participant-3927, 7:24 AM, May 19
I have finished reading Weizmann’s memoirs, and and I have drawn two additional points that are relevant to starting a new country. (A) scientific research (b) utilizing natural resources available at the location.
participant-3927, 7:24 AM, May 19
The period I am describing is from 1907 to 1947. Parallel to the settlement of Palestine with a stream of Jewish immigrants was the creation of academic research stations in Palestine. These took form of a university, institute and research centers. They attracted the top scientists in various fields, and gave the whole Jewish State project and intellectual character. Papers published in Palestine made way to the best publications.
The second item is utilizing local resources, and this is related to the research under the first item. Part of the research dealt not only with global scientific problems that are relevant in big countries like UK and USA, but with extracting value from local resources. Today, for instance, the Dead Sea, provides raw materials for many pharmaceuticals.
Now, let’s say that that a new country is established in some desolate place (like Palestine once was), perhaps Bir Tabil. Scientific advances can utilize the uniqueness of this land, for the benefit. For examples, new construction materials can be developed from sand, sun heat and water (water from the aquifer below). The desert, under shade created by a giant geodesic dome, can yield vegetation and hospitable living. Further, startups and corporations developing this know how can export the products and put the new country project on a sound financial footing. Exactly this process happened in Palestine, under the guidance of Weizmann and other Zionists.
Yet, another point , which Weizmann repeatedly makes, but with which I do not fully agree, is that a nation is forged in a village, not in a city. He argued for nationalization of agricultural land, and its development by cooperatives, rather than urbanization. He thought that city life is oriented about quick profit and speculation, and doesn’t have long term value. (He also said that language is forged in a village, not in a city.) And it’s true that showing that land is cultivated , convinced many observes that Zionism is a national movement.
I have also heard in relation to SEZ in Crimea, that instead of attracting actual settlers into the SEZ, it just became an offshore vehicle for washing money. And that’s why that SEZ project failed.
Therefore, if we put these ideas together, while keeping it laissez-faire, the new country is going to work out if for private interests it can establish the intellectual, agricultural, and raw material industries. Weizmann thought it can’t be done, and so the Palestine was built up mostly from private donations from American Jews. All the enterprises were developed under Statism. I don’t think he understood free market and capitalism.
I think that as long as there can be money made, Capitalism will naturally create enterprises in all these fields. The founders need only to make the right pitch, to attract investments (not donations).
participant-5138, 11:20 PM, May 19
What do you think of anti-defamation laws?
participant-3927, 2:24 AM, May 20
These are good. Free speech does not include fraud speech
participant-3927, 5:26 AM, May 20
So my latest article “Waiting for Godot” is featuring writeups about various historical people, and some book characters. It’s written out as short descriptions about each. I would like to create profile pages in more detail about each one of them, and maybe others. For instance, let’s take Boltzmann and his fight for the atomic theory against the academic orthodoxy that rejected it. I think more detail on the struggle would be fascinating. Imagine that you have a certain theory about how the physical world is, and all scientists tell you that you are wrong, and mock you. How stubborn do you have to be to continue to insist on it?
participant-3927, 5:29 AM, May 20
Is there anyone of you who would like to participate and write these biographies and character studies? With the focus on how that person was a rogue, maverick, etc. ? You don’t have to write all of them, you can do just one. And someone else can do another one. After a while, we will have a lot of motivational content. So, pick your favorite historical personaly, about whom you know already alot, maybe, or you want to learn (Churchill, Tesla, Jobs, you name it) and write something.
participant-3927, 5:30 AM, May 20
If we just sit in this chat, and chit-chat, nothing is going to happen.
participant-5138, 10:45 AM, May 20
Sure. What kinda people are you thinking about? What’s the format of the biographies?
participant-5138, 10:46 AM, May 20
What about mistakes out of lack of info? Should they be penalised?
