Discussion:
I find this very interesting, and very amusing.
(too old to reply)
Paul Robinson
2011-03-20 06:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Two different (alleged) people on this newsgroup who claim to be
objectivists, have completely different opinions of me, and apparently
I scare them. These conclusions provide very interesting insight into
their own characters, and tells me a few things about them.

Charles Bell seems to be of the opinion I am a socialist who wants the
government to have total control over everything. He reminds me of
the guy, who saw my articles on various BBSs (back in the days when
you dialed up to BBSs and the Internet was years away) about the
rights of individuals, who then proceeded to call me a fascist.

Paul Wharton seems to be of the opinion I am an anarchist who wants no
government at all and wants the existing government to collapse, so I
can roll my wheelchair over the ruins, raise my flag and claim the
(now defunct) country as mine. I ain't quite figured out how to do
that yet, but I'm certain he'll be able to tell me. :)

I think before I do that I should read Machiavelli, I've heard he's
good on the subject.

Two self-claimed Objectivists have completely incompatible opinions
about my character. Despite the fact they know nothing about me.
That, I find very amusing.

And I thought this was going to be a bunch of dull discussions over
esoteric topics. Boy was I wrong! This has been very entertaining.
Charles Bell
2011-03-20 11:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Robinson
Two different (alleged) people on this newsgroup who claim to be
objectivists, have completely different opinions of me, and apparently
I scare them.  These conclusions provide very interesting insight into
their own characters, and tells me a few things about them.
Charles Bell seems to be of the opinion I am a socialist
The (alleged) Charles Bell may think either you are ignorant and
stupid or you deliberately and with dishonest intent refuse to define
your belief system even in the vaguest of ways. You bring up
identifying facts on yourself, possibly as a means to an argument from
authority, and yet fail to carry that evidence over to another
context. You say you are a programmer of 35 years and yet how does a
programmer come to know "in all [his] lifetime" U.S. Congressional
Continuing Resolutions, about which he also knows quite some detail,
has been thus and so? Why is this question not a question which should
be answered?
Post by Paul Robinson
Paul Wharton seems to be of the opinion I am an anarchist who wants no
government at all and wants the existing government to collapse,
Two self-claimed Objectivists have completely incompatible opinions
about my character. Despite the fact they know nothing about me.
FYI: fascists, socialists, anarchists, Marxists (a kind of anarchist),
many sorts of libertarians, outside the sphere of American classical
liberalism of limited government and individual liberties [*], like
Murray Rothbard, in spite of his earlier, good contributions, David
Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Cass Sunstein, and many others just in the
U.S. alone are dedicated collectivists. So as an Objectivist may
identify in a particular instance you as one of these from what you
say, for you refuse to identify even in the vaguest way your belief
system, to create "the fact they know nothing about [you]"], you are
all of these.


[*] http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/who-is-a-libertarian/
Paul Robinson
2011-03-22 04:41:55 UTC
Permalink
[Me] Two different (alleged) people on this newsgroup who claim to be
objectivists, have completely different opinions of me, and apparently
I scare them. These conclusions provide very interesting insight into
their own characters, and tells me a few things about them.

[Me] Charles Bell seems to be of the opinion I am a socialist
[Bell] The (alleged) Charles Bell

Charlie, I apologize. I probably should have rephrased that to say
that it was two alleged objectivists. I probably meant to originally
say that "two different (alleged) objectivists" then realized I should
say it different, then left "alleged" in with "people."

I believe in you. You're far too entertaining to be anything but a
person; no bot could possibly do as good a job as you do at being so
entertaining.

[Bell] may think either you are ignorant and stupid or you
deliberately and with dishonest intent refuse to define your belief
system even in the vaguest of ways.

I've been a very private person for many years. Besides, I'm a
trader; if I tell you everything I might not get you or others to
respond to my comments. So I can throw things out as necessary in
order to get them.

