Princeton Professor Will Happer on the Orwellian Movement: UN IPCC 'rewrites the history of the past climate of Earth' with the Hockey Stick 'which is clearly fraudulent'

Revolution!!!

"The point of Rand’s insight regarding that quote is the fact she takes note of the potential (and inevitable from where I stand) damage that governments can and do cause"
No doubt. A government is a tool of coercion and as such it could be dangerous. But so is any gun, club or just strong fist. Government supposes to prevent the initiation of the use of force but "If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled." (The Nature of Government). The obvious question is how one can control a government? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard guardians? This 2000 years old question hasn't been explicitly answered as yet and that gives to you an excuse to ridicule the idea that governments could be our servants. Without to pretend that I know the full explicit answer to this question I can assume that since dominant philosophy is the cornerstone of any social fabric, Objectivists society will form a government based on the principle of NIOF and the damage which such a government could cause would be minimal and easily corrected.

...if you will Sharon, but don't address the substance!!!

It may look like you actually have a rational argument to make, rather than behaving like a todler having a hysterical tantrum.

The point of Rand’s insight regarding that quote is the fact she takes note of the potential (and inevitable from where I stand) damage that governments can and do cause—whereas Marcus’s idiot clutching-at-straws fantasy of a single tank take-over scenario is just another poor excuse for an argument --as is the idea that governments are our servants (or ever could be!)

"Without governments or DRO's we would be left with our own violence and disputes to settle individually."
It is some merit in your proposition. Even today many people quite capable to settle disputes individually. In Objectivist society as result of proper education most of the people would be rational and there is no clash of interests between rational people. I believe that in such a society 99% of people would be able to live from cradle to grave without any need for the government services. But violence is a different piece of cake. First, you need military forces as long as possibility of foreign aggression and terrorism still exists. Second, the use of retaliatory force must be restricted by objective law. Third-you have to administrate justice. So, you need a government. If you commit violence in arbitrary fashion, if you assume the roles of a detective, prosecutor, jury and judge, if you try and execute anyone who harmed you (or you think so) without solid objective evidence and fair trial, all by yourself, you may become a violator of the objective law which prohibits initiation of force and end up rotting in jail.

"If they listened to your arguments against armed rebellion "-No, I don't have arguments against armed rebellion. In the worse case scenario that could be the only possible solution. However if such a rebellion doesn't become ideological revolution, it doomed to fail.
The success of Communists in post WWII Eastern Europe was a result of their ability to hijack the rebellion against Nazi oppressor, to dominate it and to turn it to ideological revolution. However I doubt they would be able to do this without support of the Red Army which occupied Eastern Europe and half of Germany by that time.

"If I come in with my tanks and guns and take over all DRO's by force and call myself King, and you my subject, what happens next?"

Well, what happened in Europe...TWICE...during the early 20th century?

Thanks for the question Leonid, a good question it is.

I don't purport to have all the answers.

However, bear this in mind.

The Communists were initially willing to fight on the side of the Nationalists in Russia, China and North Korea - probably elesewhere too.

The Stalinists were originally able to tolerate the Leninists who were able to tolerate the Trotskyites.

If they listened to your arguments against armed rebellion (i.e. it has to be a perfect ideological revolution) there never would have been a communist regime ever to come to power anywhere in the world.

"However their arguments fall down in the face of facts - they can't find any real-world facts to make the case."
I believe you responded to my comment “a revolution". Let me tell you that a little bit of sense of humor never hurt anybody yet. On the more serious note, the brutal assault on the massive scale as you described could lead to spontaneous armed resistance, a rebellion. Such a rebellion will unite people with very different philosophical background. They could be communists, anarchists, religionists, objectivists, libertarians and just people who don't like to be throttled. Such people would have the only limited short-run common goal-to defeat the oppressor. The big question is: what they will do the next day after a victory on the battle field?

...I am afraid the Objectivists debating with me on this thread are not very objective when it comes to the facts. (I consider myself an objectivist too).

They like to make grand pronouncements that tyranny must lead to collapse or that a revolution can occur in the heads of the masses by Objectivists to make them peacefully vote for a minimalist Government.

However their arguments fall down in the face of facts - they can't find any real-world facts to make the case.

"If I come in with my tanks and guns and take over all DRO's by force and call myself King, and you my subject, what happens next?"
A revolution

"It was from the Ayn Rand Lexicon."
It was from "The Nature of Government". Read the whole article. It's clear that Rand ascribes “the legal power to initiate the use of physical force" to the current totalitarian or semi-totalitarian government system. She doesn't approve on it. In the "Galt speech" she wrote: … a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality:"
So Rand definitely condemns the initiation of the force by the government and by anybody else as well.

Another interesting thread shot to hell down the anarchist rathole. I was enjoying the Marcus, Leonid, etc. discussion on relative viability and stability of different forms and degrees of tyranny. Sharon, please take your anarchist discussion to the latest of the many threads dedicated to it.

Aaron

I think that would be quite a task to come in with your guns and tanks and take over ALL DRO's. Does this happen to all DRO's simultaneously so there can be no coalescing of force by private parties and remaining DRO's against this kingly force while it is taking down one or two DRO's? At any rate, since we can let our imaginations run to unworkable extremes in order to make arguments, my DRO gives me a discount for owning weapons and showing proficiency with violence. They will have less protecting to do with more of their clients bearing arms.

Let's not keep this argument just in matters of force. What about poor people who don't save enough for retirement? If we need government force to protect their rights, why not protect their retirement. Social security is necessary. How else can we make this retirement thing right without the government?

I myself plan on working until I die and committing violence on anyone who tries to harm me or my loved ones, but that isn't the answer for everyone.

I know I am dripping with sarcasm but while I still lean minarchist, I am not so sure that we all wouldn't be better off without the bastards. Without governments or DRO's we would be left with our own violence and disputes to settle individually. That is scary for most people, but in the end, without taxation and currency debasement to fund large scale violence and welfare ponzi schemes, we could have overall less violence and more happiness and liberty.

...force in a DRO society?

If I come in with my tanks and guns and take over all DRO's by force and call myself King, and you my subject, what happens next?

"...any grouping can be authoritarian.

It does not need to be a Government.

It does not require the magical label of 'Government' for a group to wield force or to try to control the lives of individuals or take their money without their consent."

DROs operate on a free-market and require voluntary customers to flourish. If not, then it becomes a mob or a government. But than it wouldn't be a DRO.

""No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power."

It was from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

...that any grouping can be authoritarian.

It does not need to be a Government.

It does not require the magical label of 'Government' for a group to wield force or to try to control the lives of individuals or take their money without their consent.

"No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power."

This is obviously not Objectivist definition of the government's function but rather description of the current government system of totalitarian or mixed economy society. Objectivism bans initiation of force by anybody, especially by government. From the Objectivist point of view the only proper government function is to prevent the initiation of force.

You got that right, Ross.

They are SPECIAL idiot objections, just for you, sharon.

I understand everything about your DRO model. I have read, I think, everything you have written on the subject.

Just because you say DRO would not be de facto "might makes right" doesn't not make it any more true or sensical. We can agree that in your mind, DRO's would not operate under "might makes right."

WRT "justice for pay" - what happens to poor people? With a legit dispute against a rich guy? Rich guy hires the DRO, the Judges doesn't care about his business reputation with the poor folk, and that's that, right?

I don't think you understand my abbreviations for objections to the non-starter DRO model.

But it doesn't matter whether you do or you don't. You think they will, your evidence exists only in your mind, and nothing will dissuade you, so why talk about it? Until the Republic is in flames and your hand is on the Anarchy lever, why beat it to death?

Let me also explain the phrase "genie in the bottle" since you misunderstood that. The story goes: the guy gets his 3 wishes so he thinks he is getting something good, but the wishes end up screwing him with the unforeseen and unintended consequences. That was my point about government. That's why you gotta see it for what it is, and keep it poor and limited.

"In fact, Ross got it ass-backward. "

I've never been ass-backwards... except that one time on Vivian Street, and that was accidental.

"Do you agree with this stand and the quote above?"

Rand means that the state holds the exclusive power or judicial review. And the enforcement thereof.

Minarchy subsumes the right of individuals to protect what is theirs. But it also admits the existence of a final arbiter. That arbiter being restrained by objective law. That law beholding to the will of those abitrated.

And what about this excerpt from Rand:

"No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is: *coercive * action. The nature of political power is: the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury—the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment, or death."

Rand maintains that for a government –to be a GOVERNMENT--it alone holds the *exclusive* monopoly on the use of force.

Do you agree with this stand and the quote above?

"Do you agree with Rand's definition of government?"

This is Rand's definition of government and I do agree with it in full.
"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."
(“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 109.)

...are rather silly. The Maori had a tribal society and did not advance past the stone-age, so it is not surprising that they reverted to cannibalism. Not just out of necessity, but as part of their culture too. It probably varied from tribe to tribe anyway.

The Catholic Church did not collapse in upon itself, nor was it ever formerly a dictatorship that directly ruled the whole of Europe.

It did directly rule over small states in Italy and took part directly or indirectly in many European wars.

What caused the decrease in Catholic power was the division into protestant factions. However, it did not give up power without waging war for decades resulting in the deaths of millions. And it did not collapse in on itself because it still exists today.

In fact, Ross got it ass-backward. Regimes that collapse in upon themselves usually do so fairly rapidly, within a generation. They usually collapse due to delusions that they can win wars with neighbouring countries, which they are too weak to overcome.

Examples are Idi Amin of Uganda and the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia.

Even Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein are examples of this too.

In these cases, internal dissent is usually brutally quashed and not likely to cause the regime to collapse on its own.

Delusional war-mongering is usually their undoing.

"The question is: how insurance company can ensure restriction of the use of retaliatory force by objective law and how such a company can formulate and enforce this law without to become government itself?"

Do you agree with Rand's definition of government?

...in both the Soviet Union and Communist China when they forced collectivist farming on the people.

It didn't cause the regime to collapse though.

"You understand that "cannibalism" is an abstraction. It means savagery."

Oh that explains it, I thought that must be the case.

Yes, rotten regimes tend to collapse, although Cuba and North Korea seem to have just dug in their heels when isolated.

North Korea is a case in point whereby they have a national ideology of isolation from the rest of the world.

...NZ in 1800.

The Maori had exhausted their "technology", and were practising actual cannibalism.

They became pretty good traders after European contact. Then they became wards of the state.

...from the fall of Rome until the Renaissance.

You understand that "cannibalism" is an abstraction. It means savagery.

"But generation upon generation is weakened until it falls upon itself and devolves into cannibalism."

Please give me a real-world example of this.

...is the logical outcome of all dictatorships.

The Nazis, the Soviets, they bought their technology through theft, coercion, slavery and bribery. It was all doomed to fail, and it did. But the suffering along the way was terrible.

The fact of capitalism--of human yearning--is that people will seek every outlet for survival and happiness, and the dictators will exploit it. But generation upon generation is weakened until it falls upon itself and devolves into cannibalism.

Justice for pay-there is nothing new about it. We all pay dearly for justice-ask anybody who ever has been in court. DRO is no more than legal insurance company. We have such a thing in South Africa; it's called "Legalwise". The question is: how insurance company can ensure restriction of the use of retaliatory force by objective law and how such a company can formulate and enforce this law without to become government itself?

I have been pushed for time to give a full reply, but one fast one for now.

"DRO's have too many problems like: justice for pay, might makes right, dog in the fight, etc."

"Government is the genie in the bottle."

LOL. Three wishes: Taxes, the draft, inflation of the money-supply.

Justice for pay? Oh, anything but that! LOL. So human beings ought to deal with one another by some other standard than the trader principle? Do not politicians in an Objectivist society work for their daily bread?

Might makes right? LOL Cleary--all too clearly--you don't know what you are talking about. You do not understand the DRO model.

Dog in the fight?? This is a modern twist on Dog-eat-dog, is it? Bla, bla, bla. So now you feel you must subject me to the standard idiot objections when Objectivists defend capitalism to mush headed socialists that can be found under every rock and corner?

Absolutely.

Of course they may disguise them as something else.

For example, a favourite strategy of repressive regimes is to pretend they need to defend themselves from some threat and just want peace and harmony with the rest of the world - when there real aim is war and conquest.

When you look at it, the totalitarian model is the same as a feudal system.

The leader and his 'inner party' simply replace the King and his 'court' or aristocracy.

The people are the 'serfs' who remain loyal because they have been convinced there is a divine 'social' order into which they were born (ala' Brave New World without the hedonism). Needless to say, attempts to break out of the social order will be repressed by force. (And you have to admit that the nobles and aristocracy were capable of innovation).

"Orwell rejected Brave New World as a possible blueprint for even a remote future: he blamed Huxley for a lack of 'political awareness'... Orwell considered that such a society would not be dynamic enough to last long. There is no power hunger, no sadism, no hardness of any kind. Those at the top have no strong motive for staying at the top, and though everyone is happy in a vacuous way, life has become so pointless that it is difficult to believe that such a society could endure."

From '1985', by Anthony Burgess.

The strategy of the totalitarians is much more brutal and repressive than the 'aristocracy' in quelling descent.

Anyone who disagrees with the current order, becomes an internal 'enemy' of the 'people' and is giving 'succour' to external enemies.

The authority of the traditional church is replaced by a state 'ideology' that cannot be questioned openly. The head of state usually acts as the pope of this state religion, much as the king was considered the representative of the will of god amongst his subjects.

The meritocracy of the western world is really the only antidote to this, however, it has not prevented our Governments from continually pushing in the direction of 'absolute' rule over their 'subjects'.

More and more what 'free' citizens may or may not do in the west is only with their Government's permission, not vice-versa. Those at the top of any power structures try to rule this way if their powers are not properly limited. And the people need to remind them of this from time to time through armed rebellion!

That is what we have to fight for! To acquire and maintain a limited state with limited powers!

"My point was not that you get ingenuity under a reign of tyranny."
Duly noted, and I realize you didn't make that claim.

"My point was that in a country ruled by a totalitarian regime, there is a certain amount of freedom at the top."
I agree. Though again, I'd contrast the 1984 example with the structure from BRAVE NEW WORLD:

But then, "even Epsilons perform indispensable services."

"Even an Epsilon …" Lenina suddenly remembered an occasion when, as a little girl at school, she had woken up in the middle of the night and become aware, for the first time, of the whispering that had haunted all her sleeps. She saw again the beam of moonlight, the row of small white beds; heard once more the soft, soft voice that said (the words were there, unforgotten, unforgettable after so many night-long repetitions): "Every one works for every one else. We can't do without any one. Even Epsilons are useful. We couldn't do without Epsilons. Every one works for every one else. We can't do without any one …" Lenina remembered her first shock of fear and surprise; her speculations through half a wakeful hour; and then, under the influence of those endless repetitions, the gradual soothing of her mind, the soothing, the smoothing, the stealthy creeping of sleep. …

"I suppose Epsilons don't really mind being Epsilons," she said aloud.

"Of course they don't. How can they? They don't know what it's like being anything else. We'd mind, of course. But then we've been differently conditioned. Besides, we start with a different heredity."

"I'm glad I'm not an Epsilon," said Lenina, with conviction.

Although we don't need the genetic conditioning, do we? Just educational conditioning. You mention the goals of the inner class...which is contrasted with the current belief in the rejection of "roles," not "goals." (So then even the goals of the inner class have to be hidden and apologized for with terms like "giving back" and such.)

...thanks for thinking outside the box.

My point was not that you get ingenuity under a reign of tyranny.

My point was that in a country ruled by a totalitarian regime, there is a certain amount of freedom at the top.

In 1984 it was called the 'inner party' and we never got to see how they lived in the novel apart from indirect glimpses from the character of O'Brien.

Now the privileged 'inner party' have a goal.

That goal will then be achieved by all the money, manpower, resources and a certain amount of necessary freedom the regime can steal, borrow or otherwise acquire.

I am not saying that the goal will be achieved efficiently, ethically or with complete success.

All I am saying is that history shows that they 'may' achieve something.

(This was meant to be a quick post, introducing the comparison/contrasts between BRAVE NEW WORLD and 1984. But it turned into much more, so I apologize if this seems rambling, and to Brant if it's "overwrought." But since I'm not drunk while I write this, I think there's enough coherence and possibility to proceed. It's not meant as "right" or "wrong", just "food for thought." That said...)

So far, it seems the discussion is one of how tyranny can produce technology via tyranny. But what if the tyranny co-opted permissiveness and "praised decadence?" Would that explain the "paradox" of techno-tyranny?

