TTI Forums

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... to-be.html

A man going to jail because he speaks the truth. I haven't looked too much into it yet since I'm at work, but on the face, it looks horrible.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... to-be.html

A man going to jail because he speaks the truth. I haven't looked too much into it yet since I'm at work, but on the face, it looks horrible.

Even wikipedia has a lot to say about censorship in the UK...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship ... ed_Kingdom

I can't find the article now, but I remember reading about newspapers being shut down with their printing presses confiscated for criticizing the government...

The Brits have submitted to Islam and they mean to shut down anyone who speaks for freedom, justice and liberty

How can you take anything serious after he writes that in the first paragraph.

I am not at all familiar with the individual or his blog - so research is necessary before making any determination of any kind on this item.

Just one small note though - skimming the front page of his blog I count at least eight direct biblical citiations. That combined with the prominent picture of a Crusade knight front and center on the current post has a tendency to make me 'uneasy'.

Can anyone affirm for me _before_ I start reading that this individual is not that most familiar of all Islamic critics....a fundamentalist Christian?

There's nothing I hate more than reading the ranting of one religious nutcase against another religious nutcase. If he has something rational and insightful to say, that's great. If I'm going to read a lot about how God likes 'us' better than 'them', I'd prefer to skip it.

You can't make rational sense on an irrational foundation.

AT

I still haven't read it AT, I probably will look more into it later... but I think you missed the point.

Its sick because the government is doing what Islam is telling them to do: restrict people's freedom.

Its a question of government, not a question of the personal bloggers views.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote: Its sick because the government is doing what Islam is telling them to do: restrict people's freedom.

Let’s think about how this abridgement could have occurred. Where is all that money going to import light sweet crude oil from the Middle East? Mainly Muslin countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Why should it be a surprise? That these countries are using the wealth they receive for oil to tear down non-Muslim governments and to promulgate an Islamic agenda.

I expect this trend to continue, well at least continue until their oil reserves are drained, and then they return to insignificant patches of desert.

While that may be true (I haven't look into that too much, but I don't doubt it), the only reason it can go through, in their society, is the rising multiculturalism movement.

Here is one of my favorite you tubers talking about multiculturalism. (no, it isn't cropper this time)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Miql2BgMEgY

I wonder how long before this sort of thing becomes the norm in Australia. There's already similar laws enacted in my home state of Victoria.

We have rules for this in Norway too. Thankfully, they are not enforced (yet). It was the conservatives that created the law btw.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:I still haven't read it AT, I probably will look more into it later... but I think you missed the point.
Its sick because the government is doing what Islam is telling them to do: restrict people's freedom.
Its a question of government, not a question of the personal bloggers views.

Your making the huge assumption that the blog is true and not just rantings. I followed several links on the blog but found nothing that explains his claims never mind support it.

musashi wrote:I expect this trend to continue, well at least continue until their oil reserves are drained, and then they return to insignificant patches of desert.

Even if you believe the peak-oil theory, oil reserves will be around for many years to come.

Petter Sandstad wrote:We have rules for this in Norway too. Thankfully, they are not enforced (yet). It was the conservatives that created the law btw.

This is one of the criteria I use to identify Collectivism: Governments spewing out laws. Huge volumes of laws that they can not universally enforce, nor even attempt to universally enforce. Then the civil servants can selectively enforce these laws to achieve their own agendas.

• Make everything illegal.
  • Make it impossible to live in any other way than as a criminal.
    • Choose the individuals you wish to persecute.

This is one of my difficulties with the “Rule of Law” explanation for how an Objectivist society can function. Who makes the rules? Who has the rules enforced upon them?

musashi wrote:Who makes the rules? Who has the rules enforced upon them?

O.O The main point of politics (the branch of philosophy) is to answer this.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/politics.html

Raaz Satik wrote:Your making the huge assumption that the blog is true and not just rantings. I followed several links on the blog but found nothing that explains his claims never mind support it.

Right, I looked more into this. I can't really see anything I would consider official. In fact, it seems like a lot of blogs are just posting on it and thats about it (though I did find one tabloid site, hah!). I guess I'll have to change my position to, "If this were to actually happen...". I don't know if he is back from his trip yet.

Raaz Satik wrote:

musashi wrote:I expect this trend to continue, well at least continue until their oil reserves are drained, and then they return to insignificant patches of desert.

Even if you believe the peak-oil theory, oil reserves will be around for many years to come.

True, and if the supplies do dwindle, the diminished tailings could produce more income than are generated now.

My hope is that more sustainable local sources of energy will become available. The substation away from dependence would really slow the OPEC guys down.

Yeah, have you heard much about shale oil? And I don't just mean in Atlas Shrugged! Shell Oil is developing a process to make it economically feasible:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... hale_x.htm

There are many sites on it if you look it up. Also, biodiesel seems to be the new talk about a new renewable resource for fuel though the government is doing some type of subsidy with it and there seems to be a lot of lobbiest yelling. Haven't looked into it past that.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:Yeah, have you heard much about shale oil?

I know shale is supposed to be a great opportunity, but you have to consider the grade of oil that will be extracted. Very high molecular weight and high mineral content. Not the best stuff to be turning into gasoline.

Yeah, I can see that, but I'm not 100% up on all the details of Shell Oil's patented process. I know the gist of it: heat the oil while its still in the rock, then drill down to it.

I've actually heard, from an _unreliable_ source, that it is more pure than normal oil. Thinking about it some, if they heat the rock, then the oil will seep down into the lower areas where they could be drilling to. I don't know much about shael, but could that process actually purify the oil a bit? Or perhaps they could create a large area under the oil, and put a filter on the top of the area. Then when the oil melts from the shael, it could pass through the filter.

Well, I'm not a scientist, but who knows how Shell is implementing their process for details like that.

musashi wrote:My hope is that more sustainable local sources of energy will become available. The substation away from dependence would really slow the OPEC guys down.

You mean like Nuclear?

FYI In 2005, the latest year for which data are available: 49.7 percent of our nation's electricity was generated from coal. Nuclear energy produced 19.3 percent. Natural gas supplied 18.7 percent. Hydropower provided 6.5 percent of the supply. Fuel oil provided 3.0 percent of the generation mix. Biomass produced 1.6 percent, while other renewable resources, such as geothermal, solar, and wind, provided the remainder of the supply.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I get the impression for much of this discussion that there is generally considered to be a 'problem' with the idea of governmental laws protecting individuals from discrimination based on their cultural identify?

I see the words 'censorship' and relief that existent laws are not being enforced on various responses. I question the consistency with which certain individuals would actually hold these opinions/concepts.

Do any of you holding these view travel internationally? Do you conform to the cultural standards of the nation you travel to when you do? Or do you demand a right to act by your own cultural standards. If you hold that you have a right to do so, how would you consistently hold that such a right does not exist for someone who travels to your nation?

If you live in a nation of mixed cultural population and laws which protect minority groups from discrimination, do you decry those laws as an infringement of your individual rights? Do you do so only because you happen to be the cultural majority? If the situation were to reverse completely in the next 24 hours, would you want such protections against discriminations of your person, or would you immediately conform to the new laws/traditions of the now majority group?

If you are relieved that your nation has adopted laws through its regular legislative process, but has subsequently refused to enforce them, are you happy because this is only selectively done? How would you feel if other laws were also ignored - laws that protect your personal property or rights? Shouldn't a law that is created be enforced? What is the point of having laws at all, if they are each selectively carried out? What is justice, if the law is not consistent?


Like many of you, I share a deep distrust of certain faiths and cultural traditions, particularly highly authoritarian ones. There are groups I would certainly never want to be in power over me. But it strikes me that the comments I have alluded to above are no answer to the problem. Statements like the ones above are the same inconsistent arguments I would expect from some of those very groups I distrust. They would like nothing more than to legally force people to submit to their culture, rather than retain individual freedom. They would rather ferment violence than resolve problems through debate. They would rather censor than allow free expression. They would rather the laws be draconical in construction, and inconsistent in application, rather than the reverse.


When asked how I would find a solution to the problem, I am reminded of what I consider an admirable solution from the past - The Roman Empire; yes, the Romans ruled through force, and I'm not advocating we run out and forge such an empire. But the way the Romans handled different cultures after they conquered them can teach us a few things. The Romans simply convinced many cultural groups to accept Roman rule because of the advantages of 'being Roman'. Roman roads, Roman laws, Roman trade...these things were all superior to the native constructions, and so many cultures took them in. In the meantime, the Romans improved their own culture, and assisted the assimilation of others, by taken many cultural ideas from their conquered neighbors and bringing them into Roman practice. Roman culture evolved through contact, taking in the best it could find, and offering the best to those cultures which could use improvement.

That's my solution to this mess. No forceable assimilations, no super-specialized legal protections (on any side). Just convince others that your culture simply IS the superior one. Export your best ideas, and 'steal' shamelessly from others when appropriate. Instead of challenging people on their own beliefs, show them your own, and convince them yours is better. If you truly believe that people are rational, they will eventually come round to your side.

And you can do it without making arguments that are as irrational as theirs.

AT