Besides, what can I say about myself? I'm not trying to get laid, so
giving out personal details about myself doesn't really give me
anything.

[Bell] You bring up identifying facts on yourself, possibly as a means
to an argument from authority, and yet fail to carry that evidence
over to another context.

I only identify things about myself when I think it's necessary or
relevant. I want my words to stand or fall on the basis of the
validity of my ideas.

[Bell]  You say you are a programmer of 35 years and yet how does a
programmer come to know "in all [his] lifetime" U.S. Congressional
Continuing Resolutions, about which he also knows quite some detail,
has been thus and so? Why is this question not a question which should
be answered?

Because I'm more than just a programmer. My first job, probably at 8
years old, was when I ran a lemonade stand at 5c a glass (paper cup,
that is). I think I made over $5 profit after costs that day, which
is quite a bit of money back in 1969.

Not only that, I even sold one to one of my competitors, some girl who
ran a lemonade stand a few blocks away. I've been a miscellaneous
temporary help person, a file clerk, a telephone operator (did that
for four years), a computer programmer, a tax preparer, a web
designer, an artist, an auditor for a real estate office, a
bookkeeper.

My mother took me to a store to get a bicycle, even though I didn't
know how. We took that bicycle home by walking, roughly five miles.
me riding the bicycle as best I could. By the time we got home two or
three hours later I did know how to ride a bike. I first learned to
drive an automobile with automatic transmission, then learned 20 years
later how to drive a stick.

I got my high school diploma and went into junior college at 16.

About seven years ago I started having problems with one of my knees,
such that I was walking with a cane. It got worse, such that I was in
terrible pain but I got through it. Until the other knee failed and I
ended up in a wheelchair about 4 years ago.

I've written two whole books, one 400 pages and the other 700, and I
have three others partially written, about 70, 150 and 200 pages.
Plus I have ideas for other books to write. I've probably written
tens of thousands of articles on BBSs, Usenet and web sites.

I'm told I started reading at three.

I am a voracious reader, although I don't read as much as I used to.
I read on almost any subject; I try to learn a little about everything
so I can understand how the world works.

I first started studying law probably at 11 when I got interested in
copyright. I read public utility tariff schedules for fun. I have
read statutes, court decisions, bills, several constitutions (Did you
know in California it's constitutionally prohibited to engage in
Duelling?). I'm a notary public licensed in two states.

I learn things because I love to learn and because I never know where
good ideas come from.

[Me] Two self-claimed Objectivists have completely incompatible
opinions about my character.  Despite the fact they know nothing about
me.

[Bell] FYI: fascists, socialists, anarchists, Marxists (a kind of
anarchist),

Marxists are no more anarchists than Fox News. They want complete
control of the powers of the State. An anarchist wants no state at
all.

[Bell] So as an Objectivist may identify in a particular instance you
as one of these from what you say, for you refuse to identify even in
the vaguest way your belief system, to create "the fact they know
nothing about [you]"],  you are all of these.

Mr. Bell, you've made another error. You seem to be merging a
completely different set of different systems together and presuming
them to be identical.

We can start at the sort of system they had in Galt's gulch, a
voluntary collection of individuals with no government at all. You
could basically say that was anarchist or maybe even less. Then you
can pile on as much government as you can stomach until you get to
Musolini's fascism, Stalin's Communism, Mao's Communism, or North
Korea's whatever-they-have but whatever it is, it ain't very nice.

But if someone was comparing, say, Sweden and Libya, both of which
claim to be socialist countries, and consider them both the same is to
make a serious error. Two different countries can be called something
similar or the same thing yet be completely different.

The fact of the matter remains, that I asked you a question or two.
You asked me to respond. I said if you showed me yours, I'd show you
mine. I'm still waiting to hear your answer. Then I will tell you
mine. Because like the people in Galt's Gulch, I am a trader, Mr.
Bell. I want to be paid first.
Charles Bell
2011-03-22 11:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Robinson
[Bell] FYI: fascists, socialists, anarchists, Marxists (a kind of
anarchist),
Marxists are no more anarchists than Fox News.  They want complete
control of the powers of the State.  An anarchist wants no state at
all.
Yes, Marxists, are anarchists in what would be in the communist
community after socialism has wrought destruction of the capitalist
system. Study Engels, in particular. Read Bakunin v. Marx, for
example
Post by Paul Robinson
[Bell] So as an Objectivist may identify in a particular instance you
as one of these from what you say, for you refuse to identify even in
the vaguest way your belief system, to create "the fact they know
nothing about [you]"], you are all of these.
Mr. Bell, you've made another error.  You seem to be merging a
completely different set of different systems together and presuming
them to be identical.
They are all identical in being wholly collectivist. Classical
liberalism is partially collectivist (especially through Locke).
Rousseau-ian naturalism is mostly but not wholly collectivist. Most
undefinable belief systems of people are mixed. Only Objectivism is
anti-collectivist, radically individualist.
Post by Paul Robinson
We can start at the sort of system they had in Galt's gulch, a
voluntary collection of individuals with no government at all.
Rand herself denied that Galt's Gulch was a model for government,
existing as it did on private property, it would be more aptly
described as a self-sustaining vacation retreat along the lines Walt
Disney envisaged.
Jim Klein
2011-03-22 19:20:20 UTC
Permalink
They are all identical in being wholly collectivist.  Classical
liberalism is partially collectivist (especially through Locke).
Rousseau-ian naturalism is mostly but not wholly collectivist.  Most
undefinable belief systems of people are mixed.  Only Objectivism is
anti-collectivist, radically individualist.
Oh, listen to this...like you're not a raving collectivist,
incessantly
keyholing people into wide generalized positions based on your
crazy "what they must mean," rather than what they actually say.

Here's you..."Tell me how I am
wrong that Nibbe is not really a
materialist-reductionist determinist
(and therefore quite non-Objectivist)..."

Wow, that's some really radical individualism there! "Hypocrisy is
easily the most unnerving trait common to many ARIans."
Rand herself denied that Galt's Gulch was a model for government,
Uh huh...no doubt this is another "must mean," since I
doubt you have an explicit cite for this. If you do, ship it.
existing as it did on private property,
Let's guess---Rand believed that societies should exist on
other than private property. Is that it?
it would be more aptly
described as a self-sustaining vacation retreat along the lines Walt
Disney envisaged.
Nah...that's your mind you're thinking of!


jk
Paul Robinson
2011-03-22 20:18:34 UTC
Permalink
[Bell] They are all identical in being wholly collectivist. Classical
liberalism is partially collectivist (especially through Locke).
Rousseau-ian naturalism is mostly but not wholly collectivist. Most
undefinable belief systems of people are mixed. Only Objectivism is
anti-collectivist, radically individualist.

[Klein] Oh, listen to this...like you're not a raving collectivist,
incessantly keyholing people into wide generalized positions based on
your crazy "what they must mean," rather than what they actually say.

Yeah, I noticed he and Wharton do the same thing.

[Bell] existing as it did on private property,

[Klein] Let's guess---Rand believed that societies should exist on
other than private property.  Is that it?

Not bad, Jim. Not bad at all.

[Bell] it would be more aptly described as a self-sustaining vacation
retreat along the lines Walt Disney envisaged.

[Klein] Nah...that's your mind you're thinking of!

Damn, I wish I'd thought of that. I think I like Charlie too much;
I'm not able to come up with really good zingers like that when I
discuss his points. Now, Ray Gordon from alt.seduction.fast, I don't
really like a whole lot - I don't hate him, he's too mentally ill to
hate him for his disability - but him I can cut down really quick.
Paul Robinson
2011-03-22 20:13:03 UTC
Permalink
[Bell] FYI: fascists, socialists, anarchists, Marxists (a kind of
anarchist),

[Me] Marxists are no more anarchists than Fox News. They want complete
control of the powers of the State. An anarchist wants no state at
all.

[Bell] Yes, Marxists, are anarchists in what would be in the communist
community after socialism has wrought destruction of the capitalist
system.  Study Engels, in particular. Read Bakunin v. Marx, for
example

Mr. Bell, did you ever consider that Marx might have been lying, that
it is possible that he knew you couldn't have the system he proposed
without the government maintaining control, that he just claimed that
the state could "wither away" after his system had taken place, just
to hoodwink people into accepting it?

Do you know there never was any provision for a celebration on
December 25 under Christianity? The Christians found that their
religion was basically unpalatable and wasn't selling, so their
advertising agency got the idea of borrowing the pagan rite of
Saturnalia, which was held on December 25, and using that as the birth
of their leader figure. Were you aware of this? (I don't know that
their ad agency did this, that's just my humor creeping in.)

It's quite common when you want to have people adopt bankrupt or
clearly unpopular ideas, to sugar coat them by inserting popular ones
to get people to swallow the rest.

[Bell] So as an Objectivist may identify in a particular instance you
as one of these from what you say, for you refuse to identify even in
the vaguest way your belief system, to create "the fact they know
nothing about [you]"], you are all of these.

[Me] Mr. Bell, you've made another error. You seem to be merging a
completely different set of different systems together and presuming
them to be identical.

[Bell] They are all identical in being wholly collectivist.  Classical
liberalism is partially collectivist (especially through Locke).
Rousseau-ian naturalism is mostly but not wholly collectivist.  Most
undefinable belief systems of people are mixed.  Only Objectivism is
anti-collectivist, radically individualist.

I'm serious now, if you have a system which is anarchist, which wants
no government at all, to be wholly collectivist? If there's no
government to take your property, how is it collectivized? Agreed,
Socialism is partially collectivist, and Communism - as it is
practiced, not as it supposedly would work in theory, and never does -
is wholly collectivist. But how do you get to being wholly
collectivist, a system that rejects government in the first place?
Post by Paul Robinson
We can start at the sort of system they had in Galt's gulch, a
voluntary collection of individuals with no government at all.
[Bell] Rand herself denied that Galt's Gulch was a model for
government, existing as it did on private property, it would be more
aptly described as a self-sustaining vacation retreat along the lines
Walt Disney envisaged.

Still, exactly what government applied in Galt's Gulch? If someone
was to get mad and punch someone in the nose, or someone shot someone
else - and the most common form of homicide is that of a family member
or close relative or friend killing the other - where would it be
decided? Do you think they'd call the police from the outside, take
the person to the police outside, or do you think the members of the
community within Galt's Gulch would handle it, hopefully by holding a
trial?

Don't try to claim you'd never have crime there and thus you wouldn't
have a need for a government. Even Galt admitted that what Dagny did
when she crashed her plane in Galt's Gulch constituted the technical
crime of trespassing. Unless we let people do whatever they want to
others, we're going to need some form of final arbiter and exclusive
possessor of force.

You do realize they had a judge there (in Galt's Gulch), and in case
you're not aware of it, Walt Disney World is wholly within the "Reedy
Creek Improvement District," which for all intents and purposes is a
private government whose officers are all Walt Disney World employees
who happen to live within the District. Disney got the RCID created
by the Florida Legislature and the resort operates by RCID rules which
can be completely different from those that would otherwise be in
effect in the cities and counties in the area. They even run their
own police and fire department.

They had to do it that way because a Supreme Court - not sure if it
was the Supremes or the Indiana Supreme Court - has ruled a private
organization can't own a government. U.S. Steel was forced to divest
itself of ownership of the city of Gary, Indiana.
Charles Bell
2011-03-22 23:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Robinson
[Bell] FYI: fascists, socialists, anarchists, Marxists (a kind of
anarchist),
[Me] Marxists are no more anarchists than Fox News. They want complete
control of the powers of the State. An anarchist wants no state at
all.
[Bell] Yes, Marxists, are anarchists in what would be in the communist
community after socialism has wrought destruction of the capitalist
system.  Study Engels, in particular. Read Bakunin v. Marx, for
example
Mr. Bell, did you ever consider that Marx might have been lying,
No. He was an anarchist. Take my suggestion and do some reading.

.
Post by Paul Robinson
[Bell] So as an Objectivist may identify in a particular instance you
as one of these from what you say, for you refuse to identify even in
the vaguest way your belief system, to create "the fact they know
nothing about [you]"], you are all of these.
[Me] Mr. Bell, you've made another error. You seem to be merging a
completely different set of different systems together and presuming
them to be identical.
You are in error. You haven't a clue what (political) anarchism is
and yet you claim that I am not indentifying what is or is not a
collectivist political belief system. Your Wikipedia education will
fail you every time.
Post by Paul Robinson
[Bell] Rand herself denied that Galt's Gulch was a model for
government, existing as it did on private property, it would be more
aptly described as a self-sustaining vacation retreat along the lines
Walt Disney envisaged.
Still, exactly what government applied in Galt's Gulch?
Rand herself denied that Galt's Gulch was a model for government,
existing as it did on private property, it would be more aptly
described as a self-sustaining vacation retreat along the lines Walt
Disney envisaged.

Disney did not really get what he said he wanted but he did get a
really good tax deal (which Palm Beach County had refused). All those
practical matters are absent for Galt's Gulch in AS because IT IS
FANTASY, and Rand denied that GG had anything to do with a Utopian
model for proper government. I wanted to dig up the relevant quote,
but it is buried somewhere in a Q&A and not probably not indexed
Paul Robinson
2011-03-23 02:21:35 UTC
Permalink
[Bell] FYI: fascists, socialists, anarchists, Marxists (a kind of
anarchist),
[Me] Marxists are no more anarchists than Fox News. They want complete
control of the powers of the State. An anarchist wants no state at
all.
[Bell] Yes, Marxists, are anarchists in what would be in the communist
community after socialism has wrought destruction of the capitalist
system. Study Engels, in particular. Read Bakunin v. Marx, for example
[Me] Mr. Bell, did you ever consider that Marx might have been lying,
[Bell] No.  He was an anarchist. Take my suggestion and do some
reading.

I did. As much as I hate to admit it, you've convinced me, Mr. Bell.
Bakunin apparently hated Marx, really hated him. Probably sort of
like what you think of me. So Bakunin - who was a serious anarchist -
misrepresented Marx's positions just to smear him. But then again,
Marx got *so many things* wrong that it ain't hard to find something.
Part of the problem comes from a difference in definitions; Marx meant
something different for "dictatorship" than what we mean now. He
apparently meant something far less than we would use the term, I
think.

[Me] Mr. Bell, you've made another error. You seem to be merging a
completely different set of different systems together and presuming
them to be identical.

[Bell] You are in error.  You haven't a clue what (political)
anarchism is and yet you claim that I am not indentifying what is or
is not a collectivist political belief system. Your Wikipedia
education will fail you every time.

I do not have a 'Wikipedia education' I have found Wikipedia useful
as a quick reference in some cases; it is often useful to supply pure
facts. But if I want something very reliable I'm not going to use it
exclusively or other than as I would any other reference, as an
additional source of information it is not necessarily wrong.

Be that as it may, I'm not really interested in what some ivory tower
academic says political anarchism is, especially when it is not
practiced in any public society. The few places that have either no
government or no functioning government always seem to end up as gangs
of warlords and/or piles of rubble.

Given what I have read it seems from what I suspect you mean, the
Internet is about the only functioning anarchy in the world. As I
pointed out somewhere previously, ICANN only operates because the Tier
I Internet providers and the ISPs accept that it should be in charge
of the root servers and they can revoke any power that ICANN has over
the Internet any time by simply choosing to use some other entity as
root server provider.