I'm with Rand on this one, but sympathetic to Marcus's comment that a ‘slave’ economy works and that "The serfs hold out and tolerate repressive regimes for generations." Eventually, the oppressiveness WILL destroy creativity, but not overnight. Creativity continues in SPITE of tyranny, not BECAUSE of it. This makes me think of Prokofiev, "Stalin's Final Victim:".

"Prokofiev, having left Russia after the revolution, returned in 1933 and resettled in 1936, the only genius who was fool enough to believe Stalin's promises of haven. He found creative stimulus in Moscow's theatrical life and intuitive interpreters in David Oistrakh, for whom he wrote two concertos, and the pianists Sviatoslav Richter and Emil Gilels. He enjoyed privileged social status, a comfortable apartment and a country dacha.

"But in Stalin's first purge, seeing friends disappear, Prokofiev offered a craven cantata for the 20th anniversary of the revolution, a 60th birthday ode, Zdravitsa, to Stalin and sundry hymns to dam projects. Abroad, he was recast as an official propagandist. Time magazine captioned its 1945 cover story: 'He keeps time with the Marxian metronome.''

"Foreigners were unaware that his first wife, Lina, and their two sons were being held in Siberia as hostages for his compliance."

"In Stalin's second purge he was publicly excoriated, deprived of work and reduced to near-starvation while writing the last sonatas about, as Richter said, 'a world which had lost its balance'."

It's one thing to work SCIENTIFICALLY under such conditions; the laws of physics require their own obedience. ARTISTIC matters are another. Prokofiev and other Russian composers didn't have "reality" to fall back on as artists, and their job was made that much more deadly if Stalin didn't approve, since it was HIS whim that ultimately determined the success of a musical score. That is how it works, in microcosm, in the stark examples that Rand depicted. And I'm more inclined to bet on her argument, based on her own first-hand experiences in the Soviet Union. But the difference between 1984 and ANTHEM is drawn in stark degrees of freedom versus total authority and compulsion. Someone made a comment to me once that history doesn't repeat itself, but rhymes. With that thought, and trying to reconcile Rand's account with the "slow burn" view, it might make more sense to compare what WE'RE seeing not with 1984, but with BRAVE NEW WORLD.

BRAVE NEW WORLD was written as a "negative Utopia" in response to the sci-fi of writers like H.G. Wells, and (anticipating Linz re "gum-chewing American Airhead") also as a critique of American life:

"Huxley was able to use the setting and characters from his science fiction novel to express widely held opinions, particularly the fear of losing individual identity in the fast-paced world of the future. An early trip to the United States gave Brave New World much of its character. Not only was Huxley outraged by the culture of youth, commercial cheeriness, sexual promiscuity and the inward-looking nature of many Americans;[5] he had also found a book by Henry Ford on the boat to America. There was a fear of Americanization in Europe, so to see America firsthand, as well as read the ideas and plans of one of its foremost citizens, spurred Huxley to write Brave New World with America in mind. The "feelies" are his response to the "talkie" motion pictures, and the sex-hormone chewing gum is parody of the ubiquitous chewing gum, which was something of a symbol of America at that time. In an article in the 4 May 1935 issue of the Illustrated London News, G. K. Chesterton explained that Huxley was revolting against the 'Age of Utopias'—a time, mostly before the First World War, inspired by what H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw were writing about socialism and a World State."

In BRAVE NEW WORLD, we didn't see Orwellian "Big Brother" tyranny, but something more subtle...and closer to our current situation. Actually, BRAVE NEW WORLD is much more tempting than 1984, I think, by design. If Prokofiev was motivated not by Stalin's terror, but instead "privileged social status, a comfortable apartment and a country dacha," well, think of what the "negative Utopia" of Huxley's world offered, soma, music, free love...kind of familiar? Now, in BRAVE NEW WORLD, the people behave somewhat like high-tech hippies. But hippies are Dionysian, right? Anti-industrial revolution, and all that. If one thinks Rand is wrong about dictatorships and technology, well, how does BRAVE NEW WORLD function? Does that mean Rand was wrong about hippies as well?

Well... As is the case with this kind of argument, "it usually begins with Jeff Riggenbach." (At least for me...). This argument has been addressed by Riggenbach's IN PRAISE OF DECADENCE, which reveals the counter-culture of the sixties as not being monolithically a product of the New Left, but instead partly responsible for the creation of the Libertarian party. (Though his book was published in the 90's, his thesis is due a second look in light of the discussion of the same in Jennifer Burns' bio.) I am not in agreement with Riggenbach's conclusions, but his book DOES present answers (which are relevant to the discussion here) to the paradox the counter-culture and the technology advances in computers, for one, of how certain hippie-types such as Steve Jobs could go on to create Apple computers. His book makes the argument that a centralized government is anathema to creativity, while anarchy, decentralization, and the freethinking spirits whose decadence challenge authority make technological advances possible.

(Examples of this phenomenon are outlined in a TIME article,"We Owe It All To The Hippies":

"Forget antiwar protests, Woodstock, even long hair. The real legacy of the sixties generation is the computer revolution."

As Steven Levy chronicled in his 1984 book, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, there were three generations of youthful computer programmers who deliberately led the rest of civilization away from centralized mainframe computers and their predominant sponsor, IBM. "The Hacker Ethic," articulated by Levy, offered a distinctly countercultural set of tenets. Among them:

"Access to computers should be unlimited and total."

"All information should be free."

"Mistrust authority - promote decentralization."

"You can create art and beauty on a computer."

"Computers can change your life for the better."

Nobody had written these down in manifestoes before; it was just the way hackers behaved and talked while shaping the leading edge of computer technology."

Indeed, Riggenbach's book, connecting the hippies with the Libertarians, makes this particular excerpt understandable:

"Our ethic of self-reliance came partly from science fiction. We all read Robert Heinlein's epic Stranger in a Strange Land as well as his libertarian screed-novel, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Hippies and nerds alike reveled in Heinlein's contempt for centralized authority. To this day, computer scientists and technicians are almost universally science-fiction fans. And ever since the 1950s, for reasons that are unclear to me, science fiction has been almost universally libertarian in outlook."

And while 1984 might be hard to swallow, it makes BRAVE NEW WORLD seem at least plausible, since the control is not tyrannical, but permissive. Consider the following from Neil Postman's AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH:

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us."

As I already mentioned, I don't agree with Riggenbach's ultimate conclusion. (You can see my full review here or at the book's page on Amazon.com.)
But his arguments do have some merit, and from his book's point-of-view, the technology of the "creative class" was not a product of the dictatorship, but of the "decadent," and that the decadence was simply "usurped" by the ruling class. (He'd also probably say that very possibility of this is why we shouldn't have a centralized government.) Anarchy/minarchy debates aside, this phenomenon IS demonstrable; witness what happened to "rock and roll": born of country and blues, already "outsider" music, it spawned the soundtrack for teenage rebellion, which, in turn, spawned, "ROCK", protest music of the serious kind (think Dylan and "The Times They Are A Changin'). But once it was discovered that there was money in rebellion, the rebellion was co-opted by the Establishment, and sponsored by Budweiser. And now, "rock is dead," at least as a legitimate force for rebellion and subversion. Sure, the attitude is there, and the soma, and even generated a resurgance in "real rock rebellion" in the 90's via Pearl Jam, but it didn't last. (Witness Woodstock '99.) No, what we have now is what Huxley and Linz feared: America Airhead. Technology in the hands of savages, though not the noble "John Savage" variety. But if the tech is being developed BY the savages, as Riggenbach claims (and the example of Steve Jobs demonstrates), what does that say? That it's not IMPOSSIBLE to have mixed premises. But is that, as some objectivish people conclude, reason to celebrate, since we DO have iMacs and iPods and iLifes? As one person put it to me recently, is it an "and yet" situation (The economy's bad, Obama's president, you could go to jail for not having insurance...and yet, we have all this other stuff?). I'd answer that it's a "Mobius Strip": "And yet, those iMacs and iPods and iLifes are dedicated to trashy reality shows, gangsta rap, and Adam Lambert tea-bagging on stage while Congress votes away our freedoms and sells are futures to China.

And THAT is why I disagree with Riggenbach's overall "praise of decadence" (which, if I read it correctly, takes to heart the idea of "spontaneous order" as the product of "human action but not human design" (read, the "rejection of reason). Yet Riggenbach, nor his "decadent" subjects, don't reject technology, and praise "freedom," just the "rigid chains of reason. Isn't THAT what happened in BRAVE NEW WORLD? Isn't THAT what's happening now? I think Rand's account is pretty solid in principle. I think most would-be-dictators realize that, as well. So, if history rhymes, rather than repeats...isn't it reasonable to conclude that no would-be-dictator would assume to play "Big Brother," and (if Riggenbach is right, that decadence is REALLY decay of authority) instead, co-opt the decadence of the creators, ply them with "soma," "ether-music", and free sex? We have the luxury of comparing the tyranny of Russia or the current tyranny of an Iran or North Korea with the soft, "decadent" tyranny of semi-socialized Western countries. If the 1984/BRAVE NEW WORLD contrast has merit, we can still see Rand's point, that creativity/technology advances IN SPITE of tyranny and coercion, not because of it, and the "soft tyranny" knows this, and fosters those "mixed premises."

Again, this is not tenable in the long run, if taken to the logical conclusion; the eventual abandonment of reason will eventually catch up with the technology, resulting in the anti-industrial hypocrisy of weekend-greenies versus the sincere self-destruct of the real eco-warriors. But it DOES prolong the decline, while making the loss of freedom seem palatable.

Any reasonable hedge again bad conduct is better than none.

Especially if the hedge does not otherwise restrict your moral actions.

So your argument, then, is: better to allow those who seek power to act with impunity than to ensure a monitoring, review and penalty system with objective rules and laws?

Just because things have gone as they have here does not mean they necessarily must have.

Didn't the Founders tell us to be eternally vigilant? Epic fail.

And that leaves aside the issue of learning from our mistakes and improving.

Man's inhumanity to man is well demonstrated. It will be so under a government or otherwise.

Seems to me like a bad decision to go without.

Regardless of what has been argued here, this is an essentially pragmatic argument.

And a contradiction, because somewhere in there, the rights of non-in-opters are going to be adjudicated, whether they want it or not.

Humans administering the system , there will be mistakes made and folks taking it in the neck -- in error, no less.

The same stuff to a lesser degree than would happen under anarchy, in other words.

Folks can declare that "government" is a necessary pre-condition to man's life qua man and such, but it is just that: a declaration.

Show me the logical progression, and then, we can talk about it. It just may be that what a limited government offers is the best way to provide its functions.

That is still a pragmatic consideration.

DRO's have too many problems like: justice for pay, might makes right, dog in the fight, etc.

Government is the genie in the bottle.

“Anyway, for intellectuals like you, I have no doubt that you'd behave admirably under anarchy, if you have integrity. So would I. It is the 99% of the rest of humanity, including the thugs in the current administration who have access to alot of manpower and firepower, who I'd worry about were I you.”

Is there suppose to be an argument found in this sentence, Scott? If 99% of humanity is lacking in admiral moral traits and integrity, that would include government personal as well, right? Well then, we can’t afford to have a government. You shouldn't give that much power to those type of people.

Damn those ruling philosopher kings!

As has been discussed, there is always more freedom at the top, and they act to keep it in their grasp.

...I worry after my heart, sharon.

And what a shock it would be if you ever agreed explicitly that small government is better than what we have now. It might kill me.

So keep on fighting.

You may be right, ultimately. It might be that if the government stole 10 billion for roads and courts, politicians would figure out how to steal 30% of it for their personal gain while figuring out how to make a 15 billion budget next year.

But right now, we have a budget considerably larger, with substantially more money being printed and disposed of THAT IS NOT EVEN TRACKED OR NOTED OR OVERSEEN by any elected official. I like my version of a government better than what we have now.

A workable solution would be a reduction of taxes by 5% per year, every year, end the Fed and move currency to a gold standard, 2 term limits, serious prosecution of bribery, an end to the lobbying, legalizing marijuana.

I like a codified system of justice with rules which are supposed to be applied to everyone equally. Less regulation is mandatory, and our govenrment should focus on malum in se crimes and eliminate virtually all malum prohibitum, victimless crimes. Good way to save on jails and law enforcement, too.

Anyway, for intellectuals like you, I have no doubt that you'd behave admirably under anarchy, if you have integrity. So would I.

It is the 99% of the rest of humanity, including the thugs in the current administration who have access to alot of manpower and firepower, who I'd worry about were I you.

"Small government is transparent government. It is hard to steer billions to your supporters when there are no extra billions in the government coffer. This would also have the effect of getting the worst of us out of political office" [...] "...Low taxes mean economic growth..."

Oh Scott, I’m sorry for having to be the nay-sayer again—but just how do you expect to even imagine that there won’t be billons to {A} first be swiped and than {B} to be steered to supports (or whatever else) ---if there is a tax system in place!?

"with governments 'optimizing' how much they can extract from citizens without leading to collapse or revolt."

That's what I believe, (at least) since Roman times it's been the case (see God of the Machine's description of the 'short circuit.' We'll see. President BO and advisers are bringing on their collapse. As Scott suggests, this could be the purpose to bring about one world government. BO is certainly friendly with the aims of the UN. (That's why he is America's most traitorous president.)

....to any meaningful action."

That's a strange statement on its face.

Demonstrations are often organised or mobilized by simple discontent.

Why do you think several different factions rally around a single political cause?

The overthrow of communism in the eastern block was fueled by discontent with the ruling parties.

When the Weimar Republic was overthrown, it was fuelled by discontent with the economic collapse.

Widespread discontent in the population always fuels a rebellion.

Scott-
Rock on with your comments on small government, Ron Paul, etc.

"Isn't that one of the factors that caused the former Soviet Union to fall? Trying to keep up in the arms race at the expense of necessities, growing the Black Market ever larger?"

Yes, though even that factor wasn't as simple as engaging them in an arms race they couldn't afford. They afforded the build up in the 50s, 60s, 70s to the point where they had the largest number of nuclear warheads on earth. The difference in the 80s was also on the income front - the break of the OPEC embargo subsequent collapse of oil prices significantly hurt the Soviet's bankroll.

I'm largely with Marcus on pessimism about 'totalitarian-ish' regimes collapsing. Extreme communism, etc. is untenable, but I'm cynical that giving people 'enough' private ownership, e.g. fascism that China and US are both approaching from different ends of the spectrum - may be sustainable for a loooong time. I think of it as a broader application of the Laffer curve, with governments 'optimizing' how much they can extract from citizens without leading to collapse or revolt.

Aaron

Consider whether the ship being steered into the rocks is part of the plan, who might have conceived of the plan, and what the second stage of the plan is.

Planned Economies, run by Man who manages supply and demand, creates exactly the sort of ridiculous things you see in Orwell's "1984"

Soviet Russia. Example #1.

In fact, nonsensical shortages that are entirely unncessary and illogical are the natural fruit that tree grows.

And it is easy to see a well-wed, paranoid totalitarian shifting production to maintaining surveilance at all costs at the expense of razor blades and food.

Isn't that one of the factors that caused the former Soviet Union to fall? Trying to keep up in the arms race at the expense of necessities, growing the Black Market ever larger?

No, you're not.

I think you Kiwis are talking out of both sides of your mouths. You cannot even sort out your little island?

We are dealing with people who have been government-educated to not even understand the issues.

We are dealing with a fundamental political corruption so widespread and ubiquitous that all at the trough are hogs and no hogs vote to permanently empty the trough.

The only bright point politically is Ron Paul. He should continue to push politically,and each liberty-loving American should support the Campaign for Liberty and its candidates.

Whether that support will be effective may be argued, but it certainly is better than nothing, and is better than planning a revolution, which does not even merit discussion.

The cause of liberty got its first prime-time airing in how long when Paul was in the Presidential debates?

We always talk about the importance of ideas and how getting a stage, and audience for the ideas is paramount.

Well, Paul didn't win the election, but he got the message out more effectively, and to a different, larger group of people, than all Objectivist organizations have in the last 20 years.

Our much-cherished right to vote used to mean something, but Billy Beck had the right of it: voting is a high school Queen of the Prom affair which simply decides who gets the stolen loot and who carries the taskmaster's whip. The pretty and popular kid wins, but nothing chages for the better, and it couldn't.

The most pressing issue right now is NOT Islamic terrorism. It is liberty. Liberty will solve all of our problems.

Small government is cheap government.

Small government is limited government, so corporations will stop buying our political process.

Small government is non-warlike government, since each dollar for war must be raised separately, rather than shifted around a massive, already-existing government, or by inflating currency by printing war dollars.

