ARI Press Release: Gates Talking Out of His Butt

[musashi]

AH, shoot, I messed up another post, sorry, Musashi....No worries mate


So what is to be done?....................Is the entire continent of Africa a lost cause?

...



But I thought most of Gates’ charity specifically avoided direct contributions to governments....

[Tolthar Lockbar]

It is pretty clear that he wants to spend his money as a social engineer. Where can he find a cheaper canvas? However as cheap a buy as Africa may be, he can’t just put a tender offer on Zimbabwe. He can’t sponsor a hostile take over and depose Mugabe. So he must operate with a framework, and sue for gradual change.

That would be pretty gradual, I'd think.

Your starting from 'spend his money as a social engineer' and then deducing it as the best choice. I'd say check your premises if there is a contradiction.

[Oleksandr]

So what is to be done?....................Is the entire continent of Africa a lost cause?

There are many solutions here, depends on the goal you wish to take. I would choose to leave them to face their consequences of their actions, i.e. death - until they begin to understand that the choices they make are between death and life when it comes to individual rights and Capitalism.

But I thought most of Gates’ charity specifically avoided direct contributions to governments.

Well, he has no control over what a corrupt government does within its own territory. Gates can't just come over and hand in dollars or goods to poor. He has to give it through some organization, and government over there keeps a close eye over those organization. It's only a logical conclusion that every path of charity there will get corrupted.

[Arakasi Takeda]

There are many solutions here, depends on the goal you wish to take. I would choose to leave them to face their consequences of their actions, i.e. death - until they begin to understand that the choices they make are between death and life when it comes to individual rights and Capitalism.

Your solution is to wait until Atlas Shrugged becomes reality - until the 'People's States' of Africa implode under their own philosophical contradiction?

...the fact that Africa is very likely the site of the longest continuous presence of humankind in the planet's history and still hasn't collapsed in Randian armaggedon is insufficient to cause you any metaphysical doubt as to whether that will ever actually occur?


AT

[Oleksandr]

...the fact that Africa is very likely the site of the longest continuous presence of humankind in the planet's history and still hasn't collapsed in Randian armaggedon is insufficient to cause you any metaphysical doubt as to whether that will ever actually occur?

I suggest stepping back to my previous post where I said how they still survived.

I'll summarize it: the reason they still exist is because of our help.

[Arakasi Takeda]

I suggest stepping back to my previous post where I said how they still survived.

I'll summarize it: the reason they still exist is because of our help.

Africa has existed as a continuous habitation of mankind for ten thousand years. Capitalism as a modern theory hasn't been around nearly as long.

the reason they still exist is because of our help

When exactly did our presence (the presence of capitalists, the presence of the US, ....presence of whom exactly?) become a necessary condition to their survival?

Your answer is self-evidently wrong.


AT

[Oleksandr]

Africa has existed as a continuous habitation of mankind for ten thousand years. Capitalism as a modern theory hasn't been around nearly as long.

Existence as what? As animals? In their history they had frequent famines where many die. The only way they can survive is by doing very simple basic tasks. So, they can sustain a few. And only a few has survived in the past 10,000 years on a level of savages.

Is this a standard of human life for you, AT?

[musashi]

But I thought most of Gates’ charity specifically avoided direct contributions to governments.

Well, he has no control over what a corrupt government does within its own territory. Gates can't just come over and hand in dollars or goods to poor. He has to give it through some organization, and government over there keeps a close eye over those organization. It's only a logical conclusion that every path of charity there will get corrupted.

There are ways. The Gates Foundation funds medical research to find treatments for diseases common in developing nations. Now for sure the dictators could ransom the medication. But it is not like medicine is hard currency. Alternate avenues for distribution would arise when the government acts up.

So what is to be done?....................Is the entire continent of Africa a lost cause?

There are many solutions here, depends on the goal you wish to take. I would choose to leave them to face their consequences of their actions, i.e. death - until they begin to understand that the choices they make are between death and life when it comes to individual rights and Capitalism.

What about the rights of those individual members of the society. Doesn’t the “Rot in Hell” approach severely limit their ability to exercise their rights? Could there be a solution that capitalizes on the living rather than relying upon the dead?

Besides look at it from the Bill Gates ! – Social Engineer perspective. You can already count on death and misery in Africa, without any influence at all. It takes no elegance to maintain the status quo. Your challenge is to re-model the place, without encouraging the despots.

[Oleksandr]

What about the rights of those individual members of the society. Doesn’t the “Rot in Hell” approach severely limit their ability to exercise their rights?

No, that would be misunderstanding of what rights are.

"Rights are individuals' moral claims to freedom of action." By letting them be, you do not restrict their freedom in any way. They chose to be savages and abuse individual rights, thus they build society that leads to death of their own people. And so they face the consequences.

Since, there is no limitation on their freedom of actions here, then there is no abuse of rights on the part of those who don't give away to help them.



P.S. Quote is from Moral Rights and Political Freedom by Tara Smith

[musashi]

What about the rights of those individual members of the society. Doesn’t the “Rot in Hell” approach severely limit their ability to exercise their rights?

No, that would be misunderstanding of what rights are.

"Rights are individuals' moral claims to freedom of action." By letting them be, you do not restrict their freedom in any way. They chose to be savages and abuse individual rights, thus they build society that leads to death of their own people. And so they face the consequences.

I get that.

But now consider the situation as a Social Engineer…. You want to elevate that society (not saying that I would, but Bill seems bent on it). You have to tamper somehow; a hands-off approach is not an option. How do you do it? And what outcomes flow from the choice?

[Oleksandr]

Here's an interesting article on Bill Gate's statement and the correct approach to the problem:

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4996

Summary: "work for free market reform"

[Arakasi Takeda]

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
Africa has existed as a continuous habitation of mankind for ten thousand years. Capitalism as a modern theory hasn't been around nearly as long.

Existence as what? As animals? In their history they had frequent famines where many die. The only way they can survive is by doing very simple basic tasks. So, they can sustain a few. And only a few has survived in the past 10,000 years on a level of savages.

Is this a standard of human life for you, AT?

Every time we have a conversation, my opinion of you slips a bit more. I realize that my opinion must mean very little to you, but I feel compelled to say it before moving on.

The cause, this time, is your utter lack of historical perspective. Many of the things you have listed above are true - they had frequent famines where many died. They can sustain a few.

If I were to roll back the clock 1000 years, I could say exactly the same thing about Europe.

Your western civ-centric , modernicity centric view of history, predicated on the usual Randian belief that only the West truly understands capitalism (if you ignore everything before around the 1700's), always fails to recall that we weren't always 'human' in the Randian sense either. We too had our 'savage' period. We too had famine, and disease, and death by the millions. We too grovelled in the mud, bowed before kings, prelates, and bishops, and chopped each other to bits fighting over resources.

Yet, here you are, condemning an entire continent of people for existing in a situation not at all unlike the historical situation of the culture you hold up as the 'right' one. You act as if the West were always perfect, always better.

In other words, you are a hopless dogmatist. Reality means nothing to you at all. You have replaced history with the sterile myth Rand has spoonfed you. You don't view people as potential humans - you view them as corrupted animals without hope of advancement. You are both utopian and nihilist, and can't even realize it.

Of course, this leads you to all kind of metaphysical errors within even your own philosophy...

Look at your statements in the Iran thread...

Bomb!!! Make it a glass country before they kill us.

Here you are, advocating the direct use of force - catastrophic force. No problem for you to justify it, of course - after all, they're just savages - they don't possess any right to life. What do they know of Randian metaphysics, right?

And, of course, you'll complain back that you are just 'defending yourself'. Well, defending yourself must first involve an action on the part of an attacker. You know, as well as I, that intentions are meaningless. Even if you could prove the Iranians had an intention to kill us, it would hold exactly zero metaphysical weight.

And you can't even prove an intention on their part....or did you suddenly receive the power to read people's thoughts? There is no proof of your suspicions....just your own paranoia about people who don't cling to your personal definition of what a 'human' is.

In action, which is the only thing that matters, you are no different than any other religious fanatic. Your devotion is fundamentalist, your words inflammatory, and your demeanor arrogant.

I wrote, at one point, that the best way to change the people around us wasn't to use force, but to act as the superior culture. Demonstrate that your way is the better way, and people will come around. You appeal to their reason.

How does your solution solve anything, or demonstrate anything? Your response to these people is to ignore them, to let them die. Let the diseased animals kill themselves...that'll show 'em. You have all the empathy of a sociopath (cruelty to animals being one of the three primary signals to antisocial personality disorder....along with pyromania, mister 'Nuke 'Em All).

Even if you despise his methods, and condemn them to failure because they don't conform to the precise lines of your dogma, Bill Gates is doing far more to convince people of the superiority of current western civilization than any Randist. These people, so desperate that survival is their only immediate concern, will eventually ask themselves, when survival is further away - 'How did this man help us, and why?' When they start asking those questions, some of them may come to realize why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Some of them may finally 'get it', as Mushashi was alluding to.

What questions will they ask, if let to your solution?

'Why does he want me dead?'

Then ask yourself why they want to kill us....their reasons are the same as yours.

"Kill them before they kill us....."

There's no more 'life' in your philosophy than there is in their. In the end, either way, they are dead. I believe the saying is 'Where their is life, there is hope'. If charity keeps these people alive for awhile, then there is hope they will live to find a better way. If you leave them to die, they will never learn.

That's my standard of life - I despise using your terms for it (I find the formulation demeaning), but I prefer a 'live' animal to a dead hominid. At least the 'live' animal has a chance to come around.

You don't care one way or the other - it's not your responsibility....either one is equivelent to you. Neither is worth preserving.


AT

[Oleksandr]

Moderator note:

The rest of the thread has been splitted away into: "Absolute Truth"

http://shite.homelinux.org/forum/viewto ... f=3&t=3865