A resonance frequency approach to stopping the motor of the world
In a prior thread, we considered the possibility of committing sabotage to stop the motor of the world. To stimulate the discussion, I took the role of "devil's advocate" and suggested that Galt might have engaged in sabotage. There was almost universal agreement that Galt would have lost his moral authority to lead the Gulch if he had committed sabotage, rather than only convincing titans to go Galt.
A recent thread entitled "Obama is John Galt" started by jimjamesjames was largely shot down as well, and for good reason.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/30...
However, that thread made me reconsider strategy for stopping the motor of the world.
The looters and moochers in real life have taken Cloward and Piven's strategy of overwhelming "the system" with more and more moochers. This is an act of sabotage. This is a moral line that we have decided not to cross. This puts us at a strategic disadvantage.
Add to that disadvantage the fact that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are convincing others (like Larry Ellison of Cisco Systems) to give to charity. I urge you to look at how many billionaires have taken The Giving Pledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_...
Someone here in the Gulch recently suggested that this giving pledge might actually be their way of going Galt. I forget which Gulcher suggested this (Zenphamy? sjatkins?) and apologize to that person.
We all know what Ayn Rand thinks about altruism. I have said previously that the charitable contributions of these billionaires may lengthen the time for the collapse of the looter/moocher era sufficiently that there may not be a time when producers like us would be able to go back into the world. Their charitable contributions delay the inevitable pain for the moochers.
Now switch gears and start thinking about physics and differential equations.
Think back to when you took physics and learned about constructive and destructive interference. If there is a disturbance that causes an object to oscillate at its resonance frequency (or an integer multiplier of it), then the object will break MUCH faster.
For an introductory treatment of resonance frequencies, go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
For an example, see the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXS...
If we are to stop the motor of the world, an alternate solution would be to do something that reinforces the interference that the looters or those encouraging people to take the Giving Pledge are applying.
Does it make sense to convince MANY producers to go Galt, or will we be more effective by harnessing the momentum of The Giving Pledge to accomplish the goal of depriving the looter/moocher world of producers?
If one takes producers out of the system, how does this change the 2nd order differential equation(s) that would describe the producer-looter-moocher problem?
Please comment on
a) how one would implement such a strategy; and b) whether this would count as sabotage.
A recent thread entitled "Obama is John Galt" started by jimjamesjames was largely shot down as well, and for good reason.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/30...
However, that thread made me reconsider strategy for stopping the motor of the world.
The looters and moochers in real life have taken Cloward and Piven's strategy of overwhelming "the system" with more and more moochers. This is an act of sabotage. This is a moral line that we have decided not to cross. This puts us at a strategic disadvantage.
Add to that disadvantage the fact that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are convincing others (like Larry Ellison of Cisco Systems) to give to charity. I urge you to look at how many billionaires have taken The Giving Pledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_...
Someone here in the Gulch recently suggested that this giving pledge might actually be their way of going Galt. I forget which Gulcher suggested this (Zenphamy? sjatkins?) and apologize to that person.
We all know what Ayn Rand thinks about altruism. I have said previously that the charitable contributions of these billionaires may lengthen the time for the collapse of the looter/moocher era sufficiently that there may not be a time when producers like us would be able to go back into the world. Their charitable contributions delay the inevitable pain for the moochers.
Now switch gears and start thinking about physics and differential equations.
Think back to when you took physics and learned about constructive and destructive interference. If there is a disturbance that causes an object to oscillate at its resonance frequency (or an integer multiplier of it), then the object will break MUCH faster.
For an introductory treatment of resonance frequencies, go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
For an example, see the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXS...
If we are to stop the motor of the world, an alternate solution would be to do something that reinforces the interference that the looters or those encouraging people to take the Giving Pledge are applying.
Does it make sense to convince MANY producers to go Galt, or will we be more effective by harnessing the momentum of The Giving Pledge to accomplish the goal of depriving the looter/moocher world of producers?
If one takes producers out of the system, how does this change the 2nd order differential equation(s) that would describe the producer-looter-moocher problem?
Please comment on
a) how one would implement such a strategy; and b) whether this would count as sabotage.
I don't really see how you could "use" this resonance concept against anyone so it would be very hard to call it "sabotage". When someone is actively engaged in combating that which is "hell bent" on destroying them, no one calls it "sabotage".
Additionally, if you are focused on creating what you want instead of combating what you don't like, you naturally set up an harmonic dissonance in those who would enslave you.
It eventually gets the best of them and they go down in a heap. That's not sabotage either. It's the universe exacting justice. :-)
I'd say ''at the least'' still makes it evil and therefore only supported by people who support evil. I don't view it as least or lesser or greater. Evil is evil.
For her own statements on charity see http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charit...
Giving support to the wrong causes _is_ a danger to all of us, which was illustrated in Atlas Shrugged in many ways, including Hank Rearden's donation to his brother's progressive Friends of Global Progress.
Ayn Rand did not endorse any giving for any subjectivist purpose as long as it "feels good". She only recognized the political _right_ to do so, even when you don't know any better -- or even if you do and have destructive motives. That is not morally condoning all acts of giving as long as they are not forced. She way not a subjectivist or a hedonist opposed only to forced altruism like the a-philosophical libertarians.
Hank Rearden's giving money to his brother's progressive "social conscience" Friends of Global Progress was a consequence of Rearden's inability to see the nature of the evil in those he was supporting. His brother not only didn't want it known that Rearden was the source of the money, he had the effrontery to tell that to Rearden himself. Friends of Global Progress turned out later to be crusading for the Equalization of Opportunity Bill. This was an example of the immorality of charity to the wrong kind of recipients -- despite the fact that Rearden had the political right to do it. _Exercising_ the right to do something morally wrong is not condoned by Ayn Rand's ethics. She was not a libertarian subjectivist.
http://www.aynrandanswers.com/2012/09/di...
If someone has run three times in his life, I do not call him a 'runner'; if he runs every other day, then I call him a 'runner'. I use the term 'moocher' in the same way - it means (to me) 'someone who characteristically mooches'.
Jan
Bucky called it Trim-Tabbing.
In theory, as WE described it, the rudder of a Large Ship is fairly impossible to move with any practical mechanics or hydraulics, so in order to move the rudder and 'turn the ship' (metaphor/analogy warning!) you need to do something you CAN do that will move the rudder.
And that's what a trim tab does. You'll see the same thing on the wings and tails of Large Aircraft.
If you want the ship (water-type) to turn Right, you need to shove the rudder to the Right (starboard) side. But that's hard to do, so they add a small trim tab to the rudder.
And the Trim Tab is moved to the PORT side of the ship. What happens? It acts like a hydrofoil that bends the water flow around the rudder in such a way as to create a low-pressure area on the starboard side of the Trim Tab.
So, the trim tab, pulled to Port, Moves The Rudder to Starboard, and the ship is pushed towards a new Starboard direction.
Same with many airplane rudders, elevators and ailerons. Take a close look at how they move on your next flight.
SOOOOOOOOOOO, WTF am I trying to say?
I forget.... no, now I remember... If we have the goal of moving the Ship Of State in some New Direction, pushing on the Big Rudder might be really difficult to affect!
But some gentle nudges in the right places might just get people thinking about the Ship's Direction and if they start to believe that One Good Turn is a Good Idea, a bunch of them just Might get in motion in the direction we'd like 'em to go.
Whatever.... I'm just an old engineer.... what could _I_ possibly know? :)))))))))))
Thank much.
Load more comments...