's something to admire in that, but gaining from the united will of many people is difficult.

So, you can influence a vocal minority, and push hard locally to get the right people in political office. You can fudge the census and gerrymander districts too. But your point about media is something I wish could be true, but won't be.

When people argue, "If someone came to the emergency room, and didn't have insurance, would you turn them away?", the answer is OF COURSE! If it's not an emergency, ABSOLUTELY! If it is an emergency, then if I want to have them treated I have to pay for it. But we know that nobody says that.

The narrative of it is moral to help those in need, and you're only taking excessive wealth from the uberrich to do it is impossible to beat. No one will challenge it because to challenge it requires 1) An articulate, clear philosophy 2) A solid understanding, acceptance of, and commitment to that philosophy and 3) Personal integrity. How many Americans take pills for mood (that's a gentle way of putting it)? Not that that's wrong, but - how many American live their lives between beers? How many raise their kids with the goal of getting them to school on time and that's it? My point is that people do things, make choices, act, according to their perceived purpose. It takes an incredibly sophisticated mind to resolve upon a sense of life intellectually. Most people do it by default, accepting tradition, or by keeping up with the Jones'. Americans have lived empty lives since even the 1920's, which is why they were so fast to give it all up in the 1930's.

My perspective is that the enlightenment freed men by tearing down old walls, but never was able to build new ones before people essentially freaked out and turned to the spirit of the old ones. I think that's consistent with what Ayn Rand would say. My point though, is that the solution must be spiritual. People need to have a why and what for that answers their deep-seated desires. Most people have incredibly corrupt spiritual values (altruism, community, sacrifice, 'Lean On Me'). You can only trump them by appealing to and revealing the deeper foundational values. And like I said, it takes a certain amount of intellect to do that. And a certain kind - which is why I think most intellectuals struggle with Rand. Because they have read Atlas Shrugged, and often shrug it off.

So, after all that what I'm trying to say is that Objectivism needs to be more creatively presented to people. The trick is trying to do it while not deviating to the point where you have Kelleyism or whatever. Still, getting more and more people to read Atlas Shrugged is a good idea, but I don't think you'll make a dent until you offer access to the conclusions of Objectivism in a better way.

So, in other words, the work that Ayn Rand started isn't finished. We need more intellectuals coming up with ideas consistent with Objectivism to take back the country. We need an Objectivist alternative to Von Mises. We need an Objectivist school system (I know there is at least one, but its experiences should be the basis for an expansion with the result: hey, these kids are smart!). We need Objectivism inspired scientific practice. Objectivist law and finance (some of these exist in the form of individuals). Objectivist-inspired values in literature and television beyond Ayn Rand's writings (there has been some, but we need more more more). And with TOS and other efforts, the philosophy itself is being expanded and further developed. Hell, we need philosophies that branch off of Objectivism - even if they suck at least they'll make O-ism more competitive and relevant to intellectuals. I've never seen good Objectivist psychology. And I think Objectivists need to develop their spiritual side more in a way that interfaces with other people - so that people can observe that the philosophy causes someone to find incredible meaning and happiness in their life.

That might do it, but I still think like-minded people need to congregate to get noticed and make a difference in their own lives. So if the poo hits the fan, I still think we should move - all to one state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was exaggerating when I said that was the best you could hope for in Europe.

Hmm right...of course, you were exaggerating. Tell you what, Black Wolf, how about saying something like: "Hey everyone, I'm not going to mean anything in particular when I speak, so don't take my words any seriously!" before responding? Just so, you know, we don't even have to waste our time playing this "let's all try to figure out what Black Wolf actually meant" cool guessing game of yours, m'kay?

I've given you answers, you just don't seem to like them.

No, sorry, I mean like...all the time, not just to me, but to other members as well...you love to hit & run Black Wolf.

Well, my comment was directed at the OP, who is a resident of the U.S., and my advice was specific to HIM not to move somewhere else. That was the point. If you're not a resident of the United States, and you're comfortable living wherever you do, good for you. But don't come into this thread pretending as if my advice applies to you.

So? I could've lied and say I live in the U.S., what difference does it make? Hmm? I'd still mean all that I said. If I had said "someone's" instead of "my", how does that even affect my actual argument Black Wolf? How exactly? I mean, it's all the same to me. Don't you think? And anyways, where did I even say I didn't live in the U.S?? I said I wasn't U.S. American. So...where does that leave your argument? Oh, but relax, I actually don't live there (but I have, though.) And another thing, I don't have to "pretend" (as if I did) you're advising me in order to examine your arguments, Black Wolf. Not me, not anyone. If you don't want this to happen, then send him a PM with all your good advices, and there, problem solved.

I'm not accepting anything. If I wanted to respond to your question, I would have.

