PhilO

You don't really want Civil War II

102 posts in this topic

"War is only tolerable when one can take part in it, when one is a bit of the target and not a pensioned spectator."

"We cannot cleanse our thoughts of fear by repression of the doubts and hesitations which 'occupy and mock the minds of men' in war. We have to put away any thought of an alternative to the dangerous situation in which we are. We must acknowledge that there is but one thing to do, then we shall go and do it."

Quotes from "The Anatomy of Courage" by Lord Moran. Highly recommended.

Those are very good quotes, thanks.

I though I would also provide some quotes from a very good speech, but have decided that there is so much worthy of quoting that I would just provide the link to the speech.

http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/speech.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob, please point to one sentence where I have stated that we need to pick up weapons and go attack? I can tell that you will not find one. But if all you do is sit back and whine about what is being taken from you without forumlating a plan and taking action then the battle has already been lost. And it will not be me that leads this country into a physical civil war, it will be the government through the same way that Ayn Rands explained it some many years ago.

This thread was started out of the concern that some Forum members might be calling for an actual rather than metaphorical battle, so it's easy to misinterpret your criticisms of Phil and myself as defending violent rebellion. That was my initial impression, in fact. I think it's just a problem of miscommunication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob, please point to one sentence where I have stated that we need to pick up weapons and go attack? I can tell that you will not find one. But if all you do is sit back and whine about what is being taken from you without forumlating a plan and taking action then the battle has already been lost. And it will not be me that leads this country into a physical civil war, it will be the government through the same way that Ayn Rands explained it some many years ago.

I misread you. You invoked your military experience so I thought you meant genuine combat in which hot metal flies and flesh is torn to bits. I have no objection to bloody war on principle, mind you, but I think it is ill advised to fight a war in such a way that our side is bound to be beaten and even destroyed. The war we are both fighting is a war of the mind. The only way we can win is to leave the other side either unwilling or unable to act. It would have to be a war of subversion and to some degree sabotage.

Let me inject a lighter note here:

The French Army had an outfit that did this: The Black Berets. This was an elite corps that injected the philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre into the other side leaving them in a state of utter despair and inability to act.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's just a problem of miscommunication.

I agree with you and would add that until a goal and strategy are agreed upon we will sit mostly stagnate as our enemy keeps gaining power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob, please point to one sentence where I have stated that we need to pick up weapons and go attack? I can tell that you will not find one. But if all you do is sit back and whine about what is being taken from you without forumlating a plan and taking action then the battle has already been lost. And it will not be me that leads this country into a physical civil war, it will be the government through the same way that Ayn Rands explained it some many years ago.

I misread you. You invoked your military experience so I thought you meant genuine combat in which hot metal flies and flesh is torn to bits. I have no objection to bloody war on principle, mind you, but I think it is ill advised to fight a war in such a way that our side is bound to be beaten and even destroyed. The war we are both fighting is a war of the mind. The only way we can win is to leave the other side either unwilling or unable to act. It would have to be a war of subversion and to some degree sabotage.

Let me inject a lighter note here:

The French Army had an outfit that did this: The Black Berets. This was an elite corps that injected the philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre into the other side leaving them in a state of utter despair and inability to act.

Bob Kolker

I also have no objection to a bloody war, and also agree that it would be ill advised as our numbers are far to small and lacking in any type of physical defense system to even contemplate that type of war. Which is why I think that if we do not want to end up in a war of that type then we need to start taking actions of another sort, "a war of the mind."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think blind people could see if they worked hard enough?

Would you not be better off if you were concerned by your performance, rather than the lack of performance of others?

Feeling contempt takes time and burns calories. What do you get for the investment?

Bob Kolker

As to the question of blind people trying hard enough to see - what I meant is that there is no excuse for a person with an undamaged brain to ever give up on thinking. In other words, I do not demand of blind people that they be able to see - but I do demand (in a moral sense) that everyone who *does* possess normal vision *never* attempts to cross the street with his eyes closed.

