jlc

Effective Faster than Light. Since we cannot actually go faster than light in the real space-time continuum, the shortcut for talking about this is to add the word 'effective' which indicates, "I get to my destination faster than it would have taken light to get there. So what if I took a shortcut through another dimension via a wormhole...don't bother me with petty details." In order to play out any Star Trek type scenarios you have to include some form of EFTL.

Jan, Flying Tiger Line is good too (!)

Not John, but answering anyway: No, I do not want to see it happen to my friends. But I would like to see the scene happen where the victims turn on the perps and take them out, and the US is one of the places that this could happen. And if it DID happen that way, it would certainly cause comment in the manner that we would like: That we are safer being free (and carrying guns) than we are in being protected. If it came down to it, I would be willing to roll the dice and let them fall where they may - and take the chance that I would be amongst the victims. Since that is what will happen anyway, will I or nil I, I do not actually increase my risk by stating that I am willing for it to happen.

Of course, since I live in CA, I will have to take the perps out with my bare hands...

Jan, not a victim

It is obvious, but must be said, that if a war is not popular enough for volunteers to man it, then it should not be fought. The purpose of the draft is to fight wars that should not be fought.

You come from a good family.

Jan

The scenario that keeps coming into my mind is that the terrorists try the same thing in the US and 5,847 people pull handguns out of their purses and backpacks and blow the bastards to little pieces of red goo.

Jan

Happily, I tend to be a loner, and crowd adverse, so the only places I go that might be targets would be grocery store and movie theater. Hmmm. Home movie studio getting to be a better thought.

I appreciate your advice. I live in Ca, so there will not be many people around me who are carrying.

Jan

I just found out about this. I guess "Don't hang out in crowds." is the second-best advice. ("Carry!" would be the first.)

Jan

We can disagree, if you like, but I would actually agree with you that the left is intolerant, but just add that they do not 'own' intolerance. Unfortunately, intolerance is not a rationed substance; there is plenty to go around. The right is intolerant too, and they often do not support women's rights and gay rights.

Jan

I don't see that Susanne said that Lawrence is a commie-moocher, just that she had thrown in with them. There is also the consideration that it is very fashionable to be a Democrat, and that if you are a Republican the Industry does not like you. (The basis for the 'sheep' comment.)

Since Lawrence's objections actually had reasons behind them - Women's rights and access to Birth Control - I think it is possible that if she realizes that there is an alternative to the D/R dichotomy, she may choose a third path. Her characterization of the Religious Right is unfortunately accurate. There are a lot of people who fit the depiction she gives of narrow-minded bible-thumpers who are ready to lynch anyone who does not agree with them. She does not see that this is also true of liberals, though their form of lynching might be more in line with brainwashing...

I do not agree with her but I think she might someday wake up to the fact that she does not have to conform to either standard.

Jan

This is neat - I needed something neat this morning! If this is completely computer controlled, then the FAA would just have to establish general corridors that were reserved for these craft, and they could fly helter-skelter in those areas, using computerize avoidance technology (like the Google ground cars do).

It seems a bit unreasonable insofar as power management is concerned, but the other Gulchers do not have a problem with that...

Sigh. A flying car. Now all I need is effective FTL.

Jan

Was the draft necessary in order to achieve that victory, blackswan? I would agree that fighting and winning was necessary, but, from what my parents said, after Pearl Harbor there were lots of volunteers.

I just did a brief internet search on the question, but not found any data discussing the hypothetical "Would there have been enough volunteers in the US to defeat both Germany and Japan in WWII without the draft?" Do you have any good sources that discuss this?

Jan

I note a lot of military and ex-military in the Gulch. I wonder what the percentage is. Does 'military service' incline one to a Randist view of the universe? Is it the other way around and a Randist view incline one to join the military?

Jan

I agree with your statement that those who were not in the military can be productive. (I do not think that anyone has stated or implied otherwise.) I am surprised that you say that you were uncomfortable discussing this - it is hard for me to imagine this in you!

I would be interested if you feel like elaborating further.

Jan

Excellent post, xthinker, and I like the clarity of your vision. I am not certain that I do not think your term of service to involve sacrifice, however, since the voluntary participation in a totalitarian system (ie the military) I found to be...bothersome. In this respect it was a relief to get out and know that I was no longer pledged to obey random irrational commands.

I agree that the draft is an abomination.

Jan

I appreciate your sense of the poetic in reality.

Jan

Well, I am not trying to be agreeable, but in a Gulch dedicated to reason...

Jan

I have just pointed you up because I like what you said, and there is NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP ME!

MWAHAHAhahaha!

Jan

What a fascinating view, and a nifty reply. I call myself a "Randist" or an "Objectivist" when I am not in the Gulch, because it is the shortest way to communicate 'where I am coming from' to a group of people who will almost all disagree with me.

Hmmm...may try, "I am a Satanist." sometime (amongst my liberal friends) just to watch them laugh when I explain.

I wish I spoke Spanish as eloquently as you do English.

Jan

I just gave you a point because you saved me from writing a probably-inferior email saying about the same things. I would only add that if I see a comment at zero or below and if fits your second pointing criterion, I will point it up (irrespective of viewpoint): I am in favor of reasoned disagreement as a tool to refine our thoughts.

Jan

In a hypothetical physical Gulch such as in AS (without gov overview; plenty of resources but low tech initially), your skill set would be what got us through the initial survival stage. So if you are asking if you could earn a living in that type of Gulch, the answer would be Yes. In other (equally hypothetical) versions of the Gulch your survival skills might not be important, and you would be producing a luxury good with your cabinet making skills. In that case, you would have to sell your product (or fall back to being a day laborer).

If you are asking if you would be welcome then the question is more difficult: We have some agreement on exclusionary criteria (ie Moochers) but little agreement on inclusionary criteria (including Objectivism, a-religious philosophy, copyright, boundary control, 'harm', secondary effects, etc). If we go with just the not-a-Moocher criterion, then you are welcome indeed; anything more...and I would just be speaking for myself.

Jan

It was an effective video...I was already aghast and ready to start talking to my computer by the time I stopped watching!

Jan

I don't always agree with you, dino, but I think you 'is the berries'. Roar away!

Jan

That was painful. I made it about halfway - when the prof got to the point of equally redistributing the points amongst the students I could not take it any more.

Brrrrr. Barely fiction.

Jan, cold now

First, a few historical notes: Pearl Harbor and the invasion of the Aleutians were examples of invasions onto US territory. So WWII is the most recent example of the military invasion of the US. Also, the citizen-soldier is a new development, probably dating to about WWI in most of Europe (times vary per geographic area). Prior to that, wars were chiefly fought between the nobles and upper classes, with the commoners dragged in to serve as cannon fodder; the commoners really did not care who was in charge - there was no nationalism as we know it today (with perhaps an exception for the Swiss Confederacy).

Second: While I think that the max percent of women in combat will eventually be 20%, most military positions are not combat oriented. You can easily staff 80% of the non-combat positions with women, allowing the combat forces to be more selective (for both genders).

Third: I agree that there should be no draft. After Pearl Harbor, my parents said that enlistment lines stretched around the block. But if there is a draft, of course it should include women. We vote; we fight. Fair is fair.

Jan

I tend to agree with Herb. While I would prefer a candidate who had religion less central to their life (a declared a-religious person would have more problem being elected), I am willing to accept someone who both recognizes the problems that I consider important and has reasonable answers for them. I do not know that I will vote for Ben - that will depend on the final lineup - but I do not exclude him.

Jan

Someone put a lot of good work into this project, but I had the feeling there was a bit of a spin on the results. Nonetheless, a good resource.

Jan