Small government is transparent government. It is hard to steer billions to your supporters when there are no extra billions in the government coffer. This would also have the effect of getting the worst of us out of political office.

Small government means no Fed, and economic prosperity on a commodity standard. Low taxes mean economic growth, no Fed means no shadow inflation (printing more money).

Small government does not maintain a military base in every country of the world. And it does not fight wars lightly, does not nation-build and does not occupy.

Even our Anarchist friends might agree that small government would be better than the monstrosity we have now. Or, maybe not.

But suggesting that Americans are wimps because there are not been a armed revolution, even in jest?

Not cool, and not accurate.

"My fundamental point was only this - it is not possible to rule-out that the big-brother could have somehow acquired or developed this new technology. Such a criticism of the novel is exceptionally silly."

How "somehow"? Do you realize that if they even “somehow" obtained this technology it would take hundreds of thousands well trained scientists, engineers and technicians to produce and maintain it on such a large scale? That requires developed, very sophisticated scientific, technological and educational infrastructure. All these people should be well paid and fed. And yet in extremely poor Orwellian world one could hardly obtain any decent food, clothes or cigarettes. Loyal zombies produced by Big Brother regime hardly can invent, produce or maintain anything.

"The numbers of people who take up arms and are actively working towards revolution are not the majority - just a critical number of people past which the state can no longer effectively control."

Communist revolution in Russia started on a grassroots level-mainly among soldiers who were discontented with Tsar’s regime. Communists and socialists only acted as catalyst. Their main function was propaganda, that is-ideology, not actual fighting. The acceptance of socialist ideology was prepared by previous 50 years of indoctrination by leading Russian intellectuals. By the time of revolution the idea of monarchy in Russia was already dead and the idea of socialism dominated Russian intellectual society. However in France during the second revolution situation was quite different. Socialism and communism wasn't accepted by French people on the large scale. So Commune of Paris failed. This historical lesson clearly demonstrates that a precondition to any revolution is a change of dominant philosophy which is goal orientated positive power, not just unformed discontent. Discontent is simply negative feeling and cannot lead to any meaningful action.

"I don't know the story about the nuclear weapons, so wont comment on it, except to say it is not a simple task to develop a functioning nuclear missile arsenal. If it were easy to just steal the technology, expertise and resources - every rogue State in the world would have done it by now."

From what I've read about this before, the Soviets developed their original fission devices ('A-bomb') on their own, but may have had some help from spy-gathered information getting to a fusion based secondary ('H-bomb') as quickly as they did. Even the line between A and H isn't as clear as it is often made to sound, though, and the Soviets achieved at least fusion-boosted fission using their own design. Kurchatov and Sakharov were certainly no idiots, and the Soviets being behind in the initial nuclear race can be largely attributed to Stalin's own skepticism of its feasibility. Kurchatov's A-bomb program begun in the early 40s was underfunded and understaffed, simply never given enough resources to produce a critical mass of fissile material - until after August 1945 when Stalin decided suddenly to move the program to the front burner.

Aaron

"Without a world of freedom from which to steal, copy, acquire recklessly generous aid, follow the markets of, etc., dictatorship inevitably and necessarily regresses into savagery."

Why do you ignore the facts of reality which I have illustrated?

The Soviets launched the first satellite, dog in space and human in space. Because they were the first, they had no one to copy. So, this example provides as close as possible an illustration of a communist world alone.

All this happened 50 years after communism began in Russia, that's roughly two generations.

All this began after a bloody purge in the 1930's whereby millions were executed.

It was possible because the Communist Government underwent a regime change from Stalin to Khrushchev (who was pro-space science putting money, man-power and resources towards it). After Khrushchev was deposed in 1964, the Soviet Space program ground to a halt.

I don't know the story about the nuclear weapons, so wont comment on it, except to say it is not a simple task to develop a functioning nuclear missile arsenal. If it were easy to just steal the technology, expertise and resources - every rogue State in the world would have done it by now.

My fundamental point was only this - it is not possible to rule-out that the big-brother could have somehow acquired or developed this new technology. Such a criticism of the novel is exceptionally silly.

Anyway, from what I have read Orwell may have been making a comment more on the technology of before big brother, when he was writing the novel in 1948. In other words, when TV was still considered a new invention. That's why he calls it a 'tele-screen' and not a TV, because that name had not become established yet.

There was a paranoid fear in those days that a TV set was two-way. In other words, the people on the screen could look at you.

Indeed there were many stories of people that would not undress in front of the TV, or would feel compelled to clap at the end of a show. In fact, my Grandmother was like that.

Orwell was playing upon those fears by people at the time that a TV set was a spying device in his novel. (Today you could use the internet for the same purpose).

That was my point - 1984 could have had such technology - and I believe it is still valid.

At a grassroot level, does not translate into the majority.

Post-revolution it is easy to say there was a lot of discontent.

When is there not generally a lot of discontent with a Government after a year or two in power? Doesn't mean the discontented majority are willing to actively overthrow the regime though.

The number of people who take up arms and are actively working towards revolution are not the majority - just a critical number of people past which the state can no longer effectively control.

"That would mean that Objectivists would lead groups that are discontented with the present Government."
This statement is completely without context. Which group? Discontented on what ground? By using your definition one may assume that Objectivists should lead a group of religious fundamentalists discontented with present secular government or group of pacifists discontented with American international military involvement or group of neo-left ecologists discontented with globalization and American government carbon foot-print or......you can carry on yourself. That what happens when one discards ideas and substitutes them by force. And you are factually wrong when you claim that "all revolutions in history have been led by an active minority - while the majority remain apathetic, uninterested or simply busy with their daily lives." All revolutions started on the grass-root level.

No, not "within a totalitarian regime," of course, but "within" the opposite, and only to the extent that that opposite exists.

Without a world of freedom from which to steal, copy, acquire recklessly generous aid, follow the markets of, etc., dictatorship inevitably and necessarily regresses into savagery.

For all their vaunted technology, the Nazis were literally killing (and driving off) science on the continent of Europe. Sure, kill millions, steal their property, and you'll look flush for a time. But the victims run out eventually. The Nazis were on a short road to the Dark Ages. Yes, a Lenin may soon see the need to compromise, that is, if his regime is to survive, but the shiny bauble of such power tends to favor the rise of a Stalin. Sure, their captured Germans could turn the aim of one of those nasty rockets (originally, a peaceful American invention) to outer space. Big deal. They had no chance of beating us to the moon. No, instead, they quickly fell backwards into complete stagnation. The Soviets could only steal U.S. atomic technology to get the Bomb, for example. As is now clearer than ever, their economy was a miserable basket case for decades. East and West Germany were a vivid laboratory case study for these kind of differences: the first was consistently falling backwards into ever greater misery and despair, while the West enjoyed what was called "the German Miracle" of the 1950s. Even the soft forms of socialism, as in Britain, meant only stagnation and growing poverty. Once proud Britain, world leader of industry and technology, was becoming a pathetic joke of regression by the 1960s and 1970s, the victim of such a "Brain Drain" that one could almost hear a giant sucking sound, that is, until brought back from the brink by Thatcher. Amid a group of rising Asian Tigers of capitalism, China to some extent threw in the towel, too.

America, at least until recently, has led the world economy precisely because it has led the world in innovation. One classic case being pharmaceutical drugs. Almost alone in resisting socialized medicine, America has also been almost as alone in the discovery of new medicines in recent decades. And stupid Americans have long dominated the awarding of Nobel prizes in the physical sciences and medicine. From Whitney's interchangeable parts to Ford's automatized assembly lines, Americans are responsible for constant improvements in industrial method that have benefitted a whole world that only needed to copy them. And, still, attempts to copy are not enough to replicate the vibrancy of America's (once) free market. The annual Index of Economic Freedom is always worth checking out, and its message always the same.

Exactly, now you've admitted that there are degrees of communism.

Connect the two!

Ipso facto, a certain amount of progress may be permitted to occur within a totaliterien regime, like communism.

Black and white, absolutely. This does not mean that I do not admit degrees, of course. So: to the degree freedom is absent, stagnation will occur. The more freedom, the more prosperity and technological progress will occur. It's a simple rule, and historically 100% spot on. This one is able to "answer" with total assurance.

But, back to Rand's insights regarding the relationship between reason and freedom...

The problem with your question is that communism is not monolithic.

You seem to be thinking in black and white.

North Korea and China are both ruled by 'communist' parties, but are eons apart in terms of political ideology.

You cannot disguise either that within a certain political system there are many different individuals with different ideas.

Every so often in the west you also get a liberal Government like that of Bill Clinton that looks more conservative, at least from an economic perspective, than the conservatives. Not because of their prevailing ideology, but despite it, for reasons of political expediency.

So your question which treats communism as being a monolithic entity, rather than the name of a one-party (usually, not always) system run by a group of individuals, is impossible to answer.

...you haven't been paying attention.

I wrote that revolutions are never ideologically-driven, in the sense that are driven by discontent with the current regime.

That means the revolution that is for example, against the ruling monarchy, is hijacked by an ideology.

I'm talking about an Objectivist co-opted revolution.

That would mean that Objectivists would lead a group that are discontented with the present Government.

In practice, the revolutionaries will agree - 'Government bad' - but they will want leadership to tell them what to do next.

Although, I don't know this to be true statistically, I would bet you that all revolutions in history have been led by an active minority - while the majority remain apathetic, uninterested or simply busy with their daily lives.

Makes sense when you appreciate that in the west we are ruled by a powerful clique, who are definitely in the minority. Their power over us is only made possible by our apathy, distraction with other matters, lack of oversight, or preference for all or part of the status quo.

When it has been suggested that all citizens be able to vote on all political matters, one of the objections has been that most voters are simply not interested enough to vote on all issues.

As was discovered in Ancient Greece, whereby voters had to be herded into stadia to vote because many resisted - it is unfortunately true.

... any of the books recommended by The Objectivist way back in the 60s on this topic, like Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development by Anthony Sutton or East Minus West = Zero by Werner Keller? Have you read Bernstein's Capitalist Manifesto or it's abridged version Capitalism Unbound? This would be a good start.

... no, there is no freedom "at the top" of a dictatorship, either. Dictatorship is the absence of freedom, sir. The existence of a dictator always compels the existence of blood-thirsty rivals, as history so tediously has shown, and his "colleagues" always face the tendency of suffering the fate that most of Stalin's did.

Do you then deny the relationship between reason and freedom that Rand articulated? If not, just how long do you think a communist world (not just block) could last before seriously regressing? I'm not talking about "knowledge" in books -- the Greeks had the steam engine, as Rand observed -- but physical conditions.

"Objectivists could rightly describe this as being 'self-defense'."
You didn't understand. You can start armed uprising by using self-defense notion. You even can win. But if you don't have support of majority, you wouldn't be able to sustain the new social order without continuous initiation of the use of force. I think that if Objectivist revolution will ever take place it would start as grass-root massive civil disobedience, removal the sanction of the victims. Without such a sanction the current regime will collapse even before your first shot. But that requires global change of the mind set, that is-dominant philosophy.

Objectivists could rightly describe this as being 'self-defence'.

By the standards of the NIOF, is the state not using force against us, the individual?

And you want to stand by and accept this as a pacifist?

You want to debate with the state official who wields a gun, forces you to hand over your money, forces you to bend to their will in matters of reproduction, recreation and the free-market?

And you say that we should not violate this principle, in favour of passive resistance?

Would you tell that to the criminal, the rapist, the murderer too?

You expect all Objectivists to simply join hands and walk to the gas chamber, rather than defend themselves?

"I don't see why not."-because it's not sustainable. One can maintain fascist regime by using force for quite a long time, but not a social order based on NIOF principle. If Objectivists violate this principle in the name of freedom of future generations, if they force freedom on people against their will and mind set (which is terrible contradiction), then they become undistinguished from fascists or communists. In such a case I prefer the devil I know-old Nazi concentration camp. At least Nazis don't pretend to be champions of reason and individual freedom.

"The majority of people do not usually champion an ideology, but a cause. Some sort of perceived injustice."

All people have implicit philosophy. This is their basis to champion a cause and to know what injustice is. For example for Islamists death in the name of Allah is just cause. Don’t underestimate the power of ideas.

I don't see why not.

Were the ideas that framed the US constitution the dominant philosophy of the land? Among the intellectuals, yes, but amongst the general population? I believe it has been reported that the 'majority' of Americans at the beginning of the war of Independence were still pro-British crown.

Only after the first rebellion did they start to believe the forceful response by the British army to dissent was unjust and disproportionate.

I think there is a definite trend. The majority of people do not usually champion an ideology, but a cause. Some sort of perceived injustice.

For example, being ruled by a foreign power, by a dictator or a Government that doesn't represent them in some way.

The ideologists who are seen to be leading, or fuelling the revolution, are ultimately those who take power and set the future course.

You are suggesting that as soon as an armed struggle began Objectivists would simply snipe on the sidelines that force was immoral and the revolutionaries were a bunch of thuggish collectivists?

When the fascists or communists took control of the Government and led you off to the the concentration camp you'd still be mumbling to yourself about rampant collectivism, although no one would be listening anymore.

"The communists and fascists are in a minority in most countries of the world, but have managed to more or less take control of our lives."
The card-bearer communists and fascists were minority. But majority accepted ideas of communism and fascism. Or as V.I Lenin used to say “The idea possesses masses". There is no need for majority to become experts in explicit Objectivist philosophy. Suffice if basic ideas of Objectivism-reason and rational egoism become dominant. Ideology is explicit political philosophy and as such no one of them has majority today. However implicit mystic-collectivist-altruist ideas constitute majority’s frame of mind. As result we have communism, fascism, mixed economy and plain religious fundamentalism. Change this and you'll change the social order. Revolution is always a war of majority who want the change against minority who doesn't want it. The precondition of revolution is a battle of ideas. Sometimes revolution could be peaceful as it happened in East Germany and other former communist countries. Revolution of minority, however, is coup d'etat, when the change of social order achieved and maintained by sheer force. Objectivist revolution cannot be of such a nature.

How would you tell that point has come?

After all, even totalitarian regimes often claim to be free and democratically elected.

Obviously enough people believe them, or just don't want to change, or are afraid to change the status quo.

I agree with you that revolution has to take place in the head.

But it is also true to say that no one ideology today has a majority. That means a minority regime is always in place.

It is unlikely you will ever get a majority of Objectivists or Libertarians or even a vocal minority who speak with one voice.

The communists and fascists are in a minority in most countries of the world, but have managed to more or less take control of our lives.

What say you to that?

"Do agree with my conclusion that the only way the western world will ever have true freedom in the objectivist sense is if we have a revolution and overthrow the existing Government?

Yes or no?"

This is not a question which could be answered simply by "yes or no". It depends on the future political development. Mixed economy by its very nature is contradictory state and therefore unstable. Eventually it may collapse to the full-scale fascism. In such a case a revolution would be the only solution. But it also can develop toward freedom. Since people possess free will the predictions in this regard are risky business. In any case no revolution will succeed without a change of the dominant philosophy. As long as society is turning around altruist-mystic-collectivist axis no revolution will change it. One cannot coerce people to be free-that would be contradiction in terms. The revolution should first take place in the people's mind.

"Did Rand ever consider as she was watching the Apollo rocket launch that this was made possible only by US slave dollars”
Yes, and in great details. See “Apollo 11" in "The Voice of Reason" . The main line of Rand's reasoning is that American space program is a product of mixed economy. The question she asked " which elements were result of coercion and which the result of freedom?"
She elaborated that “It is not coercion...that created Apollo 11. The scientists, the engineers, the astronauts were free men acting of their own choice." Government, she maintained didn’t act as a government in regard to participants of space program, that is-didn't use coercion. However, she mentioned that government did use coercion in regard to taxpayers who financed this program. The Soviet space program is a product of totalitarian regime. Coercion was a masterpiece. That why Soviet program never achieved what Americans achieved-no Moon landing, no shuttle, and no space station worth its name... However elements of statism slowly but surly started to dominate American space program as well and this is the main reason for its slow decay, as you yourself clearly demonstrated. This is the ample proof that modern technology is incompatible with coercion and this is main Rand's argument against "1984".

Leonid,

I could say the exact same thing about the US space program.

Did Rand ever consider as she was watching the Apollo rocket launch that this was made possible only by US slave dollars (i.e. tax dollars) and a rocket scientist imported from the NAZI regime? A NAZI scientist, who in addition, controversially used Jewish slave labour to work on the V2.

Did it ever occur to you that after Wernher von Braun (the lone genius) left the US space program, it fell apart?

After designing the space shuttle, von Braun left NASA in the mid 70's, dying two years later.

What has happened since then?

NASA has had two major catastrophes, whereby the rockets exploded and astronauts were killed.

NASA has yet to replace the shuttle, put another man on the moon or mars, or build a lunar space station after years of endless bullshit discussions about it.

NASA's space program has become nothing more than a floating laboratory, hardly any improvement on technology since the time of von Braun. Even the Soviets put up their own space station!

NASA has become little more than a political organ of Global Warming alarmists, making often simple mistakes (or on purpose) in temperature measurements that any internet hack finds are to be in error - all funded by your slave money.

Did it ever occur to you that the US government has erased the contribution of Wernher von Braun to the space program from their history books (as an embarrassment), pretty much like the Soviets did to Korolev while he was alive? Imagine the jubilation he would receive by the US Government if he were an American rather than a former NAZI.

And you're proud of that?

...the world of 1984 was falling to pieces.

What's more, they couldn't bug everyone. The proles they left alone.

So when you say, Rand was right after all. After your admissions I don't see how you can agree with her criticism of the novel.

I mean, we are not even sure if in the fictional world of 1984, someone had not already started upon the technology, which the regime just stole.

It is a rather silly criticism at that.

It would be the equivalent of someone saying that overwhleming TV transmissions for John Galt's speech for such a long length of time is impossible.

It would make good some of Daniel Hannan's criticisms that in the Atlas Shrugged world, somehow the electricity still manages to flow, except for at the very end of the novel.

Orwell was clearly trying to illustrate where the voyeuristic state that wanted power over our lives was headed, and it turns out he was right.

Spying was actually done in east Germany on such a wide scale with listening devices.

Today we have CCTV camera's everywhere on the streets, and databases full of personal data, and calls for ID cards - used by the state.

So my question to you would be this:

Do agree with my conclusion that the only way the western world will ever have true freedom in the objectivist sense is if we have a revolution and overthrow the existing Government?

Yes or no?

"I understand he did not get any backing for a space-program under Stalin"-Indeed. Under Stalin Korolev was a prisoner in the labour camp. It is somewhat difficult to develop space-program in such a place. Besides, there were no space-program in Russia under Stalin.

"Of course they could of, specifically if it had been a high-priority goal of the regime to pour money, resources and labour into it."
I don't think so. Whishes are not fishes, goals of the regime, money, and slave labour are not substitutes to free creative mind which cannot create under coercion but some times can create in spite of it ( like in "Anthem"). But even if sole genius creates new technology, totalitarian regime cannot sustain it for any significant period of time. Soviet space program is good example of this paradigm. Nevermind new technologies, it even cannot properly maintain already existent infrastructures. Rand was right after all.

...the Industrialization was ethical, efficient or whatever.

The point is not whether it was a one man-genius, Korolev, who was responsible for the space-program. (Although from what I understand he did not get any backing for a space-program under Stalin, therefore Khrushchev's support was indeed necessary.)

The point is that new innovation and technology were possible - no matter how limited or inefficient or unethical the methods employed by the state are to do it.

This goes back to the fundamental question I posed of whether or not a totalitarian regime, like 1984, could have developed new technologies.

Of course they could of, specifically if it had been a high-priority goal of the regime to pour money, resources and labour into it.

"the entire country under Stalin was crippled into inaction and never achieved anything? Not even industrialization, for example?"
Industrialization-yes. Stalin performed this task about 150 years after West Industrial Revolution by using the forced labor of millions slaves. Many of them died from malnutrition, diseases, maltreatment and hard work in very hard conditions-see Archipelago Gulag by Solzhenitsyn. Could these starved half-dead slaves invent anything? I doubt it. They just repeated what was already achieved by Western civilization long time ago and without the bloody price.
In regard to so called flourishing of Russian space program-it was brain child of one person-Korolev who was a genius and worked in spite oppression. He often defeated authorities and eventually died from heart attack as result of constant stress caused by confrontation with the state. After his death Soviet space program came to the halt.

...the entire country under Stalin was crippled into inaction and never achieved anything? Not even industrialisation, for example?

That's just not credible.

Yes, some people in power live in fear, and there were bloody purges too. It is true that the USSR became a much better place post-Stalin into the Khrushchev era.

However, that just proves my point.

It was a still a communist state, and yet the Khrushchev era allowed the space-age to flourish in the USSR.

There are always leadership changes and reforms, even in a totalitarian state.

"What I was saying was that there has to be a certain amount of freedom at the top of the state power structure, if it is to survive for any length of time. Do you think someone would have killed Stalin, Hitler or Mao Tse Tung if they had said the wrong thing, for thinking about and analysing concepts that ordinary people would have been punished for? And don't you think such rulers also have a circle of confidants who share in these thoughts without consequences? And don't you think these confidants are afforded a certain amount of power to grant others who may be useful to the regime a certain amount of freedom too?"

The answer to all these questions is NO. I refer you to "Khrushchev Remembers" translated by Strobe Talbot, First Sphere Books edition 1971. Read this book if you want to know how Stalin's inner circle worked. Its basis was a fear, sheer horror and no trace of freedom. I suppose Hitler and Mao inner circles operated the same way.

You wrote "In order to do this, the state does realize that they must allow a certain amount of freedom to those who work upon a certain task."
The head of Russian nuclear project was L P Beria who also was the head of NKVD (KGB). He was apparently most dreadful person in whole Russian modern history. One can only imagine what amount of freedom he allowed to his prisoners-scientists. For the full account read "In the First Circle" by Solzhenitsyn.

...why don't you read my essay?

I wrote,

"Even in totalitarian countries where speech, thought and individual initiative are suppressed there is a certain amount of industry, productivity and yes, technological innovation."

You wrote,

"Now, observe that I never claimed that there aren't any brilliant minds in Russia. They [sic] are. The problem is that totalitarian state prevents their use or uses them for their own purposes which are usually an oppression at home and aggression abroad."

We are basically agreeing. I have never claimed that 'totalitarian' countries are equal to, or superior to, free ones.

What I was saying was that there has to be a certain amount of freedom at the top of the state power structure, if it is to survive for any length of time. Do you think someone would have killed Stalin, Hitler or Mao Tse Tung if they had said the wrong thing, for thinking about and analysing concepts that ordinary people would have been punished for? And don't you think such rulers also have a circle of confidants who share in these thoughts without consequences? And don't you think these confidants are afforded a certain amount of power to grant others who may be useful to the regime a certain amount of freedom too?

This means that despite all the REPRESSION on the general population by the state, a certain amount of human achievement is possible.

The state has certain goals and ambitions, even if it is simply to improve a weapons technology is has acquired from somewhere else.

In order to do this, the state does realize that they must allow a certain amount of freedom to those who work upon a certain task. This is always in secret and only afforded to the select few. But enough money and resources is poured into it to achieve results. Just check up on your history of dictatorships.

You rely on Russian TV as a source of information. Good for you. But you should know that Russians have long tradition to ascribe all Western innovations and discoveries to Russian scientists. In Russia there are plenty jocks about this matter. This is an obvious sign of their inferiority complex. You also should know that genetics together with cybernetics used to be forbidden "bourgeois" sciences in Soviet Russia for a long time and start to develop only in late sixties of the last century. State controlled science can discover only what the state allows to discover. Alexei Olovnikov only made theoretical prediction of the existence of telomere, he never discovered it. It has been discovered by American scientists.

"First, telomeric GGGGTT repeat tracts on minichromosomes in the ciliates Tetrahymena thermophila and Glaucoma chattoni were heterogeneous in length (Blackburn and Gall 1978; Yao et al. 1979; Katzen et al. 1981). Second, telomeric GGGGTT repeat tract DNA was found added to various sequences in ciliate minichromosomes as a result of the process by which new telomeres formed on chromosomes during development of the somatic nucleus. This stage in the ciliate life cycle had an intriguing parallel in the postfertilization phase when maize chromosomes could heal and when Ascarid chromosomes fragmented to form new chromosomes with stable ends. Meng-Chao Yao, working in Martin Gorovsky’s lab and then Joe Gall’s lab, had found such telomeric DNA acquisition for Tetrahymena rDNA minichromosomes, and in my lab at the University of California at Berkeley, we had made similar observations for other, non-rDNA telomeres of the somatic nucleus (Yao et al. 1979; King and Yao 1982; Blackburn et al. 1983)."

Now, observe that I never claimed that there aren't any brilliant minds in Russia. They are. The problem is that totalitarian state prevents their use or uses them for their own purposes which are usually an oppression at home and aggression abroad.

In regard to satellites communication: the idea belongs to A.C. Clark who first published it in 1947.

the power of the dark side...

...is that Obama has missed the chance to bring in Communism, if that was his goal.

Yes, he can take the country to the left, but he is just using the existing power structure to do so. It means the next President could do the same in the opposite direction.

The oppertunity Obama missed was this...

Upon being elected he had a large mandate for 'change'. He campaigned to eliminate special interests and earmarks.

The clever thing would have been to have had a stand-off with the two houses on this issue. Veto everything they did that was not free of this sort of corruption - which is pretty much everything.

That would have been massively popular, even amongst the right-wing and Libertarians.

Once he had 'purged' both houses of corrupt members with corrupt practices, he could have brought back his own 'loyalists'.

Such a 'popular uprising' would have given him astronomical power to introduce any ideology he liked.

That how revolutions usually work.

But thankfully Obama has missed that bus, and it's business as usual. He missed his golden oppertunity.

Leonid, the Soviets were the FIRST to put up an orbital satellite in space - and you say that it is not a 'trade mark' of civilisation.

Are you aware how dependent we are on them these days?

From satellite TV to satellite navigation to google Earth.

How about other science?

For example take my field ageing.

Telomeres considered to be very important to the ageing process and some forms of cancer were first discovered by a Soviet Russian biologist, Alexey Olovnikov, in 1973. The enzyme he predicted existed, telomerase, was later discovered and the scientists awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine just this year.

There are other examples of important discoveries in biology and physics that were made in Soviet Russia too.
........................................................................................................................................................................................

I will have to dig them up some time.

"My original proposition is that a totalitarian slave economy, like in 1984 or Soviet Russia, can produce new technology. All I was saying is that it is FALSE to say they could only do it by stealing technology from free countries.This is absurd on its face."

As far as I know during 70 years of its existence Soviet Russia NEVER created one single innovation which could be considered as a trade mark of the our modern civilization. Every thing-from the steam engine to the nuclear reactor, from the electrical bulb to the cell phones and computers, from antibiotics to the heart surgery, from the first airplanes to the space technology-had been invented and produced by West and poorly copied by Russians. The same thing applies to China and other communist countries. If you know differently-please enlighten me.

Hat-tip Glenn Beck...

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

...always comes about where opportunity meets preparation.

The majority of revolutions have come about from throwing off colonial or imperial rule.

After a revolution like that, what comes next? The ideology that is to replace the former masters is not obvious.

Whether or not it is to be communism, fascism or even a constitution that enshrines human rights - it will inextricably include elements of nationalism - the main driving force to make citizens rebel in the first place.

If you encompass revolution to mean a wide range from civil war, to coup d'etat, to mass popular uprising - then of course there are several examples of this happening against an indigenous corrupt government.

For example, the so-called 'Orange Revolution' in the Ukraine or the 'Velvet Revolution' in Czechoslovakia.

It could even be considered that the rise of the NAZI's was the result of a revolt against the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic.

It all depends who is ready to take the lead.

Usually it is a small group of people, who take hold of the popular uprising, and then steer whatever new course comes into being. They have to be prepared in the right place at the right time.

I could imagine several openings for revolution: for example, a revelation of mass corruption by the state, economic collapse on the scale of the Weimar Republic, a widely perceived injustice such as Obama setting terrorists free, a rejection of federalism or even rampant racism.

I don’t see a revolution beginning in little New Zealand but rather the lead from the US followed here by policy makers after the forthcoming US economic default. Even that is hopeful.

A is A, and unfortunately history is repeating.

From Isabel Paterson's God of the Machine, 1943, “Credit and Depressions”;

There is a peculiar contrast between the depression of the [1890]s and that following 1929, perhaps a lesson for political thinkers. A hundred years ago, Macaulay expressed apprehension that the American constitution and property rights must sooner or later be subverted by popular suffrage, because in time of distress the “have nots” would vote to expropriate the “haves.”

[..] but what did happen? In the depression of the [18]90s, an election turned on that issue, in the respect of money, the “free silver” question. Certainly a number of voters were in distress. The vote was fairly close, although decidedly weighted against sound money by the Democratic party solidarity of the South. But the popular decision was for sound money. Again, in 1932, the popular vote was for government economy, sound money, and incidental reduction of the political power, though the country was suffering acutely from a depression.

What was the cause of the panic? Enormous government loans abroad which were not repaid; and the existence of the Federal Reserve system, a political creation, which made an inordinate credit expansion possible.

And who went on Federal relief first?

By no means the “have nots.” The real cleavage did not occur on the lines that Macaulay drew, between the rich and the poor. It was between the producers and the non-producers, in the main.

[..]
It was the non-productive rich who first went on the dole. Had they not done so, no measure could have been passed for Federal poor relief; and the workingman accepted it only in extremity and with bitterness.

[..]
[The American War of Independence] began as a civil war and ended in a revolution, establishing a new form of government to secure the traditional form of self-government originally claimed. Thus [not encapsulated here-Greg] any extension of governmental powers and increase in taxation on the pretense of “averting revolution” can only create the danger if it did not already exist, and aggravate it if it did exist.

As for the form of government, I’m not about to re-invent the wheel when quite capable hands have been at it already. Try this piece by Greg Perkins:

We can now appreciate what Rand was signaling with her outrage at being grouped or associated in any way with anarchists in particular and libertarians in general: she was refusing the mental, personal, and social chaos that flows from a fundamentally flawed way of seeing things. Rand understood that the essential concept in politics is individual rights, and so she identified totalitarianism and anarchism as indistinguishable in what's important: their complete lack of an objective recognition and systematic protection of man's rights. In contrast, as noted above, the libertarian way of thinking mis-classifies totalitarianism and anarchism as moral opposites by focusing on the inessential characteristic of size. If the purpose of politics is to sort out and enact the conditions required for people to successfully live among one another, this kind of confusion is about as disastrous as it gets -- even while self-consciously seeking the good, the conceptual lens of libertarianism will drive you to its opposite.

And conversely, the libertarian framework fails to capture crucial differences. Consider a powerful government that performs all and only its proper functions in the defense of man's rights, and one that happens to have all the same laws and institutions but also has, say, conscription on the books just in case war breaks out. These two governments are all but indistinguishable (and neither is smiled on) in the libertarians' basic classification scheme based on size. But Objectivists see these two as moral opposites because one is committed to the essential task of the defense of man's rights and the other is not. Even though not currently violating any rights, the government with conscription laws clearly rejects the key principle of the field. It has no principled defense against the slippery slope to serfdom we've seen play out in history all too many times.

Not quite.

As you pointed out, Sputnik came about after 40 years of communism.

In the novel 1984, they have had about 30 years of big brother.

It depends what you mean by sustainable.

For example, that Soviet Russia would inevitably collapse?

Well, even totalitarian countries reform or change leadership every so often.

Who would have thought that North Korea or Cuba would have held out so long?

It is also to be remembered that countries like China and Vietnam, although having opened up their economies to the free-market, still have one-party communist rule.

Why is that important?

Because it is important to recognise that however fascist, nationalist, communist or state planned our own western countries become, they can still remain sustainable for many generations to come.

Revolution is the way forward!

"Do you really think that such a system could be sustainable for any historically significant period of time?"

No... Which is why I said things like "I certainly agree that a totalitarian regime is stunting of developments of the human mind". We agree on slave state being anti-human, anti-mind, diminishing progress, not being sustainable. However, it shouldn't be necessary to misportray history to try to diminish what Soviets did with technology to zero. It's not facing reality to treat Sputnik as nothing, even though we know it was despite totalitarianism, not because of it.

Aaron

...you've turned my argument on its head.

My original proposition is that a totalitarian slave economy, like in 1984 or Soviet Russia, can produce new technology. That is all. No more, no less.

I never claimed that they could do this just as well as a free society, as efficiently, that human life counted for a damn, that the people lived happy lives.

All I was saying is that it is FALSE to say they could only do it by stealing technology from free countries.

This is absurd on its face.

If considered on the individual level, then yes, a totalitarian state only STEALS.

Free western Governments are in the habit of STEALING on the individual level too.

I want to live in a free country, but wise-up. Totalitarian states do produce, make things and innovate - not nearly as well as free countries, but they still do!