Ah, an old-time favorite. "Do you speak any French, Bob?" "Oh, but of course! I speak it like a native!" "Oh, that is great, because I really need to know how to say 'happy birthday' in French" "What?? Oh, well, if you don't know how, then I can't tell you. Listen, uh...I don't have time for this right now, I have..things to do, BYE" Very convenient, Black Wolf, as always. However, just in case, let's analyze this for a moment, m'kay?...I firstly asked you about your very mouth-filling statement, and asked you to please elaborate if you were being any serious about your words (of course you weren't) or whatever, to which you replied by saying that you did elaborate, merely giving a fallacious proof by assertion, forcing me to ask again, and then you ended up suddenly saying yes, that you were only trying to sound all inspirational and dramatic, that your words didn't have any clear and precise meaning, that they meant "something else." Well, that in the real world, Black Wolf, is accepting the statement. Don't you think? Oh, but you can answer the questions if you like. Go ahead.

Edited by 0096 2251 2110 8105
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the poo hits the fan, I still think we should move - all to one state.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, and you share that kind of "just get it out there" position I'm in... I would hate for an Atlas Shrugged movie to be release that doesn't do the book justice, but I think getting it out there along with all of the other forms of "creativity" you mentioned is what needs to happen.

The only state that makes sense is Alaska, its geographically cut off which would make for an easier split, once the rest of the country goes under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When our forefathers fought for this country, they said "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH".

Now, we're just like "Give me liberty or else I'm leaving!".

Most of our forefathers also believed that there was a Heaven waiting for them after death, where they would live forever in bliss, for living up to their principles. Patrick Henry, whom you quote, also said, nearing his death:

"I have disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give to them, and that is the Christian religion. If they had that and I had not given them one cent, they would be rich. If they have not that, and I had given them the world, they would be poor."

It's a lot easier to be willing to die when you don't think you're really going to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of our forefathers also believed that there was a Heaven waiting for them after death, where they would live forever in bliss, for living up to their principles...It's a lot easier to be willing to die when you don't think you're really going to die.

But then there's John Galt via Ayn Rand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When our forefathers fought for this country, they said "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH".

One of them said that, in a speech, and he didn't mean it literally. Other than that, the plan wasn't to "be given freedom" or "be killed", the plan was to take freedom, by waging war against and killing the specific and limited opposition to their freedom, sent over by a distant king from thousands of miles away.

Who exactly are you planning on fighting a war against, for your freedom?

Most of our forefathers also believed that there was a Heaven waiting for them after death, where they would live forever in bliss, for living up to their principles. Patrick Henry, whom you quote, also said, nearing his death:

"I have disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give to them, and that is the Christian religion. If they had that and I had not given them one cent, they would be rich. If they have not that, and I had given them the world, they would be poor."

It's a lot easier to be willing to die when you don't think you're really going to die.

I don't even think you can offer evidence for the premise (that most of the founders cared less about living than you and I do), let alone for the conclusion (that they didn't mind dying because they were convinced of the existence of a magical realm they'd move to).

I'd like to think I'd be willing to risk my life to defeat tyranny, just as they did, and for the same reason: to make the rest of my life, and that of my loved ones, worth living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the plan:

...

So, let's start it now! Which state will you move to to dominate if the poo hits the fan in 2012?

...

If I'm going to move at all it will be to another country.

Media is the answer. ...

It is. The Democrats/leftists/socialists/populists have clearly realized this, thats why most national news stations have a distinct left slant, often my omitting news stories or by bringing undeserved attention to what should probably not be important news. I've stopped watching TV years ago and it's all the more obvious now, when I catch CNN or any other 24hrs news channel. Getting Rand mentioned anywhere brings more attention, good press or bad press, someone new might read one of her books. Incidentally, from what I could find, Atlas Shrugged is no longer selling that many copies, it seems that was a peak, although it could certainly go back up.

I'm a New Zealander living in Australia, and would happily change places with you, and I am an unskilled worker, and would make much less in America than I do here.

[1]Australia has UHC and everybody pays for it, a long with the welfare system which is huge. Youth allowance, aboriginal allowances, single mother allowances, disability pensions, student allowances, you name it we have it.

[2]You need a license to do basically anything. In fact a lot of these social restrictions are why I am moving back to my native NZ in a month and a bit, I am a keen shooter/fisherman/general outdoors stuff, and in Australia you need licences and have to pay fees and meet silly requirements (for my firearm license I must go to a shooting range every 3 months and fire a few rounds, as if I don't go I don't have a genuine reason to own a firearm and they will take it off me - the application forms state in big red block letters that protection of person or property is not a genuine reason to own a firearm, but shooting paper targets is).

[3]Our internet will soon be censored. Australia has no real bill of rights.

[4]As a factory worker, every element of my employment almost is dictated by the Government - in fact I lost 2 days work this week because of a Government mandated public holiday, I don't lose pay though, as the Government forces my employer to pay me. I have no experience working in white collar industry, but I can imagine it is the same.

[5]Out of the top 4 political parties in Australia, none of them believe in individual rights as we do. You have Labor, a social democratic party - The Liberal Party, who are conservative but far to the left of the Republicans - The Nationals who are probably pretty Conservative but are only in Government because of an alliance with Liberals, and the Greens, who are pretty much flat out Socialists. You have much more of a voice and much more chance of getting things fixed in the U.S. than Australia - Australia is heading the same way as the U.S. is, but it's had a massive head start.

When I saw you say your destination was Australia, from a political point of view I did not understand it. For sun, great beaches, etc. Sure, it's awesome. Politically? [6]Perhaps watch some Australian news.

1. Well, we have it also now! I'd be willing to bet, ours might have leapfrogged over yours in comprehensiveness...I'm sure it's far more more expensive as well. 300 million vs the [i think?] 21 million of Australia? A null point really.

2. I'm not sure, but guns might somehow be the only thing you don't need a license to own in the USA, aside from the three day waiting period, as well as the FBI background check.

3. Nearly any law concerning the Internet is impractical. Especially censor laws. Good luck trying to enforce that one...there are virtually a million ways to step around it.

4. I'm sure you weren't aware but there is a such thing as Federal Holidays. If a given company does business with the government they have to take these days off- with pay.

5. The last thing repealed in this country was prohibition probably. Nothing is going to get fixed. No party supports individual rights specifically.

6. Politically you are probably right. There is probably no point. Not yet anyway. I do plan on reading/watching some Australian news. I was planning on subscribing to a newspaper. Any suggestions?

In my opinion, such attention to fundamentals is important in evaluating the choice to shrug/flee. The historical philosophical core of the US is really the epitome of what an Objectivist nation would look like. Even though our rights have gotten eroded over the past 200+ years, that foundation still has a persuasive influence on how government functions. It is still the case that the burden of proof is on the government to show the necessity of depriving individuals of their liberty, and that burden is not imposed on most other governments. If you plan to flee to location X, you ought to determine what fundamental right you are pursuing, which is being denied here and is constitutionally and factually protected in X. Vague ideas like "the country is going to hell in a handbasket" should be replaced with actual knowledge of what freedoms you will gain and lose my moving.

From what I can tell I'm not losing or gaining a whole lot in Australia. I will probably be gaining a whole lot if I leave in a few years. What guarantee do I have of Australia staying free(er)? none. Hong Kong isn't very far from Australia...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, and you share that kind of "just get it out there" position I'm in... I would hate for an Atlas Shrugged movie to be release that doesn't do the book justice, but I think getting it out there along with all of the other forms of "creativity" you mentioned is what needs to happen.

The only state that makes sense is Alaska, its geographically cut off which would make for an easier split, once the rest of the country goes under.

And we can prepare for Luna while there? Well, you have to admit the idea of a bunch of eco-careless people living in Alaska and paving it over with oil-heated steam vents all over the place sound sort of cool. I know it's not that cold all the time, but I'd like to think Objectivists would turn parts of the harsh frontier into a more livable cityscape in places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you have to admit the idea of a bunch of eco-careless people living in Alaska and paving it over with oil-heated steam vents all over the place sound sort of cool. I know it's not that cold all the time, but I'd like to think Objectivists would turn parts of the harsh frontier into a more livable cityscape in places.

Objectivists aren't eco-careless, we're just not eco-worshipers or climate alarmists... and the arguments used by climate alarmists and eco-worshipers run along the lines of "What?? you're not on board with our alarmism and planet-worship!?? You must be careless then! or worse you MUST be Anti-Environment!"

There are a tons of legitimate reasons to care about the environment. The problem is that these legitimate concerns are lumped together with the eco-worship and alarmist nonsense as though the are of equal value, or one in the same with no differentiation. I, for example, live on top of the largest cave system in the world... there are "sink holes" (big ditches) where cave ceilings collapse all throughout the Karst landscape. These cave systems capture much of the local ground water used for drinking water, and dictate where one can and cannot safely build.

Cool thing about Alaska is that at some points in the year it stays dark for close to 30 days straight... and cities always look really pretty (I think) when they're lit up at night!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivists aren't eco-careless, we're just not eco-worshipers or climate alarmists... and the arguments used by climate alarmists and eco-worshipers run along the lines of "What?? you're not on board with our alarmism and planet-worship!?? You must be careless then! or worse you MUST be Anti-Environment!"

There are a tons of legitimate reasons to care about the environment. The problem is that these legitimate concerns are lumped together with the eco-worship and alarmist nonsense as though the are of equal value, or one in the same with no differentiation. I, for example, live on top of the largest cave system in the world... there are "sink holes" (big ditches) where cave ceilings collapse all throughout the Karst landscape. These cave systems capture much of the local ground water used for drinking water, and dictate where one can and cannot safely build.

Cool thing about Alaska is that at some points in the year it stays dark for close to 30 days straight... and cities always look really pretty (I think) when they're lit up at night!

I was careless in using eco-careless. But hopefully you still got the point. Objectivists are more enthusiastic about shaping the environment to suit them than what is commonplace in today's high-tech world - you know, like actual Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a personal issue. Take it with you. They have a 15% flat tax and they report their taxes on something the size of a postcard. I can handle that while the shit hits the fan here. However. I have been impressed with the growing libertarian force in the country, and I have personally converted many a Libertarian to Ayn rand. So maybe there is hope for lady liberty still yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...