Looks like you've caused me to learn two things today.
Charles Bell
2011-03-23 08:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Robinson
[Bell] FYI: fascists, socialists, anarchists, Marxists (a kind of
anarchist),
[Me] Marxists are no more anarchists than Fox News. They want complete
control of the powers of the State. An anarchist wants no state at
all.
[Bell] Yes, Marxists, are anarchists in what would be in the communist
community after socialism has wrought destruction of the capitalist
system. Study Engels, in particular. Read Bakunin v. Marx, for example
[Me] Mr. Bell, did you ever consider that Marx might have been lying,
[Bell] No.  He was an anarchist. Take my suggestion and do some
reading.
I did.  As much as I hate to admit it, you've convinced me, Mr. Bell.
Bakunin apparently hated Marx, really hated him.
There's your wikipedia education working for you again.

Engels predicted the end of the state: "Along with (the classes) the
state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganize production
on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will
put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the
museum of antiquity...." -- /The Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the State/, Frederick Engels

The term "anarchist" surfaced in Geneva at the initial congress of the
First International (the International Workingmen's Association) in
1866 to describe the increasingly militant wing of the new Socialist
Party emerging throughout western and central Europe. In 1872,
following the sixth congress of the International, held at The Hague,
the party leadership (including Karl Marx and Frederick Engels)
ejected Russian revolutionary Michael Bakunin, who advocated the
violent overthrow of capitalism in particular, and governments in
general. The First International splintered as Bakunin and other
extremists formed the aggressive far-left wing of a party devoted to
anarchistic communism. As proponents of the "propaganda of
action" (assassination as a tool of anarchy), Bakunin's followers
blazed a bloody trail across Europe, slaying Russia's Tsar Alexander
II, Italy's King Humberto, France's President Sadi Carnot, and
Austria's Empress Elizabeth.

-- Dictionary of American History

Young Hegelians: Moses Hess;Ludwig Feuerbach;David Friedrich Strauss;
Bruno Bauer;August von Cieszkowski;Karl Schmidt;Edgar Bauer;Mikail
Bakunin;Karl Marx;Max Stirner;
Paul Robinson
2011-03-23 22:28:17 UTC
Permalink
[Me] I did. As much as I hate to admit it, you've convinced me, Mr.
Bell. Bakunin apparently hated Marx, really hated him.

[Bell] There's your wikipedia education working for you again.

I didn't get *any* of that from Wikipedia, Ding Dong. I got it from
other websites, some run by what, from what the context was, I
suspected were Marxists and thus I could get, to the extent I expect,
something approaching an "unbiased" source.

I guess you've decided that your purpose on this newsgroup is to knife
me even when I change my opinion and agree with you. I do not know
why you hate me so much other than I keep pointing out your errors and
you don't like it.

That's a great way to win friends and influence people, Mr. Bell.
Reminds me of how Timothy McVeigh thought the only way he could expect
people to be willing to accept what he said was by causing a big 'body
count'.
Charles Bell
2011-03-23 22:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Robinson
[Me] I did. As much as I hate to admit it, you've convinced me, Mr.
Bell. Bakunin apparently hated Marx, really hated him.
[Bell] There's your wikipedia education working for you again.
I didn't get *any* of that from Wikipedia,
I guess you've decided that your purpose on this newsgroup is to
Inform you of the shallowness of your knowledge on most things that
pertain to Rand's philosophy and the top two would be (1) the actual
anti-Objectivist nature of being an agnostic and (2) the anti-
Objectivist nature of all forms of anarchism of which Marxism is one
and most forms of libertarianism (that which is not limited-government
American liberalism) is another.
Post by Paul Robinson
That's a great way to win friends and influence people,
Interesting how familiar that sounds as if coming from one of Betsy's
poodles.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...