participant-2294, 10:58 AM, May 20
Freedom of speech is nothing more than the absence of any impediment to saying whatever one wants
participant-2294, 11:00 AM, May 20
The presence or absence of freedom of speech depends on the rules of conduct established by the owners
participant-3927, 7:33 PM, May 20
Interesting post about Justin Sun
participant-5138, 9:16 PM, May 20
@participant-3927, I’ve got this crazy idea: what if we went to an absolute monarchy and “converted” the monarch to Objectivism? They could change all the laws with just the stroke of a pen and provide us with a fully developed and already recognised nation with its own territory. What do you think?
participant-5138, 9:17 PM, May 20
Pure Enlightenment despotism style
participant-3927, 9:17 PM, May 20
That is a good idea.
participant-5138, 9:17 PM, May 20
Alright. So when are we doing it?
participant-3927, 9:18 PM, May 20
Even if we fail, we will open dialog and get behind close doors , and move things forward
participant-5138, 9:19 PM, May 20
Exactly. If we don’t convince the monarch, we may still inspire a conspiration leading to a tyrannicide and a revolution
participant-5138, 9:21 PM, May 20
I’m all in for it. Just tell me when you feel like going on an embassy in Brunei
participant-3927, 9:34 PM, May 20
No, not a conspiration, but we will gain prominence, and people with influence and power will give us a hearing
participant-3927, 9:35 PM, May 20
Otherwise, we will remain unknown nobodies.
participant-3927, 9:36 PM, May 20
I’m also pretty sure we won’t convince the monarch to relinquish the monarchy, but that’s what’s required
participant-3927, 10:09 PM, May 20
Do you think all it takes is to show up at the door ?
participant-3927, 10:15 PM, May 20
The defamation laws are not about what you do on someone’s private property, bit what you proclaim. You can’t proclaim libel
even if it’s your private blog. Of course, if your blog is unknown, no one will sue you for it.
participant-5138, 5:34 AM, May 21
What’s the first step?
participant-5138, 5:35 AM, May 21
What if you infer something wrong about a given person because of their behaviour and you go tell, for example, their neighbours in order to keep ’em safe?
participant-1046, 8:05 AM, May 21
it doesn’t have to be sales, you can also give it away, the main thing is that there is transparent legitimate accounting
participant-2294, 12:23 PM, May 21
If a society doesn’t allow people to express falsehoods, then that society does not have freedom of speech
participant-3927, 2:15 PM, May 21
It’s not about honest errors, it’s about deliberate fraud. Freedom of speech, just as freedom of movement applies only in so far as it doesn’t impede the inalienable rights of other people.
participant-5138, 2:31 PM, May 21
Her stance makes no sense: it’s impossible to know whether a statement about sb is or isn’t, in fact, a lie.
A lie presupposes malevolence, that is: one is actually lying iff one is claiming sth one knows it’s false, but there’s no way to objectively prove that.
participant-2294, 2:48 PM, May 21
I disagree with this
participant-5138, 2:48 PM, May 21
Prove that I wasn’t lying
participant-2294, 2:53 PM, May 21
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/behind-walls/ For example, take this article by a well-known defamatory far-left organization: “James L. Miller Jr. recently obtained a federal firearms permit for III Arms.” In the photo, that’s not James L. Miller Jr. — it’s the neo-Nazi Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.
participant-3927, 3:23 PM, May 21
That’s why you go to court, and it requires evidence to accuse someone of deliberate libel.
participant-3927, 3:24 PM, May 21
One point of evidence would be if the person stating false information did not edit it, after he was alerted to it, it’s deliberate.
participant-3927, 5:46 PM, May 21
Many libertarian SEZ and SEZ-like initiatives are founded on the idea that economic interest of host country will give them safety. After all, they are promising to bring investments and prosperity into the country. And, if we look at the
world politics of today, it’s all about “making deals.” But this makes the error of mixing economic and geopolitical issues. While deals with Qatar, Gaza, Iran and Russia are on the table, let’s remember the deal with North Korea. Peter Schwartz (a Distinguished Fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute) has written a critique of this kind of appeasing policy. (Published in 2018 in Real Clear Markets.) More recently, he published an update to his book “The Tyranny of Need.”
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/06/26/north_korea_negotiations_rest_on_fraudulent_economic_principle_103330.html
participant-4603, 5:50 PM, May 21
I’m not a big fan of creating more subnational entities: I won’t stand in their way, and I won’t oppose them, but it isn’t my calling; it doesn’t sing to me.
participant-3927, 5:51 PM, May 21
Do you know if there’s any other game in town except Athemism that advocates creating a new
country? I can think of Liberland, and maybe stretch it to Montelibero. @participant-6456 @participant-1046
participant-4233, 5:55 PM, May 21
I want to create a lot of online countries and communities
participant-4233, 5:55 PM, May 21
I dont think we should start with the land. It’s too expensive to build and defend it successfully. Just look at Honduras
participant-3927, 5:55 PM, May 21
@participant-6053 ^ Lonis is one of the representatives of the Honduran project.
participant-3927, 5:59 PM, May 21
I can send you sample of some which I have written. I will PM you.
participant-4233, 6:00 PM, May 21
I am currently at the Wall St Conference, always amazed at who they get to speak on stage
participant-4603, 6:02 PM, May 21
You mean, in general, those that are focused on land or those that are aligned? As for those that are at a minimum friendly to the principles spelt out by Ayn Rand, this is likely it, along with the other attempts you made mention of before.
participant-4603, 6:05 PM, May 21
I agree with you, but it isn’t so simple. I have been doing quite a bit of research and writing. There are massive legal issues with the “Network State” - and I mean massive. I am not kidding. But there are also remedies.
participant-3927, 6:06 PM, May 21
No, not aligned with Ayn Rand, but just focused on the idea that they want start a new country.
participant-4603, 6:32 PM, May 21
https://www.seasteading.org/eleutheria-podcast/ - Steve is a nice guy. I met him in Prague last November. He’s one of the few people, including yourself, in my view, who know what they’re talking about when it comes to new state formation. He’s a wildly pro-Israel pastor (I think he’s a pastor, but not preachy). Anyway, other than him, I don’t know anyone offhand who is active.
participant-3927, 6:36 PM, May 21
Oh, Steve Clancy
participant-3927, 6:36 PM, May 21
Steve Clancy is a pastor? I had no idea
participant-4603, 6:36 PM, May 21
He’s in active discussions with Tuvalu. That’s not a secret.
participant-4603, 6:38 PM, May 21
Methodist, if I remember right, anyway that’s not a bad thing because it gives him credibility, particularly in highly Christian countries, like Tuvalu in the South Pacific. I know, I know: Ayn Rand would be quick to point out the mysticism and collectivism innate in Christianity, I do get it.
participant-3927, 7:02 PM, May 21
In other news, I am writing lyrics for a song in minor key, which features ideas from this Ayn Rand quote: “Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark …” @participant-4233 @participant-2236
participant-3927, 7:04 PM, May 21
(Couldn’t have done it without ChatGPT. It helps to come with initial lyrics and then I fine tune it.)
participant-3927, 12:56 AM, May 22
In so far as Trump is going to be involved in Liberland, the project will fail. Everything this man touches, is laced with pragmatism with no long term plan. I can see that Justin is playing at escaping SEC regulations, which is probably good (but I don’t know what’s he accused of, I assume SEC is in the moral wrong), but beyond this there’s no value in bringing Trump to the table.
participant-3927, 12:57 AM, May 22
That’s my prediction, let’s see what happens. @participant-6456
participant-3927, 12:59 AM, May 22
The only politican that has been delivering is Milei
participant-3927, 1:04 AM, May 22
Ayn Rand wrote a letter to a Christian pastor, which was in friendly tone, and she also considered to include a priest in Atlas Shrugged. You can hate the ideology, but still find value in a person. Ayn Rand also often quoted an expression coined by a Christian pastor, the qoute was “the best way to help the poor, is not to be poor.”
participant-3927, 1:32 AM, May 22
Here’s are some excerpts from Ayn Rand’s letters. In April 24, 1948, she writes to Isabel Paterson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Paterson
Dear Pat:
Your letter was certaily “heavy enough to sink a lifeboat.” And what it did sink was the last shred of philosophical respect I had for the Catholic Church.
Your letter really stunned me, in a way. The position of the Catholic Church, as you describe it, is completely logical. It is precisely what I would deduce from their basic premises and it supports me in my hatred for those premises. But what I did not know was that the Church realized and consciously accepted the consequences of their premises as you described them. I knew the philosophical ideas of the Catholic Church in a general way, but I did not know their exact attitude on the application of their ideas in practice. I thought that since their ideas were contradictory, they would act in a contradictory mannner, attempting to reconcile their ideas as best they could. I did not know that they had consciously chosen to follow the most evil line which could be deduced from their premises, thath instead of choosing the best elements of their dilemma, they chose the worst and proceeded on that. …
participant-3927, 2:32 AM, May 22
Here’s Ayn Rand’s letter to pastor Dr. Rondald P. Brown, of Trinity Reformed Church in Grand Haven, Michigan. June 1, 1962:
Dear Dr. Brown:
Thank you for your letter of May 2nd. I appreciate the fact that you care to discuss philosophical issues.
I would not say that you are “of no use” to me, as you put it. I respect every human being who has a sincere interest in ideas. But I must say that you and I are not fighting the same battle. You seem to see the battle merely in political terms, as an issue of individualism versus collectivism. The battle I am fighting is more fundamental than that; it is the battle of reason versus mysticism.
I realize that there are two contradictory traditions in Christianity; one individualistic, the other collectivistic. But the real issue is epistemological: if you claim that your faith leads you to individualism, the collectivists can claim—with equal validity—that their faith leads them to collectivism. No argument, persuation or proof is possible to either side—since “faith” and “proof” are incompatible concepts.
I suggest that you consider the question of whether today’s battle can be fought without a firm stand on the issue of epistemology.
participant-4603, 3:10 AM, May 22
It is doubtful that Trump or Secretary of State Rubio will do much to recognise a claim to Gornja Siga along the Danube River anytime soon.
I’m uncertain whether Javier Milei will either, but I could be mistaken because it does appear that the entire world order is shifting, at least on the surface.
But if there was ever a time for it to happen, it’s looking pretty ripe now, because of such colourful characters on the international scene and stage.
participant-4603, 3:16 AM, May 22
I had no idea about her interactions with different Christian pastors. I cannot say I am entirely surprised, because she seems like the kind of person who would be interested in all sorts of different types of people.
But what does strike me is the lack of anger, the lack of bitterness, and the lack of hostility that often permeates the language that tone cold atheists use, and I do not see or pick up on any of that in her letters to these Christian leaders.
It’s more concern, care, and thoughtfulness.
participant-3927, 3:17 AM, May 22
Yes, exactly. And you will find this friendly tone in all her letters, many of which are just as brutal in the content of the critique, but always delivered with a lot of respect. Letters to no-name fans are fascinating: they are not brief.
participant-3927, 3:39 AM, May 22
Here’s a letter Ayn Rand wrote to a fan, one named Terry Lun. Jun 28, 1960:
Dear Miss Lung,
Thank you for the photograph which you sent me. It is excellent—and, since you are devoted to your work, you may be pleased to know that it was the photograph that has earned my answer to your two letters.
What impressed me most, in that photograph, is the spirit which you caught in the young girl’s face. But I do not know whether that young girl is yourself or not. If you have a copy of your second letter, you will see that you have not stated it. I do not know whether “the purity of Self,” to which you referred, meant your own face or whether you meant it as a photographer who had found the right model to project her theme. I congratulated you in either case—if that photograph represents your idea of what you value in a human face and a human expression.
But I must tell you frankly that I do not understand your letters, particularly the first. They gave me no clue to your specific ideas, convictions or motives. If you have read Atlas Shrugged, you must know that I hold reason (not feeling) as man’s highest faculty and as the only means of communication among men. (Feelings are the products of man’s conscious or subconscious value judgements, and cannot by communicated directly; they can be communicated only via rational perception.) Your manner of writing is so confused that I do not know which of my books you have read. You state that you read my “first and second books”; my first and seconds books where We the Living and Anthem, but I doubt that that is what you meant.
I must object, most severely, to the following paragraph of your first letter: [Miss Lung writes that if her meaning isn’t clear, she is justified, since her means of expression is a camera, not words.] I will answer that you write your letters, not I—and that the responsibility of making your meaning clear is yours, not mine. I have no way of knowing the content of your consciousness, if you do not make the effort to express it objectively. There can never be a “good reason” for intellectual carelessness.
I deeply appreciate your offer to photograph me, but I cannot accept it until I meet you and am able to understand you better. When you come to New York, please telephone me and we will make an appointment to meet.
If you find it difficult to express yourself in words, I will help you as much as I can—provided that you do not consider verbal confusion a virtue and do realize the importance of correcting it.
participant-3927, 3:50 AM, May 22
These efforts can happen in parallel. But will a large online community want land? We are not seeing Facebook users asking for land, nor Twitter users. Not event segments. I haven’t seen a large facebook group (let’s say the Atheists) asking for land to start an atheist country. Or any group X on a certain topic. There are ~100 million Bitcoin users according to ChatGPT. Why don’t they campaign for land? I think that if you can grow a large community online, then it already has whatever it needs
online. It doesn’t need more.
participant-3927, 4:01 AM, May 22
We need to get peolpe who are “in pain” on the land issue in the first place. It should be people living in bad regimes, who cannot immigrate to another country, because the borders are closed to them. They won’t join an online community to resolve this, because it doesn’t help them. They don’t need to find like minded others via technology–that’s not their painpoint. And also, it’s not technically feasible. An underground society of a large size will be detected via infiltrators, so it’s too dangerous. Encryption won’t help here, because it’s going to be inefective due to human error.
participant-3927, 4:39 AM, May 22
@participant-4603 we could create on the Anthemism site a catalog of all the current projects, with pro-cons analysis of each (likelihood to succeed).
participant-4603, 5:00 AM, May 22
Oh yes! There’s an enormous amount to learn from what hasn’t worked.
participant-3927, 5:06 AM, May 22
Since you are the expert, and you know about each project under the sun, would you like to own this part? I’ll set up the basic structure, and you can then edit filse to create entries
participant-5138, 12:30 PM, May 22
Should saying profanities be illegal? It is to say them in public here in Italy, which is crazy, considering that even the Romans understood that
deorum iniuriae diis curae (insults against the gods should be dealt with by the gods), but perhaps someone here has a different opinion? Maybe the fact the law applies to public spaces makes it acceptable?
participant-3927, 2:01 PM, May 22
I think making this illegal in public spaces is a slippery slope to censure. So, i’d be against it. Profanities are kind of similar to nudity, and people have the right not to see it, and not to hear it.
participant-2236, 2:38 PM, May 22
i’d try to argue, with me weak brain, that protection/defence against physical violence could go indeed as far as physical (i.e. if someone stabs you, you can hit him with frozen chicken). but defence against words might go only as far as words. this includes “laws”. i.e. you can’t handcuff someone due to only what they say or write. even if it’s KILL ALL GRETAS AND MOISHES AND MOHAMEDS ASAP. if someone’s words trigger you and make you to hit them with an umbrella, too bad for you: your level is 4-yr old kid’s level. you can’t shrug it off, or counter it with words, heh, meh.
then, me think the common argument is “but what if the words of a single such hittler are inciting thousands of apes to hit you with clubs”? this is not an easy queston for me weak brain, but i trust yer fine brains will crak it like a nut. what you say abut this kind of fredum of spich?
participant-3927, 3:10 PM, May 22
The solution is that if the speaking is inciting violence, it’s illegal. If it’s philosophical, it’s legal.
participant-2236, 3:11 PM, May 22
who is the ultimate judge?
participant-3927, 3:12 PM, May 22
But getting back to profanities: in the world where government is not running public transportation, there’s little opportunity to hear profanity. On the public streets it’s rare, because in nice areas of town, peolpe are more polite.
participant-2236, 3:12 PM, May 22
a snowflake says that when her boss chides her for subpar work, he is inciting violence against her culture/race/group. is it illegal?
participant-3927, 3:13 PM, May 22
It’s legal. Insiding violence is like waving a gun in public. You can always tell. The muslim schools that teach students to kill jews are illegal.
participant-2236, 3:16 PM, May 22
but it doesn’t seem to possess that logical or verbal rigour (rigor) as you, an objectivist, would expect
participant-2236, 3:17 PM, May 22
that’s….. very subjective. LIKE waving a gun in public? what’s LIKE exactly? plz define unambiguosly (i’m joking, i don’t expect you to)
participant-3927, 3:18 PM, May 22
I’m glad that I don’t have to do it, there’s a whole army of lawyers (the court system) that does. There’s also a term “clear and present danger,” you can look that up.
participant-3927, 3:23 PM, May 22
Objectivism is against rationalism (pure deduction from made up premises). In particular, it’s against the formulaic approach, such as If A then B. If B then C.
participant-3927, 3:24 PM, May 22
Formulas have a place, but the more general and powerful tool (in epistemology) are concepts. And they require many examples to correcly form them, use them, and apply them to real world situation. And the results of this analysis are general principles. Yet, applying them to particular cases, is not a formula.
participant-2236, 3:24 PM, May 22
cool! so we need a good gov’t (good = ensuring safe and secure transactions between non-violent enterpreneurs, and arresting the violent actos), and we need a whole army of lawyers / court system, that distinguishes the legal speech from illegal. at this pace we might soon end up somewhere close to the current state of the affairs. maybe some tax would be justified too :)
participant-3927, 3:27 PM, May 22
I am not against tax. I am against unfair tax. No system (except war) can expect people to pay 30% of tax, or more.
participant-3927, 3:28 PM, May 22
If the tax was the price of a bubble gum, that’s fine.
participant-3927, 3:29 PM, May 22
The problem with even a small tax, still, that it gives too much power to the government. The best way to limit government, is just to withhold money from it. If it has no funds, it has to stop whatever crazy initiative it tries to do.
participant-4233, 3:31 PM, May 22
@participant-4603 I was at an amazing conference yesterday, go every year. I sent you some videos/photos into the dm. Met up w Brock, Tim Draper was there and others.
participant-3927, 3:34 PM, May 22
Here’s an example of a formulaic approach that has correct form, but reaches wrong conclusion (rationalism). A person has two eyes, therefore he can see only two things.
participant-3927, 3:36 PM, May 22
Or Zeno paradoxes: to reach a wall, you must reach half the distance to the wall, and so on, ad-infinitum, therefore, it’s impossible to reach the wall, and distance is an illusion.
participant-4233, 3:38 PM, May 22
Zeno wasnt aware of Calculus
Leibniz and Newton had another thousand and a half years to appear lol
participant-4233, 3:38 PM, May 22
Because for Zeno the distance was being cut by half but the time wasn’t. That’s his mistake
participant-3927, 4:04 PM, May 22
My point is that the logic seems legitimate, but the conclusion is a mistake. And in this fashion, the biggest evils have been legitimized.
participant-3927, 4:09 PM, May 22
The American immigration policy was authored by the same eugenics ideologue who inspired Hitler.