And what do I get out of feeling contempt for people? Well, I think that you are putting the cart before the horse. You seem to be reasoning - "Feeling contempt for people has unpleasant emotional consequences for me (stress, or in other words "burning calories"), so you, Henrik, should not feel contempt for people, even if the facts of reality justify it." And that, I put it to you, is sheer subjectivism. I follow the facts where ever they lead. And when I contemplate the way most people go about living their lives, i.e. I believe that most people go through their lives in a state of relative stupor, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that they are morally depraved. Because going through life without thinking about relevant abstract issues, is like driving drunk, and drunken driving is morally depraved. You are bound to get yourself into an accident, both if you habitually drive while drunk, and if you go through life habitually defaulting on the responsibility of thinking about relevant abstract issues.

And what is the emotional reward that I have gotten for my honesty? An exhilarating sense of liberation. I used to be depressed all the time by the thought that the world was full of injustice. I looked around and saw that there were so many bad things happening to people all over the world. And since I assumed that most of humanity consisted of decent human beings like myself, I drew the conclusion that most of the suffering was undeserved, and that the world therefore was full of injustice. I feel much better now that I realize that most people deserve what they are getting. Since the world is not in fact full of injustice, it is not so bad after all.

And as for being more concerned with my own performance - I am. I devote my energies to intellectual activism, rather than to just sitting around cursing the darkness. But I feel that it is easier to muster the energy to fight, when I am not depressed by the thought that the world is full of injustice. It is easier for me to fight when I perceive that I live in a "benevolent universe" rather than in a "malevolent" one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Ray K. said.

Thanks, Ray!

I, for one, would infinitely prefer a civil war to dictatorship. In that, am I not following the Founding Fathers: "Give me liberty or give me death" ?

I think dictatorship is near. That Marxist gangster in the White House hates America, and exhibits "every act that may define a tyrant." But I also think massive peaceful resistance to dictatorship is near--in fact, has already begun. We are now in a civil war, in which one side, the criminal gang that has seized the machinery of government, oppresses innocent citizens with unconstitutional so-called laws, and the innocent citizens in response are fighting back with peaceful protests and campaigning.

I agree. I would prefer to die fighting, than to be eaten alive, or to be worked to death in a forced labor camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your seemingly total lack of courage to stand up to your opposition is staggering and hence why people like you are the reason why my fight has become harder. You have reason and right on your side and all you do is sit and whine about how bad your lot in life is and how the fight is unwinnable.

I continue to disagree. While a war may (should) involve elements of propaganda (either good or bad ideas) it is *essentially* a physical fight. If Washington were *not* using physical force, why would anyone waste their time on them at all? If they were where they belong and physically reflected what they were - malformed little monsters screaming for power from the bottom of a deep pit - who would care?

If you consider the "war" to be using ideas against the current use of force, I have, actually, done a hell of a lot more than you in spreading those ideas over the years, as far as I can tell, and the ideas that really count in this context: Rand's ideas as she directly wrote about them, not rehashes re-stated by lesser minds (which in my view, is virtually everyone else.) I also maintain www.environmentalism.com where I have gotten death threats. It's still there. Where's your comparable site, Ray?

There is a reason why Galt's speech appears *after* the strikers have removed themselves from society, and there is a reason why Dagny fails in her last attempt to change things even after visiting the Valley: because the cancer has almost certainly spread too far. It has been 53 years since the publication of Atlas with many millions of copies sold and we still have the worst fascists in American history in Washington, democratically voted into office by publically educated entities. Have you talked with them lately? I've spent the last couple of years observing them up close in a university environment, the future of America, largely altruists supportive of Obama. Sure, I speak up and promote an alternative view, but the real damage was done a long time ago.

Do I want to spend my life trying to transfuse blood from the living into a lifeless corpse, to borrow a phrase from Atlas? Do I want to engage in an inherently doomed physical fight against a democratically elected tyranny? No, not really. I've leave that "courageous act" to others. I don't find a Pickett's charge to be something to emulate.

The issue is not metaphysically about courage. All of the courage in the world won't turn the dead into the living, the brain-muddled tortured remains of the Comprachicos into thinking entities that *have* an individuality to appeal to and to reason with. I think that America died a long time ago, shot in the head, but the body hasn't fully hit the ground yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason I made those statements is because the people that state that we have already lost this country and that it is time to move on are discouraging those that could possibly help in the intellectual war against our intellectual enemies...So, if someone that is supposed to be on the same team keeps telling people that our fight is hopeless then they are making my fight much harder by drawing away possible recruits for the intellectual war that we are in.

It's hard to know if any of Phil's comments are actually discouraging others from joining the battle. I'd guess, even assume, that vast majority of people here are independent-thinking enough to make up there own minds. Personally, I haven't given up any hope and wage the intellectual battle in what ways I can at this point in my life.

I agree with your previous statement that the opposition is just men, and I'd add that they are actually extremely weak men who run for cover at the first sign of a confident moral and intellectual argument. The fact that they have been allowed to take such control as they have is, to a real extent, a failure of moral courage to oppose them by those in a position to do so.

However, I don't see Phil as one of those people at all. He may have come to a different judgment about the current state of things, and that may be due to a focus on different factors, giving different "weights" to different factors, and so forth. At present, in my opinion, it is too soon to reach any final conclusion as to where things will end up. I see a lot of positive signs and tend to focus on those. However, my focus on and desire for the positive doesn't negate the reality of the negatives. But for now it is a wait and see situation. As such, I don't see the value of riding someone who has come to a different conclusion.

I'll also acknowledge that I have long admired Phil's contributions here, his intellect, his willingness to state his view in the face of opposition, and his contribution to Objectivism with his CD (which I often use and benefit from). I think Phil's presence here is a positive, even if there are things on which we disagree.

And, Ray, I hope you know I have always valued your presence here, your intellect, your fighting spirit(!), your military knowledge, experience, and defense of our country, and your genuine desire to see the good win.

What I don't like is when I see the good fighting itself, because then the enemy has truly won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add one final note here - both in this thread, and very likely final re: my posting to the Forum at all.

I'm not *against* LTE's, Facebook protests, physical protests, donating to ARI, essay contents, speaking out when appropriate, and all of those things. I've made very recent suggestions that the best *possible* (in my view of course) way to make some positive change is for somebody to integrate together the Tea Party into a national organization with an intellectual platform written according to Objectivism. It would be a political beacon for the best elements left politically and also new blood who otherwise hates politics and the sordid history of both parties.

But I am not going to pretend that these efforts have a hope in hell. My capacity for wishful thinking is too limited for that. They might make you feel better. But even if this monstrosity of socialized medicine is repealed (very unlikely), that's only going back to a "status quo" that consists of massive rights violations and a tangent line pointing vertically downwards. America the country is still here - America as envisioned by the Founders is gone. The *idea* of America - a truly free land where men can live their lives unfettered by statist government - can never die as long as one real man still breathes. But it is a mistake to think that it will always actually exist in one particular place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll add one final note here - both in this thread, and very likely final re: my posting to the Forum at all.

I'm not *against* LTE's, Facebook protests, physical protests, donating to ARI, essay contents, speaking out when appropriate, and all of those things. I've made very recent suggestions that the best *possible* (in my view of course) way to make some positive change is for somebody to integrate together the Tea Party into a national organization with an intellectual platform written according to Objectivism. It would be a political beacon for the best elements left politically and also new blood who otherwise hates politics and the sordid history of both parties.

But I am not going to pretend that these efforts have a hope in hell. My capacity for wishful thinking is too limited for that. They might make you feel better. But even if this monstrosity of socialized medicine is repealed (very unlikely), that's only going back to a "status quo" that consists of massive rights violations and a tangent line pointing vertically downwards. America the country is still here - America as envisioned by the Founders is gone. The *idea* of America - a truly free land where men can live their lives unfettered by statist government - can never die as long as one real man still breathes. But it is a mistake to think that it will always actually exist in one particular place.

I am more optimistic about the prospects for saving the world than PhilO is, notwithstanding the fact that I have a very low opinion of the majority of men. It is the very fact that the majority of men are depraved, that they are impotent. Since they choose not to think, they have no real power, and we who do think can still save ourselves, and, unfortunately, the Immoral Majority also along with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am more optimistic about the prospects for saving the world than PhilO is, notwithstanding the fact that I have a very low opinion of the majority of men. It is the very fact that the majority of men are depraved, that they are impotent. Since they choose not to think, they have no real power, and we who do think can still save ourselves, and, unfortunately, the Immoral Majority also along with us.

Here's a simple question: do you think that the "strikers" were "saving the world"? It was much more than that.

The idea of separating the best men from the rest RATHER THAN trying to "save the world" wasn't first put forth by Ayn Rand in Atlas. Go all of the way back to Anthem. Did Unconquered (and his love who followed him) wait around try to save his crappy little dictator-village after his effort to literally show them the light? No. He left and built a fortress that would kill any of them foolish enough to follow.

The best men are the only men who count. They should stop trying to save the damned world and start trying to save *themselves* - and leave the Immoral Majority to the fate they deserve: to be part of the expired dust of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best men are the only men who count. They should stop trying to save the damned world and start trying to save *themselves* - and leave the Immoral Majority to the fate they deserve: to be part of the expired dust of history.

That is the entire thing right there.. Save yourself, and those whom you value. If you are not for yourself, then who will be for you? The John Galt character did not operate for the sake of others, he operated for his own. If this approach is somewhat anti-social, then so be it. You do not owe any more to others than you owe to yourself.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

I do not need a website as I talk to people every single day and change their minds for the better. I also earn their respect because I do not hang-out on the fringe waiting to see if "we just might make it."

Last I remember Ayn Rand never quit fighting our enemies and that is something that is much more concrete than any quotes about fictional characters, although I enjoy everyone of her heroes.

I am not fighting for the idiots that you mention, I am fighting for my own life which is worth every ounce of energy I can give. There is no other place to go that they would not follow you. Look at every productive city, state or country in history and see who follows whom. The evil little pieces of crap are never going to stop even if Ayn Rand's ideas become the profound philosophy of a culture there will still be a need to have people fighting off the parasites.

Lastly, if America was shot in the head long ago, then you and I would not be here having this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best men are the only men who count. They should stop trying to save the damned world and start trying to save *themselves* - and leave the Immoral Majority to the fate they deserve: to be part of the expired dust of history.

That is the entire thing right there.. Save yourself, and those whom you value. If you are not for yourself, then who will be for you? The John Galt character did not operate for the sake of others, he operated for his own. If this approach is somewhat anti-social, then so be it. You do not owe any more to others than you owe to yourself.

Bob Kolker

Phil and Bob,

I am not primarliy fighting for the others, I am fighting for myself and those that I have a concern for. But one man cannot keep away the barbarians hiimself he will need a moral government to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also add to my post(s) from above that to convince people to change their minds one must exemplify their ideas through action that is in accordance with their statements. In other words, if one is going to lead people to a philosophy of reason how in the hell is that going to happen when the suppposed leader tells them that the war has already been lost? The answer is you cannot change people's minds when all that one speaks of is how unwinnable the fight is.

"Please come follow me to the land of doom and destruction where if you apply my ideas we will still be screwed, and surrounded by disgusting parasites as there is no hope of changing the culture."

Nope, that is not going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
62% of Americans want Republicans to continue with efforts to repeal Obamacare, or reverse it in the courts.

68% say they would throw out every congressman, if they could. That includes a majority of Republicans, a majority of independents, and even 52% of Democrats.

Phil O.'s pessimism is unfounded.

Betsy's right, Bill. You're Levin!

I forgot to mention another recent poll: over 50% say the federal govt. has grown so large that it currently constitutes a real threat to their own freedom!

You do not need to convert a majority to Objectivism, to defeat the bastards in Washington (though that is the ultimate goal, and ultimately needed to assure America's long-range future). All it takes is a majority NOW who opposes an Obama dictatorship. And we do have that!

Nor do I fear the tanks, guns etc. of the armed forces. Haven't they taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution? not to uphold the Marxist Messiah and his Weather Underground blood brothers, but the U.S. Constitution! That puts them on our side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am more optimistic about the prospects for saving the world than PhilO is, notwithstanding the fact that I have a very low opinion of the majority of men. It is the very fact that the majority of men are depraved, that they are impotent. Since they choose not to think, they have no real power, and we who do think can still save ourselves, and, unfortunately, the Immoral Majority also along with us.

Here's a simple question: do you think that the "strikers" were "saving the world"? It was much more than that.

The idea of separating the best men from the rest RATHER THAN trying to "save the world" wasn't first put forth by Ayn Rand in Atlas. Go all of the way back to Anthem. Did Unconquered (and his love who followed him) wait around try to save his crappy little dictator-village after his effort to literally show them the light? No. He left and built a fortress that would kill any of them foolish enough to follow.

The best men are the only men who count. They should stop trying to save the damned world and start trying to save *themselves* - and leave the Immoral Majority to the fate they deserve: to be part of the expired dust of history.

Yes, that is what I did not really "get" until recently. Until a few years ago, I assumed that the majority of the members of mankind were innocent victims. Then I woke up and realized that "The Little Street" and Starnesville were realistic depictions of the majority of the members of mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best men are the only men who count. They should stop trying to save the damned world and start trying to save *themselves* - and leave the Immoral Majority to the fate they deserve: to be part of the expired dust of history.

That is the entire thing right there.. Save yourself, and those whom you value. If you are not for yourself, then who will be for you? The John Galt character did not operate for the sake of others, he operated for his own. If this approach is somewhat anti-social, then so be it. You do not owe any more to others than you owe to yourself.

Bob Kolker

Yes. But just to defend my honor, I want to say this - I do not think that I wanted to *sacrifice* myself, at least not after I had studied Objectivism for a year or so. It was just that I was benevolent, and I could not stand the thought of just passively standing by and letting all those victims, whom I mistakenly thought were innocent, suffer and die. I thought that I could fight for a better world, and promote my own happiness at the same time. I still believe that, but now I am fighting only for myself, and those who share my values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that is what I did not really "get" until recently. Until a few years ago, I assumed that the majority of the members of mankind were innocent victims. Then I woke up and realized that "The Little Street" and Starnesville were realistic depictions of the majority of the members of mankind.

Do you have a well designed sampling poll to support your conclusion? Your pessimistic conclusions might hold true in some pestilential third world hell hole (say Haiti) but does your conclusion hold in more advanced industrial nations where the level of education is much higher?

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no other place to go that they would not follow you.

I disagree. Switzerland has not been invaded in 600 years and still has some of the lowest tax rates in the world. And look at their recent ban on minarets.

Sure, they are not Objectivists, but the culture of individual rights over there is alive and well. Every Swiss man I know (admittedly most are from the German areas) owns at least one, usually 4-5 guns. They understand and believe in freedom. (one side effect of people going shopping with their assault rifle: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...s-p1000507.jpg) is extreme safety. Crime is rare if you risk being shot. Even the Nazis were unable to conquer the country - it was understood on both sides that every man would fight to the death, most probably after blowing up every bit of infrastructure in the region.

Of course, you can't get a decent meal in Zurich. The country as a whole is probably one of the most boring in the world. But the anti-civilization intellectuals are still finding it difficult to attack. They keep trying. Every time, they fail.

I would venture to say eventually some Asian cultures will head that way due to their particular culture of meritocracy and the concept of earning your place in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, you can't get a decent meal in Zurich. The country as a whole is probably one of the most boring in the world. But the anti-civilization intellectuals are still finding it difficult to attack. They keep trying. Every time, they fail.

About Switzerland. Here are the best lines in the motion picture -The Third Man- (1949)

Harry Lime (played by Orson Welles) : Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

This quote is not entirely fair to Switzerland. That country was native home to one of the great mathematicians of all time, Leonard Euler and the family consortium of brains - The Bernouli family.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no other place to go that they would not follow you.

I disagree. Switzerland has not been invaded in 600 years and still has some of the lowest tax rates in the world. And look at their recent ban on minarets.

It is very, very difficult to get residency in Switzerland, isn't it?

And the ban on minarets has been discussed here before. It is not indicative of an understanding of freedom.

(The food I had in Zurich over four quick drop-ins I made in the very late '80s wasn't that bad. OK, one cook didn't understand that there is such a thing as too much salt over the three courses I sampled (I've never had gnocchi so salty that I wondered if they were salt-cured!), and one waffle maker was so enchanted by the woman in my life and her reaction to the pot of chocolate sauce by his side that he practically drowned us in the stuff, but the food wasn't any worse than what I had in northern Italy, southern Germany or all through Austria during those trips. Have things gotten worse in Zurich since then, or have standards soared faster than Zurich cooks and tradition care to acknowledge?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is very, very difficult to get residency in Switzerland, isn't it?

Yes and no. Things get easier if you're wealthy. I find their immigration restrictions in part to be one of the reasons the country is difficult to indoctrinate.

And the ban on minarets has been discussed here before. It is not indicative of an understanding of freedom.

No, but it is an example of how the Swiss system would take care of any attempts at destroying freedom (such as the left's continuous calls to ban guns, and to centralise government). Direct democracy, in a country where everybody holds individual rights and small(er) government to be a way of life, is one failsafe against the elite-driven socialisation of America we are experiencing.

(The food I had in Zurich over four quick drop-ins I made in the very late '80s wasn't that bad. OK, one cook didn't understand that there is such a thing as too much salt over the three courses I sampled (I've never had gnocchi so salty that I wondered if they were salt-cured!), and one waffle maker was so enchanted by the woman in my life and her reaction to the pot of chocolate sauce by his side that he practically drowned us in the stuff, but the food wasn't any worse than what I had in northern Italy, southern Germany or all through Austria during those trips. Have things gotten worse in Zurich since then, or have standards soared faster than Zurich cooks and tradition care to acknowledge?)

I should be more specific. Sure, compared to the average food you get in the US (diner? Olive Garden? the awful Italian places that use tinned tomatoes?), most Western European countries are better if it's about getting a quick meal. But I'm really into my food. As far as I know Zurich does not have a single Michelin star. It is very difficult to get innovative and interesting food in Zurich. London, so often mocked, is actually (as far as I'm concerned) the best place to eat in Europe, just in terms of value for money provided you do your research. Not to mention the phenomenal ingredients you can find in London, such as 35-day dry-aged rare breed steak, or grouse. And the best of the French, such as Poilane bread, is also easily available. Thing is considering my line of work, I'm choosing between London, Paris, New York (well, if I find a green card - many of my friends married American to work on Wall Street!), etc. - against which Zurich is faring very poorly food-wise - and most people I know agree with me.

Should probably add that I find Austrian food very uninspiring. Southern Germany is a bit better. I am somewhat surprised that Northern Italy could be compared with any Germanic regions, since the food is so much better especially around the Lakes and Milan! Perhaps it is a question of taste - as a French citizen I am more accustomed to Latin than Nordic flavours. For example, I find the Savoyard way of making potato omelette far superior to the Swiss Rosti.

Switzerland is not perfect, but it is likely to remain committed to freedom even as the greatest fall (even temporarily). Boring as hell, but at least you keep the products of your life. And for some members of the Forum, I believe the mountain driving there to be unparalleled anywhere in the world :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should try driving the Rockies! It's really cool to drive by something like this for example.

Plus, Alberta is one of the freest "states" of all North American provinces and states, as evaluated by the Fraser Institute which publishes the Freedom of the World Index. Their GDP per capita is over $81,000 (2008, CAD on par with USD now). Anybody who wants a well paid job can get one, even illiterate people, if they're willing to work hard. Plenty of my friends and other young men who didn't do well in high school move over there for jobs in the oil and gas industry and start making $80,000 their first year, with much more to come. They sometimes switch jobs after a few years with houses and vehicles paid off completely and money to start their own businesses. Anyway, Alberta is a solution for Canadians (or Americans who want to work on a TN visa), but there are freer American states too.

Socialized health care exists in Alberta though. However, since Western people in industrialized countries are not likely to die of a disease that public medicine has made considerable inroads against, I don't think it makes much of a difference in our lives if we do things properly. Medicine has dramatically increased our lifespans by warding off infectious and transmittable diseases through things like vaccination, and has also provided cures for things like parasitic infections. We are also less likely to get parasitic or water borne infections due to improved sanitation like cleaner drinking water and sewer systems. Those two play a huge role that is often neglected. People in Western industrialized nations are now likely to die of the degenerative diseases of civilization--cardiovascular disease, some cancers, and other diseases related to Syndrome X (which is a syndrome that describes obesity and diabetes).

Mountains of ethnographic data show that primitive hunter-gatherer tribes do not suffer from a single incidence of these "diseases of civilization." I mean not a single one. Look at the Kitava study, for example. Cardiovascular disease is absolutely unheard of and cancers are rare, despite 80% of the population being smokers. Not a single person on Kitava is obese, except a few Kitavans who left the islands to live in the cities, ate Western foodstuffs, and then moved back. Nobody has diabetes or insulin resistance. And Kitava is not some freak case--the ethnographic data shows the same results in different primitive populations all over the world. All we have to do is emulate our ancestral dietary habits and some issues of lifestyle (such as regular sun exposure), and we too can be free of the diseases of civilization, diseases that did not exist 10,000 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites