A resonance frequency approach to stopping the motor of the world

Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 10 months ago to Going Galt
133 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 10 months ago
    I wonder how many of the wealthy would take the "Giving Pledge" if the charitable income tax deduction was dropped. Charity should be an act of personal sacrifice, not a tax dodge.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 10 months ago
      SACRIFICE?!? Ayn Rand said that sacrifice is the acceptance of something of lesser value by giving up something of greater value. NOTHING should be a sacrifice. If helping the deserving poor isn't superior to not helping them, then there is no justification for charity; if you can't see a gain of some sort, then don't do it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 8 years, 10 months ago
        DrZarkov99 was not endorsing sacrifice. I think you and he are actually in agreement.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 10 months ago
          He wrote that charity should be "an act of personal sacrifice, not a tax dodge". Ayn Rand opposed sacrifice and had nothing against legally "dodging taxes".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 8 years, 10 months ago
            Everything you said is correct, ewv. That still does not negate what DrZarkov99 said and I clarified. If one is to give charity, it should be on the giver's terms, yet it should it cost the giver. In that sense, the giver has sacrificed a small portion of his/her time and/or fortune. AR opposed sacrifice. She did not endorse charity, yet she was not opposed to letting others give charity on their own terms.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago
              It is the opposite of what he wrote, and so is what you wrote. Ayn Rand defined a sacrifice as surrendering a greater value to a lower one. She did not advocate sacrificial charity. She did endorse non-sacrificial charity and as a benevolent person practiced it herself. She rejected it as a duty and as a primary issue of ethics. Ethical _principles_ of this scope apply to everyone, they are not of the form "ok for others but wrong for me".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 8 years, 9 months ago
                Please explain how charity can be non-sacrificial. I might be convinced on this subject, but am not convinced so far.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago
                  I just explained it. What else do you need? If you think of charity as a duty or a primary moral principle the way it is promoted today, then it is bound to be "sacrificial" -- by intent. If you recognize it as the pursuit of one kind of value among many and don't subordinate your important values to it then it isn't, just like your pursuit of any values. Eating meals, occasional recreation, having friends, etc., properly pursued, are not sacrifices either.

                  For her own statements on charity see http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charit...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 8 years, 9 months ago
                    Thank you for your clarification, ewv. As someone who has donated a lot of equipment for my students' use at my university with the expectation that it will ultimately benefit my research success (which it has to some extent), the line between charity and investment has become blurred for me. I see what I have done as promoting my own values on a level I can control. Others do not necessarily see it that way.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 10 months ago
      At least with the charitable income tax deduction, if one does make the choice to give charity, it could be aligned with one's principles if one were not an Objectivist. Giving to the government is an even greater evil. Nevertheless, I agree with you on all your assertions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        Assuming you support a fascist tax whose main objective is to control the money that you earned and agree with bringing the act of personal charity under government control.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 9 months ago
          Of course, I don't support the fascist tax system. However, when given a Hobson's choice of paying taxes to the government or donating equipment to my university employer where I have personal knowledge of how such equipment will be used and an interest in helping thoroughly educate future producers, I will choose the latter. While I do not agree with bringing the act of personal charity under government control (which is indeed an evil), the choice of direction of such charity toward students who have demonstrated the willingness and ability to be producers is not an evil choice.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by FreeBornAngel 8 years, 10 months ago
    The way to stop the motor of the world is to stop paying at the pump.

    As long as the workers continue to supply the shelves of (insert big box store name here) then we can just stop paying on the way out.

    The workers don't care one whit if the accounting department does it's job or not, as long as the workers do the work the shelves will be supplied in the absence of the shareholder's dividends.

    Please don't respond if all you are responding with is crapitalist rhetoric.

    The only supply signal needed is empty shelves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo