Ed from OC

State of the States ... and Countries

92 posts in this topic

In defense of Duke, a short term stint in an unpleasant country for cash or career reasons is a valid choice and very good trade. You will get more responsibility and exposure to interesting projects as a strategy consultant in Dubai, for example (which is all about strategy and big picture thinking) than in Munich (which is all about pharma marketing and excusing management's mistakes to the shareholders with the shareholders' own cash). Private equity is much more exciting in China (if you have the cash and contacts) even if outright dangerous, and will teach you a lot more as a junior, than in the US. Finance is much cooler in countries not yet tainted by oversupply and state involvement, since there you will be actually providing capital to entrepreneurs a la Mulligan, not structuring a massive wealth transfer from the taxpayer to your pocket guaranteed by the taxpayer. This is doubly true in areas with volatile FX, where you will learn a hell of a lot about hedging against all sorts of risks with all sorts of instruments (which will be instruments that help, not destroy your company in the long run).

I would feel incredibly uncomfortable spending more than short stints in South Korea, considering the large number of NK artillery batteries pointed at Seoul. I also dislike the work ethic there. In my former company, the Seoul team was available at 6am on a Sunday if you needed them - they took two hours off a week on a Saturday afternoon. I think a. you cannot be productive for more than 8 hours a day (creatively productive that is, with the intensity required for creative strongly value-adding output) and b. you need spare time to read and develop yourself and plan ahead, and build your family (not to forget c. if you're the only guy in the office who works 20 hour days, you will move up much faster, since relative experience differences compound extremely quickly).

That being said if I was a scientist (in biology, computing or otherwise) I would immediately move to the US regardless of my age or experience. And my impression from the subject of this thread is that those interested in answers are more established in life already, and therefore should live in the US.

Quick aside on Australia, it has bugs. A friend recalls seeing Huntsman spiders in his car 6 times, including crawling out of the A/C vents. Also, you can't own a rifle, and Queensland recently reminded us of the danger of natural disasters on that continent. Still, I agree with Jason that it is a great place to settle down if you are a bit older and established, much like Colorado or, if you are ok with the cold, New Hampshire (I do not think this is the case if you are young as opportunities for very fast personal development and leapfrogging social classes by being an entrepreneur are more limited than in other places).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In defense of Duke, a short term stint in an unpleasant country for cash or career reasons is a valid choice and very good trade.

I totally agree with you (and with Duke if this is what he meant) on this point rtg24 and thanks for yet another very insightful post. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind staying for a while in Dubai myself just to build up capital. In fact, the only reason I haven't yet (and I've looked) is that there are not many interesting opportunities in my profession in the UAE. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you did not mention what it was in his comparison of the two cities that you though would not be able to convince people to live in New York in preference to Dubai despite the clear context (was it not?) of his post comparing their relative freedoms and luxuries, and how New York had far more freedom than Dubai. Given that context, and your response, it was not clear to me what your stance was.

I thought the essence of the paragraph I quoted was a comparison of his living standard in each city. He said he lived in a great spacious apartment in Dubai and a sad little cramped place in New York. I thought that such a comparison wouldn't create people eagerly wishing to work in New York.

My stance is that Dubai is not a very free country economically. It would depend on what you want to do. All of my posts here get interpreted into "He's advocating you live in one country forever that is not the US" rather than the actual position I've been repeating: Plant multiple flags and take advantage of greater freedoms in some countries than others. When I recommend Singapore or Hong Kong, it is clearly better to incorporate or bank there compared to the US. It doesn't mean you have to spend all your time there though.

Working hours are hardly sufficient as an indicator of the philosophical health of a city.
Are you trying to say that because I gave you a single indicator of competence in a country that I am guilty of not proving 'the philosophical health of a city' to you? That was never my intention. You're right, working hours alone are 'hardly sufficient as an indicator of the philosophical health of a city.' Just note that cities like Seoul and Singapore are absent of the vermin infested ghettos of drug dealers and welfare dependents that produce children unable to speak even their native language properly. New York doesn't produce good people. Most of the good people in Manhattan come from foreign countries (and after stuff like Sarbanes Oxley they're increasingly deciding to go back home). In 10-15 years people will be jumping ship to Shanghai. Just wait until the inflation and the big correction in the US economy. And if you ask successful people in Silicon Valley why they're doing good they'll say "I just took 5 companies public in India and 3 in China. Nope, none here."
Three of the many links I found when Googling "freedom of expression South Korea" can be found.

Google US prison population or US food stamp dependents or any number of things. Plenty of faults with plenty of countries. That's why I advocate leveraging the advantages of multiple places. I think a US green card and US passport are bad deals overall, but that doesn't mean I don't think working and training in the US or supplying products and services to the US isn't valuable (which I maybe didn't get across clearly enough).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you did not mention what it was in his comparison of the two cities that you though would not be able to convince people to live in New York in preference to Dubai despite the clear context (was it not?) of his post comparing their relative freedoms and luxuries, and how New York had far more freedom than Dubai. Given that context, and your response, it was not clear to me what your stance was.

I thought the essence of the paragraph I quoted was a comparison of his living standard in each city. He said he lived in a great spacious apartment in Dubai and a sad little cramped place in New York. I thought that such a comparison wouldn't create people eagerly wishing to work in New York.

I do not wish to speak for rtg24 (he does that very well himself) but for me the essence of his post was in the statements

Even Dubai doesn't compare to New York.
,
Yet I greeted Heathrow's tarmac with a sigh of relief. Every time.
,
yet it was the happiest time of my life.
and
Ultimately, the philosophy of the environment you are in determines your happiness. In New York, everybody matters, everybody has a vision, everybody is busy executing it, and that is invaluable.

What you have really done is to focus on the one aspect (of luxuries and standard of living) that you have explicitly mentioned in your previous post as important to you and ignored what rtg4 was really trying to say.

My stance is that Dubai is not a very free country economically. It would depend on what you want to do. All of my posts here get interpreted into "He's advocating you live in one country forever that is not the US" rather than the actual position I've been repeating: Plant multiple flags and take advantage of greater freedoms in some countries than others. When I recommend Singapore or Hong Kong, it is clearly better to incorporate or bank there compared to the US. It doesn't mean you have to spend all your time there though.

You are clearly changing the goalposts here. In your own comments here, you are advocating something different (i.e. to "live in one country forever that is not the US") from what you claim above.

If I were a high earning programmer I'd drop my US citizenship, bank in a tax haven or somewhere like Singapore, and live somewhere nice with a good internet connection. Why pay California rent prices when you can have a château in the Andes for a quarter of the price? Why let the IRS follow you all over the world?
Working hours are hardly sufficient as an indicator of the philosophical health of a city.
Are you trying to say that because I gave you a single indicator of competence in a country that I am guilty of not proving 'the philosophical health of a city' to you? That was never my intention. You're right, working hours alone are 'hardly sufficient as an indicator of the philosophical health of a city.' Just note that cities like Seoul and Singapore are absent of the vermin infested ghettos of drug dealers and welfare dependents that produce children unable to speak even their native language properly. New York doesn't produce good people. Most of the good people in Manhattan come from foreign countries (and after stuff like Sarbanes Oxley they're increasingly deciding to go back home). In 10-15 years people will be jumping ship to Shanghai. Just wait until the inflation and the big correction in the US economy. And if you ask successful people in Silicon Valley why they're doing good they'll say "I just took 5 companies public in India and 3 in China. Nope, none here."

It was not my intention to prove you "guilty" of anything but when you choose one criterion to the exclusion of others (which you do not mention) in your comparison of cities or countries, you imply something you might not have intended - that the one criterion is more important to you than any of the others.

How does "working hours" translate to "competence"? Competence lies in creating value, and not working however many hours a week. From the same link that you shared: "2008 Average worker, India 2817–3443 hours". This is, in fact, more than the number of hours per year that the article gives for workers in South Korea. Going by that, India should have left the rest of the world eating its dust, which is clearly not the case.

I'm also really surprised to hear the statement "New York doesn't produce good people." I would assume that blanket generalizations of this sort are unwarranted especially on an Objectivist forum and especially about a city of such monumental achievements? And come on, what is it with the "ghettos", "drug dealers" and "welfare dependents" rhetoric whenever mention of New York is made? Is that all New York is to you? I'm sorry but to me it is much more than that.

People jumping ship to Shanghai in droves (in however many years it takes for that to happen) will in no way increase its attractiveness as far as I'm concerned until the fall of communism in China.

Three of the many links I found when Googling "freedom of expression South Korea" can be found.

Google US prison population or US food stamp dependents or any number of things. Plenty of faults with plenty of countries. That's why I advocate leveraging the advantages of multiple places. I think a US green card and US passport are bad deals overall, but that doesn't mean I don't think working and training in the US or supplying products and services to the US isn't valuable (which I maybe didn't get across clearly enough).

I never said the US was perfect. What we are talking about here is not what and how many faults each country has but about whether its faults include undermining what to us, as freedom-lovers, is most important.

I, however, agree with the good point you made in your post above that one should

Plant multiple flags and take advantage of greater freedoms in some countries than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I, however, agree with the good point you made in your post above that one should
Plant multiple flags and take advantage of greater freedoms in some countries than others.

Unless one has an immense amount of wealth with no real need to work in one specific field to create such wealth, how may I ask is one supposed to "plant multiple flags?" Last I checked most of the people that still work hard to make America great (or at least are working at it) are not cosmopolitan types. As a matter of fact, the cosmopolitan types (belonging to the world) get up and run away instead of fighting anytime things do not go their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a matter of fact, the cosmopolitan types (belonging to the world) get up and run away instead of fighting anytime things do not go their way.
I'm not sure how to take this last bit, other than to say how could one prove such a thing? I've lived all over the world as a matter of choice having nothing to do with politics, but rather my own sense of adventure at discovering what's out there. Besides that, I don't understand what the objection would be to someone from the US wanting to live outside the country. I'm more than happy to see the leftists leave, but the vast majority of expatriates I've met over the last 25 years have not been dominantly left in their politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a matter of fact, the cosmopolitan types (belonging to the world) get up and run away instead of fighting anytime things do not go their way.
I'm not sure how to take this last bit, other than to say how could one prove such a thing? I've lived all over the world as a matter of choice having nothing to do with politics, but rather my own sense of adventure at discovering what's out there. Besides that, I don't understand what the objection would be to someone from the US wanting to live outside the country. I'm more than happy to see the leftists leave, but the vast majority of expatriates I've met over the last 25 years have not been dominantly left in their politics.

What I am saying is that if everyone moved around everytime things were not moving in what might be considered the proper direction then we would not have a United States of America. In other words and in a certain context, there would be no next place to move to if everyone just moved everytime they were confronted by the enemy. Someone has to fight and or stay and fight for the values and virtues that allow a free society to exist. Or are we going to let other people do our fighting for us and then move when the battle has been won?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am saying is that if everyone moved around everytime things were not moving in what might be considered the proper direction then we would not have a United States of America. In other words and in a certain context, there would be no next place to move to if everyone just moved everytime they were confronted by the enemy. Someone has to fight and or stay and fight for the values and virtues that allow a free society to exist. Or are we going to let other people do our fighting for us and then move when the battle has been won?
I understand what you mean now, but I still would be careful in stating it as a fact that people who move to other parts of the world are doing it because things aren't going their way. I've never met anyone with that view in my many years of travelling the world and living outside the US. Now, it's possible some people I've met are escaping something unpleasant back in the US that they didn't want to deal with, but I never got the sense that any of them were giving up a fight.

Do you have concrete examples of people you're referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am saying is that if everyone moved around everytime things were not moving in what might be considered the proper direction then we would not have a United States of America. In other words and in a certain context, there would be no next place to move to if everyone just moved everytime they were confronted by the enemy. Someone has to fight and or stay and fight for the values and virtues that allow a free society to exist. Or are we going to let other people do our fighting for us and then move when the battle has been won?
I understand what you mean now, but I still would be careful in stating it as a fact that people who move to other parts of the world are doing it because things aren't going their way. I've never met anyone with that view in my many years of travelling the world and living outside the US. Now, it's possible some people I've met are escaping something unpleasant back in the US that they didn't want to deal with, but I never got the sense that any of them were giving up a fight.

Do you have concrete examples of people you're referring to?

Well, no one leaves a place because it is a paradise. And I can understand people leaving Cuba or similar countries to move to better places.

I do not have concrete examples/names to give you as I mentioned it in accordance to the idea that one "plant mulitple flags." For most of society this is not going to be a choice. But, I have heard some wealthy people state and or write that if things get worse here they are going to leave to places with more freedom. So, what I was getting at is that the wealth of the average person in America, and other countries, does not allow for this choice of a cosmopolitan lifestyle. Add to that the the people that can "plant multiple flags" are not the one's doing the concrete fighting, on any front. So, the fact of the matter is that one cannot be a "citizen of the world" as the people and countries of the world are not in agreement on a social system. One must choose where they are going to take a stand (and I do not mean pulling out a gun) and fight for their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Although we are born free we will not stay that way without fighting, history should have taught us that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are clearly changing the goalposts here. In your own comments here, you are advocating something different (i.e. to "live in one country forever that is not the US") from what you claim above.

If I were a high earning programmer I'd drop my US citizenship, bank in a tax haven or somewhere like Singapore, and live somewhere nice with a good internet connection. Why pay California rent prices when you can have a château in the Andes for a quarter of the price? Why let the IRS follow you all over the world?

Well, nope. I didn't advocate what you believe I'm saying. But I can see how it could be viewed that way because I wasn't very specific. I was trying to make the Andes thing an example. I'm not really an advocate of living in one place all of one's life unless that's what you really want to do. For me, I might live in South America for a bit to accomplish a few personal goals and have great experiences, but the word "live" does not mean I will be tied to the continent for life.

The main point to take away though is that where one lives and where one invests and work can be different places today. Especially in the case of the guy who makes his money through the internet. He might want to live in a tropical country with low living expenses for a while, and then he might want to ski in the Andes and learn Spanish for a while. Providing services for US wages and living in a country where a hearty meal is 60 cents or a beach front house is only a few hundred dollars per month sounds good to me. It sounds good to a lot of other people too, although some people will also disagree.

What we are talking about here is not what and how many faults each country has but about whether its faults include undermining what to us, as freedom-lovers, is most important.
True. But keep in mind we need freedom for the reason of having a good life. I'm a freedom lover but only because I'm a value lover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what I was getting at is that the wealth of the average person in America, and other countries, does not allow for this choice of a cosmopolitan lifestyle. Add to that the the people that can "plant multiple flags" are not the one's doing the concrete fighting, on any front.

What did you think of the Steve Wynn video I posted and you looked at? I've also posted some videos by Jim Rogers somewhere in the economics forum here. He expatriated to Singapore but is on the news everyday talking about sound monetary policy.

Freedom minded people will fight for freedom anywhere they go, and statist minded people will fight for statism anywhere they go. Just witness how cities in Texas and Colorado became more leftist as people moved there for economic benefits. Living in South Korea does not stop me from submitting LTE's to Canadian papers. It did, however, get me to engage in some activism on the South Korean front. I think there's a lot of leverage with what just a few loud people could do if they convinced South Korea to stop sending aid to the North and engage in a propaganda campaign. A collapse of the NK government would lead to 25 million more free people and land-based trade between China and SK.

Do you find fault in the OP of this thread for not standing up and fighting against the state of California? I personally believe he does not have to sacrifice for some type of intellectual movement. He can move to Texas and enjoy lower taxes and more personal freedom because his own happiness is what matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless one has an immense amount of wealth with no real need to work in one specific field to create such wealth,

Why do you say that?

As a matter of fact, the cosmopolitan types (belonging to the world) get up and run away instead of fighting anytime things do not go their way.

Are you including people who study, invest and work abroad as cosmopolitan types? Like RTG and I? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the term cosmopolitan types. Anyway I don't see the connection. I have zero US investments but it's not because I'm not patriotic, it's because I feel the long term outlook of the US economy and dollar are not good and I'm a macro investor. And where I work is dependent on the benefits of the job. Where I study is dependent on where I can best study it. I could probably study Korean in K-Town LA but I prefer Korea. I just spent an extended amount of time out in Thailand but there was also a self-interested reason for doing it. I wanted to fight professional Muay Thai but its too hard to get a fight because of the low number of registered fighters in Canada.

I think the good thing is that those who reduce their tax and regulatory burden are able to invest more money into wealth creation. That's good for the whole world, not just them. They help improve your standard of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what I was getting at is that the wealth of the average person in America, and other countries, does not allow for this choice of a cosmopolitan lifestyle. Add to that the the people that can "plant multiple flags" are not the one's doing the concrete fighting, on any front.

What did you think of the Steve Wynn video I posted and you looked at? I've also posted some videos by Jim Rogers somewhere in the economics forum here. He expatriated to Singapore but is on the news everyday talking about sound monetary policy.

Freedom minded people will fight for freedom anywhere they go, and statist minded people will fight for statism anywhere they go. Just witness how cities in Texas and Colorado became more leftist as people moved there for economic benefits. Living in South Korea does not stop me from submitting LTE's to Canadian papers. It did, however, get me to engage in some activism on the South Korean front. I think there's a lot of leverage with what just a few loud people could do if they convinced South Korea to stop sending aid to the North and engage in a propaganda campaign. A collapse of the NK government would lead to 25 million more free people and land-based trade between China and SK.

Do you find fault in the OP of this thread for not standing up and fighting against the state of California? I personally believe he does not have to sacrifice for some type of intellectual movement. He can move to Texas and enjoy lower taxes and more personal freedom because his own happiness is what matters.

I think Steve Wynn is one of the examples of people that have the type of wealth that allows them to move where ever they want. John Hancock was supposed to be the wealthiest man in New England and he did not move.

A "few loud people" will have to do more than write letters to the editors of papers. Much more than just intellectual debates have to happen for change to really happen which cannot be done when one's time is spent hoping from one are to the next.

Ed is talking about moving to a part of the country that allows him to have more day to day freedoms, along with keeping his wealth, but I did not read him mentioning that he was leaving the country or going to stop fighting. And as I have mentioned before, standing up for one's life is not a sacrifice it is a selfish act and a rational person recognizes they cannot have happiness without freedom. Who is going to defend your right to happiness in South America, you alone?

So, who is going to follow another person into battle (metaphorical usage) when the cosmopolitan person always leaves when times get tough and demand more effort than what it takes to write a letter to an editor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless one has an immense amount of wealth with no real need to work in one specific field to create such wealth,

Why do you say that?

As a matter of fact, the cosmopolitan types (belonging to the world) get up and run away instead of fighting anytime things do not go their way.

Are you including people who study, invest and work abroad as cosmopolitan types? Like RTG and I? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the term cosmopolitan types. Anyway I don't see the connection. I have zero US investments but it's not because I'm not patriotic, it's because I feel the long term outlook of the US economy and dollar are not good and I'm a macro investor. And where I work is dependent on the benefits of the job. Where I study is dependent on where I can best study it. I could probably study Korean in K-Town LA but I prefer Korea. I just spent an extended amount of time out in Thailand but there was also a self-interested reason for doing it. I wanted to fight professional Muay Thai but its too hard to get a fight because of the low number of registered fighters in Canada.

I think the good thing is that those who reduce their tax and regulatory burden are able to invest more money into wealth creation. That's good for the whole world, not just them. They help improve your standard of living.

If I may ask, at your age where did you get the wealth to be a world traveler? Did you create your own stake for your investment by spending years working low-paying jobs? If you check the history of most American industrialist they spent an immense amount of time in their businesses, in one specific place, developing and building their companies. And I refer you to my above post for the rest of the answer of why I wrote my ealier comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Add to that the the people that can "plant multiple flags" are not the one's doing the concrete fighting, on any front.

Sometimes they are.

One case that comes to mind is that of Monroe Trout. To avoid American taxes and regulations, the "phantom billionaire" moved his financial empire to Bermuda and became a citizen of Ireland. Trout made -- and kept -- a huge amount of money and used some of it to pay for the making of the Academy Award nominated documentary "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life" and to make very large donations to the Ayn Rand Institute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Add to that the the people that can "plant multiple flags" are not the one's doing the concrete fighting, on any front.

Sometimes they are.

One case that comes to mind is that of Monroe Trout. To avoid American taxes and regulations, the "phantom billionaire" moved his financial empire to Bermuda and became a citizen of Ireland. Trout made -- and kept -- a huge amount of money and used some of it to pay for the making of the Academy Award nominated documentary "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life" and to make very large donations to the Ayn Rand Institute.

Yes, sometimes they are, and I applaud his efforts and appreciate him backing the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Steve Wynn is one of the examples of people that have the type of wealth that allows them to move where ever they want.

And did you think he was defending the right type of government in that video, as well?

A "few loud people" will have to do more than write letters to the editors of papers. Much more than just intellectual debates have to happen for change to really happen which cannot be done when one's time is spent hoping from one are to the next.
In the case of Korea, people are really on the border about whether to provide foreign aid to the North. A principled moral argument would do a lot of good for the side that believes we should stop.
Ed is talking about moving to a part of the country that allows him to have more day to day freedoms, along with keeping his wealth, but I did not read him mentioning that he was leaving the country

So if I understand your argument correctly, moving across state lines is fine, but national borders are a no-no?

Who is going to defend your right to happiness in South America, you alone?
I will be freer in Chile, at least economically. Let me ask you: are you allowed to travel in your philosophy? If you decide to travel to a resort in Mexico, who is going to defend your freedom?

I can't travel to Argentina for a year to learn to Tango and look for investment opportunities in Paraguay for a few weeks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I may ask, at your age where did you get the wealth to be a world traveler?

A lot of wealth is not required.

Did you create your own stake for your investment by spending years working low-paying jobs?

No, I worked high paying jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A "few loud people" will have to do more than write letters to the editors of papers.

I assume you are replying to the North Korea issue. I don't know why you are bringing up LTE's--people (I included) are doing more than just LTE's. I've been corresponding with pro-South professors who publish books and newspaper articles and telling them the moral arguments involved. I'm sure I could do more of course, but I am too busy with other things. I don't know what percentage of my time I'm supposed to spend on cultural activism according to you, but I also have to work on building my wealth, education, and relationships since I'm young.

Much more than just intellectual debates have to happen for change to really happen which cannot be done when one's time is spent hoping from one are to the next.

Well, I think my leverage point is that I can provide good moral arguments supporting my viewpoint (because they are somewhat absent from the scene here). It's best to focus on your strengths and where you can get the most good done for the least time. You are saying that more than intellectual debates will have to happen to end the aid from the South to the North. Maybe that's true, but I won't be engaging in anything other than intellectual debates. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with that.

Do you mean "hopping from one area to the next"? My time is not spent hopping from one area to the next. I took an 11 hour flight to Asia a few months ago (in which I was able to get stuff done on the plane, including writing and study). Overall I spend much less time traveling than the average person who commutes from the suburbs to the centre of major US cities.

By the way, I'm not American. Do you think it is necessary that I sit physically in my country at all times to be a moral man? And do you genuinely believe that if someone travels to foreign countries it is impossible for him to engage in activism (because his time is spent hopping from one area to the next)?

I think I have to leave this thread now for the sake of my time. Actually, the whole thing is becoming about me and I am not interested in discussing or defending myself publicly against what I see to be absurd questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I may ask, at your age where did you get the wealth to be a world traveler?

A lot of wealth is not required.

Did you create your own stake for your investment by spending years working low-paying jobs?

No, I worked high paying jobs.

I am American born and a citizen, but for many reasons, I have enjoyed travelling and living abroad over the years. In the case of my younger years, I was either a student or a teacher. I've found my life is far richer for the experiences I've had. In fact, had I not gone to Slovakia to teach in the early 1990s, I might never have been exposed to Ayn Rand the way I was. I originally read The Fountainhead while living there and the day-to-day of living in a mostly socialist country at the time was very educational, to say the least.

Even now as a resident of Australia, I engage in the same amount of intellectual activism as I did back in the US. So I don't quite grasp Ray's objections as I don't consider myself someone who cuts and runs because I don't want to fight. I had an opportunity to come live here and I love it. Australia is in some ways freer than America now and it's got a fantastic sense of life.

I am by no means wealthy, but I make a very good living in the software field and I live well within my means. I will grant that if I had a family, as Ray does, this would be more difficult to do, but as a single guy with no debts and a company that sponsored me to come to Australia, it was an easier goal to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Steve Wynn is one of the examples of people that have the type of wealth that allows them to move where ever they want.

And did you think he was defending the right type of government in that video, as well?

A "few loud people" will have to do more than write letters to the editors of papers. Much more than just intellectual debates have to happen for change to really happen which cannot be done when one's time is spent hoping from one are to the next.
In the case of Korea, people are really on the border about whether to provide foreign aid to the North. A principled moral argument would do a lot of good for the side that believes we should stop.
Ed is talking about moving to a part of the country that allows him to have more day to day freedoms, along with keeping his wealth, but I did not read him mentioning that he was leaving the country

So if I understand your argument correctly, moving across state lines is fine, but national borders are a no-no?

Who is going to defend your right to happiness in South America, you alone?
I will be freer in Chile, at least economically. Let me ask you: are you allowed to travel in your philosophy? If you decide to travel to a resort in Mexico, who is going to defend your freedom?

I can't travel to Argentina for a year to learn to Tango and look for investment opportunities in Paraguay for a few weeks?

For a non-Objectivist he was doing d decent job of stating what some of the causes of him moving his companies overseas were.

A principled moral argument can change one person's mind, but to change a culture requires long-term planning and effort.

So, you understand my argument moving from the country that stands up for the rights of freedom to a country that lives off of the other countries ability to defend it is a "no-no." If America and it's military falls there is not another country at this time to take up the defense of the free world especially Canada's small military force.

I see nothing wrong with traveling, I see something wrong with claiming to be a citizen of the world but never staying put when the demands of freedom require it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are clearly changing the goalposts here. In your own comments here, you are advocating something different (i.e. to "live in one country forever that is not the US") from what you claim above.

If I were a high earning programmer I'd drop my US citizenship, bank in a tax haven or somewhere like Singapore, and live somewhere nice with a good internet connection. Why pay California rent prices when you can have a château in the Andes for a quarter of the price? Why let the IRS follow you all over the world?

Well, nope. I didn't advocate what you believe I'm saying. But I can see how it could be viewed that way because I wasn't very specific. I was trying to make the Andes thing an example. I'm not really an advocate of living in one place all of one's life unless that's what you really want to do. For me, I might live in South America for a bit to accomplish a few personal goals and have great experiences, but the word "live" does not mean I will be tied to the continent for life.

I was not talking about the "château in the Andes" part of your post (that you think I misunderstood) but about the "I'd drop my US citizenship" part. If you were a US citizen (and I know you're not) you'd drop your citizenship and then someday come back to live as an alien for any amount of time in (and pay taxes to) the country whose citizenship you renounced? I don't think so. And become a citizen of which country instead? You must be associated with some country must you not? Living all over the world because one loves travelling and wishes to sample different cultures is perfectly fine but you seem to have a gripe with the US that is very evident from your posts and that I'm unable to understand.

The main point to take away though is that where one lives and where one invests and work can be different places today. Especially in the case of the guy who makes his money through the internet. He might want to live in a tropical country with low living expenses for a while, and then he might want to ski in the Andes and learn Spanish for a while. Providing services for US wages and living in a country where a hearty meal is 60 cents or a beach front house is only a few hundred dollars per month sounds good to me. It sounds good to a lot of other people too, although some people will also disagree.
What we are talking about here is not what and how many faults each country has but about whether its faults include undermining what to us, as freedom-lovers, is most important.

True. But keep in mind we need freedom for the reason of having a good life.

And a good life is possible in a country where you can get robbed or murdered without chance of justice for yourself or your family even if you do live in a palace? It is only when you come up against the government (or whichever thug thinks he can make you do what he wants) that you actually realize how precious freedom is. I would not wish something like that upon you (or anyone) but I feel sad that you do not place enough value on something that makes the US still the greatest country on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is a pretty international group. What is the assessment on Switzerland? What do people think as they look at Switzerland as a future possibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites