Subject: RAH-AIM chat - "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", 20 Apr, 2002
Simon Jester
Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
Dates and times: Saturday, 20 Apr, 2002, 5 PM to 8 PM, EST (note the
abbreviated time; also, no Thursday chat)
Chat Host: ?
Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group chat"
To attend our chats, and any reasonable person is welcome, you may receive
instructions on how to download and use AIM freeware on the website located
at
http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein.html
Email David Silver, ag.pl...@verizon.net or agpl...@aol.com or Dave
Wright, Sr, dwri...@alltel.net if you require further help getting the
freeware or getting into the room.
Are there any Heinlein fans who haven't read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"?
There are probably a few, so for their benefit - and the hypothetical man
from Mars named Smith - here's a short summary:
The book is set in the mid-2070's, and follows the progress of a revolution
in a future lunar colony. The story is told in flashback, from the
viewpoint of one of the main conspirators - Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis.
His main co-conspirators are Wyoming Knott, a firebrand political activist
who starts out trying to foment a popular uprising, before turning to a more
covert form of revolution; Professor Bernardo de la Paz, a political exile
and professional revolutionary; and Mycroft Holmes, a sentient supercomputer
with a sense of humour.
TMiaHM is one of Heinlein's best known and most popular works - it won the
Hugo award for best novel of 1966. It also coined the term TANSTAAFL - an
acronym for "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" - and introduced the
use of kinetic energy weapons (large rocks thrown from orbit, impacting with
the energy of small nuclear bombs), as seen more recently in works such as
"Footfall", by Niven and Pournelle, and the TV series "Babylon 5".
On the other hand, Alexei Panshin thought its main interest was "as
dramatized lecture" on running a revolution.
Some commentators have expressed the opinion that TMiaHM is one of the least
complicated of Heinlein's later works, apparently based on its relatively
straight-forward plot. In my opinion, it shows Heinlein at his best - it
introduces a wide range of concepts so smoothly that the reader doesn't
register the sheer volume of ideas being presented, but simply accepts them.
For example, Heinlein doesn't produce a long exposition on the variety of
human marriage customs and the multiplicity of possible arrangements -
instead, he shows them in practise.
He doesn't preach about the inefficiency of command economies and their
potential for corruption - he demonstrates it.
At one point, he throws out nearly a dozen different ideas for different
forms of representational government - as (IIRC) Spider Robinson has
observed, any one of these could be the basis for a book in its own right.
I also think that the narrator is one of Heinlein's most interesting
characters. Manuel doesn't fit into some critics' stereotype of a Heinlein
character - he isn't a young, muscular supergenius, who knows how the
universe works and why it works. Instead, he is a middle-aged, crippled,
bloody-minded computer technician with no interest in politics. He is also
compassionate enough to talk to a lonely, bored, self-aware computer,
something noone else had done. This is what ensures the success of the
revolution, as it had no chance for success without Mike. Without the
revolution, the Lunar colonies would have devolved into food riots,
cannibalism and mass starvation, as the Moon's very limited resources were
exhausted by an uninterested Earth.
Ultimately, the lives of millions of people are saved by Mannie performing a
small act of compassion.
These are just a few thoughts on a subtly complex book - further points for
discussion would include:
What else could be seen in it?
What strengths and weaknesses?
How does it fit into the development of Heinlein's writing style?
What does it say about Heinlein's politics, given overt approval of a
near-anarchistic system, yet one which eventually turns into a more
conventional form of government?
The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room.
Jackie
news:101785414...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
I hope I'll have time to be there; I just finished reading The Moon is a
Harsh Mistress very recently.
~*~Jackie~*~
David Silver
> Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>
> Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
[snip]
>
> The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
> own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>
I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
if it alludes to nothing much?
Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S.
History.
As to other years:
May 13 -- from the Kiddies' Today in History website
1607:
English colonists led by John Rolfe land near the James River in
Virginia. Disease, starvation, and attacks by Native Americans will
continually threaten the colony's very existence, but it will survive
and eventually thrive.
[That, of course, was the first successful English colony founded in
what became the United States.]
1648: Margaret Jones of Plymouth Colony is found guilty of witchcraft
and is sentenced to be hanged by the neck.
1846: The U.S. finally declares war on Mexico, some two months after the
fighting began.
1821: Samuel Rust of New York City patents the first practical printing
press to be built in the U.S.; up 'til now presses were imported from
Great Britain, France, or Germany.
1888: Brazil becomes the last New World nation to abolish slavery.
1947: In a setback for the U.S. labor movement, the Senate approves the
Taft-Hartley Act, which limits the power of unions.
1968: Peace talks between the U.S. and North Vietnam begin in Paris;
they will drag on for years.
Otherwise, in 1864, the first soldier was buried at Arlington -- a
Confederate who died a POW, btw; and in 1908, Teddy Roosevelt
established a National Parks Act.
But nothing like the Boston Massacre, or anything else to equate to the
Warden's goons attacking the political protest, seems to have occurred
on that date in 1775. Or am I missing something critical, such as
Lexington and Concord? "The shot fired heard 'round the world."
Anyone have any ideas?
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
jump101
I am as puzzled as you, David, but here is my historical list.
Perhaps you can see something in it that i did not.
1373 - Author Julian of Norwich was miraculously healed after a series
of visions. Her works explored the profound mysteries of the
Christian faith and are considered, by some, among the most beautiful
expressions of mysticism of the Middle Ages.
1501 - Merchant/Navigator Amerigo Vespucci sets sail on his second
expedition to the New World.
1637 - The table knife was created by Cardinal Richelieu in France.
Until this time, daggers were used to cut meat, as well as to pick
one's teeth.
1779 - France abandons Goree, West Africa, to Britain.
1809 - French army under Napoleon Bonaparte takes Vienna.
1835 - Death of John Nash, British architect who developed London’s
Regent’s Park and Regent Street.
1842 - Birth of Sir Arthur Sullivan (died 1900), English composer. He
is best known for his collaboration with W.S Gilbert in light operas
that include HMS Pinafore (1878); The Mikado (1885) and The Gondoliers
(1889).
1864 - Battle of Newmarket. 247 cadets of the Virginia Military
Academy marched forward and captured Federal artillery suffering 10
killed and 47 wounded.
1871 - The Law of Guarantees in Italy declares the Pope’s person
inviolable and allows him possession of the Vatican.
1872 - Mother’s Day, begun by Julia Ward Howe. Originally called
Mothers’ Peace Day.
1890 - Nikola Tesla was issued a patent for an electric generator (No.
428,057).
1908 - Navy Nurse Corps established.
1913 - The first four-engine airplane was first built and flown by
Igor Sikorsky of Russia.
1917 - Three peasant children near Fatima, Portugal, reported seeing a
vision of the Virgin Mary.
1932 - France and Japan sign an agreement on commerce in Indochina, in
which some imported products of the two sides receive preferential
duties.
1940 - In his first speech as prime minister of Britain, Winston
Churchill told the House of Commons, "I have nothing to offer but
blood, toil, tears and sweat."
1943 - Bureau of Navigation renamed Bureau of Naval Personnel
1945 - Aircraft from fast carrier task force begin 2-day attack on
Kyushu airfields, Japan
1955 - The Geneva Agreements on Indochina signed on July 20, 1954
following Viet Nam’s victory over the French in Dien Bien Phu, allows
the French in North Viet Nam to re-group to Ben Nghieng Village of Do
Son District, Hai Phong, in preparation for their final evacuation
from Indochina.
Additionally, here is a large list of scientists' births and deaths -
http://www.todayinsci.com/cgi-bin/indexpage.pl?http://todayinsci.tripod.com/5/5_13.htm
Steve
eeg...@exis.net
http://afhpics.mnsdesigns.com/
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/
David Wright
>
> Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
> Dates and times: Saturday, 20 Apr, 2002, 5 PM to 8 PM, EST (note the
> abbreviated time; also, no Thursday chat)
> Chat Host: ?
> Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group chat"
(snip)
>
> The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of
your
> own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>
> See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room.
>
>
For a work that is supposed to be as popular as TMIAHM, I am surprised at
the lack of postings about it.
In any case, I'll throw out a couple of things.
I have always been somewhat surprised that libertarians considered this such
an important work since the end result of the revolution was anything like
what libertarians would like, (at least as far as I understand it).
I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof's 'rational
anarchist' philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at
http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
TMIAHM was a very important step in my finally understanding the fill-in-the
blank technique that RAH used. This came about when I finally cleared up a
25 year old misconception about the use of the term 'tanstaafl'. This lead
directly to the importance of 'unconscious assumptions' when reading him.
David Wright
Peter Scott
David Silver <ag.pl...@verizon.net> writes:
>I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
>if it alludes to nothing much?
>
>Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S.
>History.
Given the context, I suspect a Tuckerism. When did RAH meet Ginny?
--
Peter Scott
Christopher A. Bohn
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, David Wright wrote:
> TMIAHM was a very important step in my finally understanding the fill-in-the
> blank technique that RAH used. This came about when I finally cleared up a
> 25 year old misconception about the use of the term 'tanstaafl'. This lead
> directly to the importance of 'unconscious assumptions' when reading him.
It's easy to misunderstand, just from the spell-out. I've noticed quite a
few people who haven't ready RAH's works interpret TANSTAAFL as synonymous
with "you get what you pay for". While the words alone may suggest the
similarity, there's a much deeper meaning, an implication, of TANSTAAFL.
In my mind, YGWYPF is of limited scope -- you pay $100 for a car, don't
expect it to be in mint condition. TANSTAAFL suggests a deeper
understanding. YGWYPF is a special-case of TANSTAAFL. Some other aspects
of TANSTAAFL that aren't encompassed in YGWYPF:
- Even if you aren't physically paying for goods or services you're using,
someone is. And if it isn't cost-beneficial to them to continue to do
so, they won't pay for them forever. (dot-bomb, anyone?)
- If it is cost-beneficial for someone else to pay for goods or services
you're using, it's because you are paying indirectly. ("...or the
beer would be cheaper.")
- Recognition of an obligation, of personal responsibility, of
stewardship.
-- Debts must be repaid. If you can't repay the debt, don't take on
the debt. Debts need not be repaid monetarily. (Habitat for
Humanity comes to mind)
-- The benefits of society do not come at no cost. Some can be paid
for by governmental revenue. Some require a more personal
acceptance of stewardship. Sometimes as simple as encouraging
good manners by demonstrating them yourself (such as by offering
your seat on a bus to a lady). Sometimes with a commitment of
greater duration, such as the person who becomes a teacher because
an educated society requires teachers, or the person who becomes a
police officer because sometimes police officers are needed when
people forget their obligations to society, or the person who
becomes a public defender because even those who can't afford a
lawyer deserve legal representation in court, or the person who
recognizes that medics are needed even in townships that can't
afford full-time EMTs and so becomes a volunteer EMT.
(You may suspect from the preceding paragraph that I'm an advocate
of public service, and I am. I strongly encourage everyone to
pay something back to society, not necessarily as a profession,
but maybe for a couple years. I'm equally opposed to mandatory
public service, because a virtue isn't a virtue if it's
required, and it is no great demonstration of personal
responsibility to do something when you'll go to jail if you
don't do it.)
Hmm. Seemed to have gotten a bit long-winded there, but that's my
interpretation of TANSTAAFL. Any other interpretations?
Take care,
cb
--
Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ' ** ** " (o) " ** ** '
"Technology and air power are integrally and synergistically
related." - P Meilinger, "Ten Propositions Regarding Air Power"
Nuclear Waste
"David Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CADBB0A...@verizon.net...
> Simon Jester wrote:
>
> > Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
> >
> > Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
> [snip]
> >
> > The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of
your
> > own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
> >
>
> I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
> the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
> if it alludes to nothing much?
The Second Continental Congress ran from May 10, 1775 to March 2, 1789.
For the proceedings of that day, go here.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc0028))
Not sure if there is anything to this, have not read it all yet.
Jim
David Wright
"Nuclear Waste" <baby...@2z.net> wrote in message
news:3cad...@news.2z.net...
It may be stretching it, but the minutes of that day deal with the admission
of a Doctor Lyman Hall from the Parish of St. Johns in Savannah. It would
appear that St. Johns and Dr. Hall were attending in spite of the fact that
Savannah had refused to send delegates. Seems to fit somewhat Profs
characteristics or am I looking too hard?
David W.
David Silver
[snip]
>
> The book is set in the mid-2070's, and follows the progress of a revolution
> in a future lunar colony. The story is told in flashback, from the
> viewpoint of one of the main conspirators - Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis.
>
> His main co-conspirators are Wyoming Knott, a firebrand political activist
> who starts out trying to foment a popular uprising, before turning to a more
> covert form of revolution; Professor Bernardo de la Paz, a political exile
> and professional revolutionary; and Mycroft Holmes, a sentient supercomputer
> with a sense of humour.
>
Simon's asked for "strengths and weaknesses." Try these:
I'm reading my copy of TMiaHM for the last time. It cost 95 cents 34
years ago, and it's flaking small pieces of yellow-brown acid-based
paper this time. Time enough for a new one; and I'm reading it in a
definitely contrarian mood this time: the "firebrand political activist"
doesn't appeal to me as much as previously, her beauty and long sad tale
of undeserved injury by Authority notwithstanding. Knott is a severely
damaged piece of goods, mentally and emotionally. She's obsessed with a
personal desire for revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she blames
for a radiation-damaged child born her.
Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's vessel
shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a cyborg, so she only
blames him incidentally. He beat the storm, but evidently forgot or it
didn't matter to sterilized him that a quarantine period was required on
the ground -- four hours, and so emigrants were exposed to excess
radiation. Her position is three million people should have been exposed
to plague. Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable
governmental placements of the individual over society she discusses
with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles. Years later her
child was born a physical defective. The "monster" as she calls it, "had
to be destroyed." In the decades before TMiaHM was written, thousands of
children were born physically damaged as a result of the too-early
certification of thalidimide. As Manuel quietly points out at first
mention of this motivation, she might much more easily tried again for a
child as the radiation damaged egg might easily be succeeded next time
with a healtthy one. In a population of three million, assuming two
males to one female there must have been hundreds of women incapable of
conception whatever. Knott instead took the drastic step of having her
tubes tied, divorcing both husbands, and sinking herself into a lifetime
of plotting injury to Authority.
Knott doesn't particularly care whom she injures in her thirst for
revenge either. Humans, except those few who have entered into the
conspiracy with her, really aren't human to her -- as she's worried
about is whether Manuel's 'friend,' the sentient computer, can feel
pain. Assured he cannot, she's content to blow the central complex
containing Michael Holmes to smithereens. To hell with how many 'finks'
for authority she kills, disrupting Authority is what counts. Give this
woman a bomb to strap to her chest, and she'd walk into a wedding if it
would cause sufficient damange to Authority. She's a classic terrorist,
safe as fulminate of mercury to be around, driven by her permanent
bloodlust for revenge. Propose any damage against Authority and her
answer to you would be the pun on her name, "Why not."
Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn't simply a romatic figure. Forget the
happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite manners, He's not
romantic at all, but simply an old murderer. Look what admittedly was
among the cause of his exile: "in my younger or bomb-throwing days my
experience was limited to something on the order of the one-kilogram
chemical explosive of which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know
what you're talking about." In a disarmed society, who is the one person
in that meeting who pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna
at enormous cost? Who knows the "Istanbul twist"? Who first defines the
revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle of
"terrorism?"Who set the tone? Call them "yellow jackets" all you wish.
The simple fact is nine cops out of a police force of twenty-seven in a
population of three million attempted to declare an unlawful assembly
and arrest its participants, perhaps for sedition. They all died
immediately except one, taken wounded. His was murdered, helpless. And
their principal murderer -- he accounted for at least three himself --
directed their bodies be ground up and flushed down a sewer. ["Their
mates went out on an easy mission. _Nothing_ came back."] No wonder they
snatched him up and tossed him in a bag the one day he went for a stroll
undisguised in Lima, Peru. He's lucky he wasn't hanged summarily.
Bernardo de la Paz: "Bernard," from Bernhart, Old High German ["bero"
meaning bear + "hart" meaning bold or HARD]. Hard Bear of Peace. Peace
is a truce. Deacon told Rod Walker to beware the Truce of the Bear,
didn't he? This disarmingly named de la Paz has devoted his life to his
first profession as devoutly as Yassir Arafat. Even Dub-yah has finally
got his number.
This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn't it? I'm
not sure I like these two characters, "the old murderer" and the "blonde
bombshell bomber," even if food riots are to come in seven years, with
cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer
Manuel is kind to.
What do you think?
David Silver
Did I say this?
>
> Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable
> governmental placements of the *individual* over *society* she discusses
> with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles.
>
Naw, impossible! It was some unidentified being (probably Mike Holmes)
controlling input to this newsgroup that reversed the word "society"
with "individual" to make me read like a contrarian idiot. Read it
t'other way! Where's that proof reader's advertisement, James?
Simon Jester
...
> This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn't it? I'm
> not sure I like these two characters, "the old murderer" and the "blonde
> bombshell bomber," even if food riots are to come in seven years, with
> cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer
> Manuel is kind to.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> David M. Silver
> http://www.heinleinsociety.org
> http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
> "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
> Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
> Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>
OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of
the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of "armed
violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female type", etc,
and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.
Mannie has no qualms about using the central computer - which controlled
air, water, humidity, temperature and sewage for several cities - for his
personal gain (initially, purely monetary). The computer was already
sufficiently overloaded to have started behaving very erratically - having
acquired a "sense of humour" - yet rather than try to "fix" it, Mannie
encourages it to become still more erratic. He puts several million (?)
people at risk purely to boost his consulting fees.
When Mannie attends his first revolution meeting, he is only allowed in
because a convicted murderer describes him by saying "He's as mean as they
come." The same murderer is last seen killing two cops by smacking their
heads together so hard that they "popped like eggs."
Throughout the revolution, Mannie shows no compunction about using either
small children or his own family as pawns in the struggle against the
Authority.
At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with
the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn't
kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under many tons of
falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water shots"? I don't know
about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the
tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do
more than make a few bridges wet.
In short, Mannie is a violent, vicious, ruthless, self-centred thug.
What a bunch for a decent aristocrat to fall in with...
;-)
Simon
--
tanstaafl
Simon Jester
...
> I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof's 'rational
> anarchist' philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at
> http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying:
"My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and
they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as
a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement:
"Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do."
Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small
(1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.
Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual.
Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is "simply an
old murderer". Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational
Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this
a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?
Simon
--
"There is no such thing as 'Society'; there are only individuals, and their
families."
James Nicoll
Simon Jester <simon...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of
>the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of "armed
>violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female type", etc,
>and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.
But lots of people romanticise ancestors they might not want
to be in the same room with, so I don't think this counts as strongly
as your other points.
snip
>At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with
>the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn't
>kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under many tons of
>falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water shots"? I don't know
>about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the
>tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do
>more than make a few bridges wet.
Hmmm. Impact physics is different from nuclear weapon physics
(less energy goes into light and other EMR and more into kinetic
energy so you get bigger holes and fewer fires). Luckily I don't
have to guess using _The Effects of Nuclear Weapons_ because I have
_Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids_ handy.
Says here on page 787 that the depth of the body of water
limits the size of the wave and that a larger fraction of the energy
of the object ends up driving the tsunami in smaller impacts than
in large ones. The Loonies used little ones, right, about Hiroshima
sized?
The equation given for the full height h of the terminal wave
for an impact Y at distance r in shallow water of depth d is given as
h = 1450 meter (d/r) (Y/gigaton)^0.25
So a 10 kt pop a km away in 10 meter water would result in
a wave a bit under a meter tall. If they hit a deep part of the Thames
(Well, after the first shot, that bit _will_ be deeper) the wave will
be larger. Note that wave height drops linearly with distance from
the impact spot (Which is why waves generated by a quake in Chile can
kill people in Japan). Also, you can get standing waves which don't
drop much with distance if the river/canal is shaped correctly, so
although the numbers I get are small, they also may be wrong, under-
estimating the damage.
They give a very rough rule of thumb for how far inland such a
wave will run which is
X = 1.0 km (h/10 meters)^4/3
So assumimg that's right, the wave will go around 30 meters
inland. Annoying but not all that bad, really. Wouldn't surprise me
if the original catpult was designed with a maximum payload such
that the worst side-effects of a bungle launch were tolerable unless
it actually hit a city. Even in MisHM, most of the land surface
would be unoccupied.
Of course, maybe the Loonies can pack more energy into
the playload (More mass or a higher velocity) than they did. A
1 MT pop in 100 meter water (In the Channel, say) would give you
a 25 meter wave a km away, which might run as far as 3.4 km inland.
_That_ would be annoying. Focussed by running up a river bed might
be worse. Landing it offshore of Bangladesh, where the average
land height is low, the slopes shallow and the rule of thumb given
above way round on the low side would be very bad. I can't recall,
did they hit the subcontinent?
James Nicoll
--
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
djinn
Wow, he could come to earth and work for Andersen!!
> What a bunch for a decent aristocrat to fall in with...
> ;-)
>
> Simon
> --
Manny seemed to have 'practical' ethics. He looked after himself and his
family, Helped out fellow lunies but expected payback. Had no qualms about
shoving someone out an airlock if they wouldn't pay a debt.
His word was good enough for the stilyagi to select him as a judge, and to
accept his ruling.
So in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen.
In LA or London or Sydney he'd be considered dangerous and unruly, unless
he went into politics or corporate management.
David Silver
"Simon Jester" <simon...@freeuk.com> wrote in
news:10181824...@eos.uk.clara.net:
> David Silver wrote:
>> [snip comments I wrote concerning "unsavoriness" of character
>> of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz]
> [snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless-
> ness of Manuel O'Kelley Davis]
[snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis' "'practical'" ethics
and fact that "in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen."]
What's most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs
we've used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and
Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to
defend them. These three portrayed by Heinlein don't sound very much
like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, do they? Not
even much like those more 'radical firebrands' Thomas Paine, Samuel
Adams, Patrick Henry?
The winners write history but, surely, agents of agitprop such as Paine,
Samuel Adams, and Henry cannot have been white-washed that much, can
they? Or not? What exactly was it that "fiery" Samuel Adams did? He had
a lot to do with mobs forming, including the one that provided the
victims of the Boston Massacre that Prof de la Paz keeps looking to find.
What surprises me about the plot of TMiaHM is how so little detail is
portrayed of the consequences of the agitprop employed between the time
the conspiracy is formed between Knott, de la Paz, Davis and Adam Selene
and the "rape-murder" of Marie Lyons, the stock control clerk living in
the Authority Complex.
That's an odd name evocation, btw. Seems to me, iirc, the collaborating
Vichy government permitted the Nazis to ship quite a few suspected
marquis along with huge numbers of 'lesser' subhumans out of Lyons to
the camps in the East for 'final solution' as resistance to the Nazis
grew among the French during World War II.
All we're told in TMiaHM is it became popular to engage in derision
further undermining Authority (vicious humor and counterfeiting of
passports), and occasional murders of isolated F.N. occupation troops
occurred. No bombs exploded in the Authority complex among the 'civil
servants,' despite Knott's fiery inclinations and the Prof's youthful
murderous bomb-thrower history. A bit of bribery of folk in high places
and collection of petitions by the chronic petition signers occurs, but
otherwise attempts to generate sympathy for the Loonies on Earth before
the Lyons rape-murder seem scanty.
What's really odd is how Heinlein portrayed no immediate reprisals by
Mort the Wart and Alvarez. When the French Marquis killed the odd
soldier in occupied Vichy, in would wheel a battalion of S.S. and they'd
pick one out of ten men from the nearest village and put them up against
the wall, execute them along with the mayor, the city council, and
leading citizens; and then they'd ship half of the rest of the town East
to the "labor camps."
Look at the activities of the Spaniards under General Weyler against the
insurgency set off by Marti in Cuba just before the Spanish-American War
of 1898. Then take a look at the British under Kitchener against the
Boers in Orange and Transvaal and the Americans under Bell against the
Filipinos in the Visayas a scant year or four later. They all may not
have executed one out of ten, but villages were put to the torch, fields
and wealth was laid waste, the first "concentration camps" were
employed, refugees starved, and the insurgent populations died in
numbers far exceeding dead occupation troops.
Instead Heinlein portrays leadership on both sides as acting very nearly
benignly, controlling natural bloody reactions. It simplifies things, of
course; and it also evokes reader sympathy for the co-conspirators.
There's not even a mild, nearly idealized Tea Party in Boston Harbor.
That's a fairly antiseptic viewpoint of steps leading up to rebellion.
By comparison both _Sixth Column_ and _"If This Goes On ..."_ seem a bit
more bloody and, possibly, far more a realistic portrayal of insurgency.
Heinlein once wrote that his reluctance of writing the true facts
necessary to sustain a rebellion was one reason why he never wrote "The
Stone Pillow." It's pretty plain to me his reluctance to really portray
a rebellion continued to this later effort.
Is this abbreviated reality a weakness of the novel? Or is a strength
for the purposes to which Heinlein wrote? Simon noted that one putative
critic seems to think TMiaHM is merely a manual on how to conduct a
revolution. Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you
think Heinlein may have had?
djinn
> djinn wrote:
>
> "Simon Jester" <simon...@freeuk.com> wrote in
> news:10181824...@eos.uk.clara.net:
>
> > David Silver wrote:
>
> >> [snip comments I wrote concerning "unsavoriness" of character
> >> of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz]
>
> > [snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless-
> > ness of Manuel O'Kelley Davis]
>
> [snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis' "'practical'" ethics
> and fact that "in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen."]
>
<snip rather detailed discussion of horrors of rebellion. - for brevity>
I know that history whitewashes quite a bit. I grew up in a part of the US
that was mainly Loyalist during the Revolution. Local history is
studied in schools there. There was a lot of terror, evening of grudges and
uprooting going on. Augusta, Georgia changed hands several times, each
change involved getting rid of 'collaborators' with the other side. Local
history is quite bloody and not much of it is included in general histories
of the Revolution.
And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans' March to the Sea.
the history books do describe that.
>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you
> think Heinlein may have had?
>
>
David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a
working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current
interest in how limited government economy might work.
David Silver
[snip]
> <snip rather detailed discussion of horrors of rebellion. - for brevity> I know that history whitewashes quite a bit. I grew up in a part of the US
> that was mainly Loyalist during the Revolution. Local history is
> studied in schools there. There was a lot of terror, evening of grudges and
> uprooting going on. Augusta, Georgia changed hands several times, each
> change involved getting rid of 'collaborators' with the other side. Local
> history is quite bloody and not much of it is included in general histories
> of the Revolution.
>
James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of them all
to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts serving
out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of course, but a
number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and Irish following
the "troubles" involving the Stuarts.
[The funniest thing, to me (and I am weird), in TMiaHM is Wyoh Knott's
knotheaded characterization of the complex 'civil servants' as "finks"
for Authority. Most are as much convicts as any of Mannie's ancestors,
selected for their skills and assigned 'fink' jobs, rather than to the
labor camps where ninety percent will die before they learn to use their
P-suits. She distinguishes 'contracting' with from direct slavery to the
largest employer available. How kind of her! How knotheaded and
simple-minded, also. The "crack" F.N. "peace-keeping" troops are also
convicts. What's the difference between convicts? Which end of the gun
pointed which way he's on? And the fact that one wears a yellow uniform
or regimentals while the other wears a denim jumpsuit? The boy from
Shropshire with white belts crossing his scarlet uniform on his chest
shoots his Brown Bess at the boy from Concord wearing farming clothing
who shoots his squirrel rifle back? Or vice-a-versa?]
> And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans' March to the Sea.
> the history books do describe that.
>
Or as we beknighted children from the North used to sing gleefully in
grammer school: "Tramp, tramp, tramp, the boys are marching . . . " ;-(
Rebellion's a tough business to get into, and get out of. Took us more
than a century, hasn't it? The reason there were few, if any families of
Southern sympathies, in the part of Missouri in which Heinlein was born
was the Union Army disposed and cleared the area of everyone during the
war. Heinlein's family, just as Maureen Johnson's, moved down and
settled it after the war from the Northern States and Union areas.
>
>>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you
>>think Heinlein may have had?
>>
>>
>>
> David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a
> working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current
> interest in how limited government economy might work.
>
"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
djinn
>
>
> James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of them
> all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts
> serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of
> course, but a number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and
> Irish following the "troubles" involving the Stuarts.
>
Yes, there were some resemblences. Religious dissenters, convicts,
political prisoners. Oglethorpe made sure the colony was well-planned and
supplied though, so there was a difference. The 'Authority' in Georgia was
fairly well liked. HM government less so, partially because the British
government had decided slavery was a Bad Thing.
> [The funniest thing, to me (and I am weird), in TMiaHM is Wyoh Knott's
> knotheaded characterization of the complex 'civil servants' as "finks"
> for Authority. Most are as much convicts as any of Mannie's ancestors,
> selected for their skills and assigned 'fink' jobs, rather than to the
> labor camps where ninety percent will die before they learn to use
> their P-suits. She distinguishes 'contracting' with from direct
> slavery to the largest employer available. How kind of her! How
> knotheaded and simple-minded, also. The "crack" F.N. "peace-keeping"
> troops are also convicts. What's the difference between convicts?
> Which end of the gun pointed which way he's on? And the fact that one
> wears a yellow uniform or regimentals while the other wears a denim
> jumpsuit? The boy from Shropshire with white belts crossing his
> scarlet uniform on his chest shoots his Brown Bess at the boy from
> Concord wearing farming clothing who shoots his squirrel rifle back?
> Or vice-a-versa?]
>
She probably would have been at home on a Georgia plantation. Damn
government might ban slavery! Revolt!. She would have been happy to hang
the Militia, which remained loyalist in a large part, and supported the
Patriot irregulars.
Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he
didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an
interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom
rather the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see what happens.
The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict. Everyone hated
the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. Real revolts ususally involve a
bit of back-stabbing and grudge resolving.
>
>> And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans' March to the
>> Sea. the history books do describe that.
>>
>
>
Heinlein's family, just as Maureen Johnson's,
> moved down and settled it after the war from the Northern States and
> Union areas.
>
It might be interesting to some here that apparently my family's farm
wasn't burned in the MttS because Sherman used the farmhouse as HQ for a
day or two. There was a Masonic emblem on the wall of the room, so he
ordered that the house be left intact. Widows and orphans, you see...
(The major farm animals were hidden in the swamp 'til he was gone - great-
great grandma was a Heinlein Woman ).
>
>>
>>>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you
>>>think Heinlein may have had?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched
>> in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his
>> current interest in how limited government economy might work.
>>
>
>
> "Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
>
It worked in TMIAHM....
Beats me. From what I've read and heard of the early days in Georgia things
were somewhat like the Lunar Colony. They haven't stayed that way,
although I still know of people who resemble Mannie in some ways. They
regarding laws, especially Federal laws, as inconveniences for instance. (
not that I know anything about this of course). Even in Moon, Mannie starts
off regretting that things have changed since the early days.
I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the
opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes in how
much regulation.
David Silver
[snip]
> Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he
> didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an
> interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom
> [he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see
> what happens.
If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is
the only justification apparent. Other than the 'slavery' that all seem
to 'labor' under -- of course Mannie's family doesn't seem to be doing
too badly, except for the limited responsibility they evidence to anyone
outside their immediate family. Some might call that a slave mentality.
Cf. Mentok in Farnham's Freehold. He probably enjoys a fat choice cut
from Ponce's table every once in a while too.
> The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict. Everyone hated
> the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. Real revolts ususally involve a
> bit of back-stabbing and grudge resolving.
>
None of the active loyalists survive in TMiaHM, not even the guy who
lasted a few months by changing his name and habitat. No Halifax or
Bermuda handy to flee to. I wonder if, after the war, there were any
"cases on Hunter's Estate" in the Loonie Courts.
> It might be interesting to some here that apparently my family's farm
> wasn't burned in the MttS because Sherman used the farmhouse as HQ for a
> day or two. There was a Masonic emblem on the wall of the room, so he
> ordered that the house be left intact. Widows and orphans, you see...
> (The major farm animals were hidden in the swamp 'til he was gone - great-
> great grandma was a Heinlein Woman ).
>
I wonder how many folk notice the Square and Compass device "Turkey
Creek Jack" whatever'snamewas wore around his neck in Kevin Costner's
version of Wyatt Earp? That might have prevented someone from bayoneting
or shooting him again in the belly after he'd been shot down during
the Civil War, or even during the war between Earps and the Clantons. Or
using the Istanbul Twist on him, as the old murderer de la Paz does to
the wounded yellow jacket early on.
>>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched
>>>in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his
>>>current interest in how limited government economy might work.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
>>
>>
> It worked in TMIAHM....
>
> Beats me. From what I've read and heard of the early days in Georgia things
> were somewhat like the Lunar Colony. They haven't stayed that way,
> although I still know of people who resemble Mannie in some ways. They
> regarding laws, especially Federal laws, as inconveniences for instance. (
> not that I know anything about this of course). Even in Moon, Mannie starts
> off regretting that things have changed since the early days.
>
> I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the
> opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes in how
> much regulation.
>
This, of course, is the 'sexy' issue in TMiaHM, today. More on it later.
Let's see if we can entice someone else to weigh in here. :) There must
be a big-L libertarian out there?
James Nicoll
David Silver <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>djinn wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>> Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he
>> didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an
>> interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom
>> [he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see
>
>> what happens.
>
>If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is
>the only justification apparent.
It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that
Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots
of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on
the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee,
the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.
If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through
Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's
family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow
in an ocean.
David Silver
> In article <3CB10FF2...@verizon.net>,
> David Silver <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>djinn wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he
>>>didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an
>>>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom
>>>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see
>>>
>>>what happens.
>>>
>>If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is
>>the only justification apparent.
>>
>
> It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that
> Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots
> of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on
> the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee,
> the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.
>
> If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through
> Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's
> family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow
> in an ocean.
>
Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who
really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with
Laz and gang in The Cat, didn't you? A measure of real importance! <eg>
That was quite an illuminating discussion of impact physics upthread,
James. Thank you for it. :-)
James Nicoll
And it explains why Mike became sentient when no other computer
of a similar type ever sprouted intelligence. Answer: he didn't, it was
all a dwarf in a box moving the chess pieces.
It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though.
After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which
suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a
dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock,
accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto
the surface...
Mannie seems displeased with how things evolved after the revolution
but that is generally the base with revolutions. He's lucky he didn't end up
a revered statesman like Lenin did, carefully preserved in a box.
>That was quite an illuminating discussion of impact physics upthread,
>James. Thank you for it. :-)
No problem. I recommend all of the University of Arizona
space series. Lots of crunchy numbers and eqns to play with.
David Silver
Interesting site, Jim. Looks like "all" that happened that Saturday was
a delegate from Georgia showed up and presented his credentials, despite
the fact that a majority of parishes in Georgia had voted not to attend
the Continental Congress. That parish (St. Johns') later changed its
name to "Liberty County." Dave Jennings' note on Georgian history, that
large amounts of loyalist sentiment existed, may explain some of this
reluctance to join the Second Continental Congress. Nova Scotia, the
fourteenth colony, voted and stayed the other way, despite efforts to
entice them to include themselves in rebellion. That fact that a lot of
Tory families fled to Nova Scotia may have had something to do with that
as well.
David Silver
> "Simon Jester" <simon...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:101785414...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
>
snip]
>>
>>See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room.
>>
>
> I hope I'll have time to be there; I just finished reading The Moon is a
> Harsh Mistress very recently.
>
> ~*~Jackie~*~
We really do, too, Jackie. Don't let the fact that some of us are
amusing ourselves playing "been there, done that" with weird theories
about the novel disuade you.
We really are capable of also discussing "straight" questions concerning
TMiaHM in these upcoming couple weeks, if you care to pose any. ;-)
Dee
news:3CB0F77B...@verizon.net...
> James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of them all
> to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts serving
> out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of course, but a
> number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and Irish following
> the "troubles" involving the Stuarts.
BTW, the original colony forbade slavery, "papists", and lawyers. None
of the prohibitions lasted.
--Dee
Simon Jester
> In article <10181824...@eos.uk.clara.net>,
> Simon Jester <simon...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>
> >OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of
> >the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of
"armed
> >violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female type",
etc,
> >and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.
>
> But lots of people romanticise ancestors they might not want
> to be in the same room with, so I don't think this counts as strongly
> as your other points.
>
True - but the ancestors I was discussing were grandparents, not more
distant ancestors. (Mannie did also mention more remote ancestors, such as
an "ancestress hanged in Salem for witchcraft, a g'g'g'greatgrandfather
broken on wheel for piracy, another ancestress in first shipload to Botany
Bay".)
>
> snip
>
> >At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons
with
> >the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land
wouldn't
> >kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under many tons of
> >falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water shots"? I don't know
> >about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the
> >tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do
> >more than make a few bridges wet.
>
> Hmmm. Impact physics is different from nuclear weapon physics
> (less energy goes into light and other EMR and more into kinetic
> energy so you get bigger holes and fewer fires). Luckily I don't
> have to guess using _The Effects of Nuclear Weapons_ because I have
> _Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids_ handy.
>
> Says here on page 787 that the depth of the body of water
> limits the size of the wave and that a larger fraction of the energy
> of the object ends up driving the tsunami in smaller impacts than
> in large ones. The Loonies used little ones, right, about Hiroshima
> sized?
When the cabal initially start discussing "throwing rocks" (at the start of
chapter 8), a mass of 100 tonnes is initially discussed, producing a yield
approaching a two-kilotonne detonation. I can't find any other figures for
the size of rocks used. IIRC, the Hiroshima bomb was circa 15 kilotonnes.
>
> The equation given for the full height h of the terminal wave
> for an impact Y at distance r in shallow water of depth d is given as
>
>
> h = 1450 meter (d/r) (Y/gigaton)^0.25
>
> So a 10 kt pop a km away in 10 meter water would result in
> a wave a bit under a meter tall. If they hit a deep part of the Thames
> (Well, after the first shot, that bit _will_ be deeper) the wave will
> be larger.
Well, I feel silly.
There's no indication that London would get more than one shot. The only
nations likely to receive multiple shots were the seven veto powers, of
which Mitteleuropa is the only nation that England would seem likely to
join. OTOH, Belgium and Holland are explicitly mentioned as independant
nations, so it seems more likely that Britain (or England) is also
independant.
The Loonie warnings for the Thames shot stated that the impact would be
"north of Dover Straits opposite London Estuary". Looking at the map of
England in my atlas, this makes an impact at roughly 1.5 degrees East by
51.5 degrees North seem most probable.
The depth of the water at this point is indicated no more precisely than
between 0 and 50m. It is a long way from any deeper water, so probably not
much more than 20m.
The closest town to the impact would be Margate, on the Kent coast, which
would be roughly 15km away. (Central London would be roughly 110km away, as
the pig flies.) The height of the waves at Margate would therefore be circa
7cm high (approx 3 inches), given a 2 kt impact.
OTOH, the Loonies warn that the impact "would cause disturbances far up
Thames".
If the impact was significantly further west, it could produce much higher
waves, as the shape of the river could "funnel" the disturbances.
> Note that wave height drops linearly with distance from
> the impact spot (Which is why waves generated by a quake in Chile can
> kill people in Japan). Also, you can get standing waves which don't
> drop much with distance if the river/canal is shaped correctly, so
> although the numbers I get are small, they also may be wrong, under-
> estimating the damage.
>
> They give a very rough rule of thumb for how far inland such a
> wave will run which is
>
> X = 1.0 km (h/10 meters)^4/3
>
> So assumimg that's right, the wave will go around 30 meters
> inland. Annoying but not all that bad, really. Wouldn't surprise me
> if the original catpult was designed with a maximum payload such
> that the worst side-effects of a bungle launch were tolerable unless
> it actually hit a city. Even in MisHM, most of the land surface
> would be unoccupied.
>
> Of course, maybe the Loonies can pack more energy into
> the playload (More mass or a higher velocity) than they did. A
> 1 MT pop in 100 meter water (In the Channel, say) would give you
> a 25 meter wave a km away, which might run as far as 3.4 km inland.
> _That_ would be annoying. Focussed by running up a river bed might
> be worse. Landing it offshore of Bangladesh, where the average
> land height is low, the slopes shallow and the rule of thumb given
> above way round on the low side would be very bad. I can't recall,
> did they hit the subcontinent?
>
Both land and sea targets - India was one of the veto powers. It isn't clear
whether any of these would have been offshore of (what is currently)
Bangladesh - it has a relatively short coastline, compared to India or even
Pakistan.
The Indian government was furious over the fish killed.
Simon
Simon Jester
> >> It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that
> >> Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots
> >> of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on
> >> the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee,
> >> the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.
> >>
> >> If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through
> >> Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's
> >> family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow
> >> in an ocean.
> >>
[David Silver:]
> >Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who
> >really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with
> >Laz and gang in The Cat, didn't you? A measure of real importance! <eg>
[James Nicoll:]
> And it explains why Mike became sentient when no other computer
> of a similar type ever sprouted intelligence. Answer: he didn't, it was
> all a dwarf in a box moving the chess pieces.
Possibly - but I don't think Mannie could successfully have preprogrammed
Mike for Mychelle's chats with Wyoh.
(I wish I could think of a pun involving Young Turk revolutionaries.)
> It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though.
> After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which
> suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a
> dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock,
> accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto
> the surface...
...
Even if Wyoh had figured it out, why should it matter? The revolution turned
her into a hero and fulfilled her political aims; afterwards, it would not
have been in her interest to reveal the deception.
Simon
Simon Jester
> djinn wrote:
...
> > David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in
a
> > working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current
> > interest in how limited government economy might work.
> >
>
>
> "Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
>
This brings me to an aspect of TMiaHM I've been considering for a while.
Most discussion of the book's real life inspiration has centred around the
American revolution.
This may be true of some of the characters and the politics involved - but
there are certain other aspects which seem quite different.
One aspect is that the Lunar colonies are portrayed as being on the very
edge of sustainability, particularly with regards to water. By contrast, the
American colonies were not just self-sustaining, but quite rich in
resources.
Another aspect is size and position - Prof envisages Luna's future as being
the gateway between a rich, much larger planet and the rest of the solar
system. By the time of independence, the American colonies were much larger
than the Old Country.
Is it just coincidence that one of the largest Lunar colonies is called Hong
Kong Luna?
TMiaHM was written in the mid-1960's, pretty close to the historical high
water-mark for socialist economics. At the time, Hong Kong had possibly the
most limited government interference in its economy anywhere in the world.
Hong Kong also combined minimal government interference and free speech with
minimal political power for the inhabitants - Britain imposed a governor and
that was that.
I believe Hong Kong was also dependent on mainland China for its fresh water
supplies.
Not only that, but the main reason for the colony's existence was to act as
a deep water port - IIRC, the name Hong Kong means "Fragrant Harbour".
Consequently, given its history and location, it was (and is) ideally placed
to act as a gateway for trade between China and the West.
Any comments?
James Nicoll
Simon Jester <simon...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
snip differences between Luna and the Thirteen Colonies
>Another aspect is size and position - Prof envisages Luna's future as being
>the gateway between a rich, much larger planet and the rest of the solar
>system. By the time of independence, the American colonies were much larger
>than the Old Country.
>
>Is it just coincidence that one of the largest Lunar colonies is called Hong
>Kong Luna?
>
>TMiaHM was written in the mid-1960's, pretty close to the historical high
>water-mark for socialist economics. At the time, Hong Kong had possibly the
>most limited government interference in its economy anywhere in the world.
>
>Hong Kong also combined minimal government interference and free speech with
>minimal political power for the inhabitants - Britain imposed a governor and
>that was that.
>
>I believe Hong Kong was also dependent on mainland China for its fresh water
>supplies.
>
>Not only that, but the main reason for the colony's existence was to act as
>a deep water port - IIRC, the name Hong Kong means "Fragrant Harbour".
>Consequently, given its history and location, it was (and is) ideally placed
>to act as a gateway for trade between China and the West.
>
>Any comments?
If Earth is China, who do you see as the West? What offworld
markets are there in MiaHM?
I don't think HK is the right analog. Maybe some historical asshole
of the universe frontier town which is unpleasant but which is conveniently
situated to send expeditionary missions out from.
Anyone watching _Shackleford_ on A&E? I'm thinking of the various
sealing and whaling stations around the Antarctic circle. Nasty places
to live but useful as expedition bases. Except there are no Antarctic
colonies at present, so maybe not the best analogy.
One long term problem that the Loonies would face is that
other places are easier to get to Earth from and can get to Earth
easier than the Moon. Some bright fellow may get the idea of building
facilities there, to take some of the business away from the Moon.
Teresa Redmond
<ag.pl...@verizon.net> quoth:
>djinn wrote:
>
>"Simon Jester" <simon...@freeuk.com> wrote in
>news:10181824...@eos.uk.clara.net:
>
> > David Silver wrote:
>
> >> [snip comments I wrote concerning "unsavoriness" of character
> >> of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz]
>
> > [snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless-
> > ness of Manuel O'Kelley Davis]
>
>[snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis' "'practical'" ethics
>and fact that "in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen."]
>
>What's most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs
>we've used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and
>Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to
>defend them.
It's surprising to me, as well, since I figured I was the only one who
felt that way about them. I read Moon with a touch of distaste, every
time, because I can't imagine being like these people. Lately, it
makes me think of the Middle East crisis, with one side claiming it's
putting down terrorism (while at the same time practicing
assassination) and the other side claiming it's fighting occupation
(while extremists kill innocent people). Neither side has anything
beneficial about what they're doing, in my eyes, but then again, I'm
not there experiencing it, so who am I to even have an opinion on
it???
In that light, thinking of Moon and the characters, I must say that I
agree with the assessment of Mannie as greedy, uncaring of his fellow
man (with exceptions, but a general uncaring), and pretty ruthless.
His rationalization of how to get bigger consulting fees makes me very
uncomfortable, and it gets worse from there. I just get caught up in
the story, and try to ignore those things. Then comes Wyoh, who is so
willing to just kill everyone, very vindictive, not likable at all.
The cutesy way she acts with Mannie and Mike just make me want to be
sick. Prof is the only one I can be comfortable with, he doesn't seem
to make excuses for everything. I don't see him rationalizing his
behavior, or his ideals, but I'm also writing from memory--the book is
not right here with me! :-)
But I think it's one of those things that RAH did so well, getting us
to identify with unsavory characters as "heroes". Think of Alex, how
much we dislike his "beliefs", but it's a good story! (IMNSHO) Then
there's Hugh, whom a few here dislike, but even so, it's a good story.
(once again, IMNSHO)
Every revolution has death, treachery, vindictiveness, all that. At
least, so far as I have heard... All stories have at least one more
point of view than however many people "witnessed" it...
Okay, enough rambling for now, you know how I go with a tangent (or
three) sometimes! :-)
--
~teresa~
^..^ "Never try to outstubborn a cat." Robert A. Heinlein ^..^
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ & http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/
"Blert!!!" quoth Pixel, a small, yellow cat.
email me at pixelmeow at aol dot com or yahoo dot com
MSN messenger ID = pixe...@passport.com
Yahoo Messenger ID = pixe...@yahoo.com
AIM id = pixelmeow
TreetopAngel
"David Silver" performs his own form of agitprop:
> What's most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs
> we've used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and
> Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to
> defend them.
Here Fishy,Fishy...:)
Actually I have taken your "vicious slurs" and am using that lens as I read
the book over again. As yet I have not formed a complete and intelligent
response. My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my
own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory
types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes,
that it makes me and mine "bad people." But, then I am doing what I just
stated, looking at characters I have always had respect for and putting the
"criminal" focus on them. I have just got to the part when Manny and Prof
return to Luna...am off to finish the book (most likely fall asleep) and
formulate some rational response.
Elizabeth
(make me think will ya!)
dont be fuelish
>David Silver <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote
>> James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of
>> them all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled
>> convicts serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic
>> crimes, of course, but a number of political exiles, including
>> disposed Scots and Irish following the "troubles" involving the
>> Stuarts.
>Yes, there were some resemblences. Religious dissenters, convicts,
>political prisoners. Oglethorpe made sure the colony was well-
>planned and supplied though, so there was a difference. The
>'Authority' in Georgia was fairly well liked. HM government
>less so, partially because the British government had decided
>slavery was a Bad Thing.
It's a funny thing, but the Technology guy at the top of the heap
when I worked for AOL was a guy named Oglethorpe. The first
time I mentioned him to my father, he wanted to know if that
Oglethorpe was related to the Georgia Aristocracy from the Prison
Colony days. I gave him a "how should I know?" type of response,
which he found very insufficient. I'm still curious. It would be
something if it turned out that burried in the corporate oligarchy
is a batch of closet blue bloods....
>The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict.
>Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies.
>Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and
>grudge resolving.
That's what all the yammerheads were doing. Mannie
avoided that stuff, so we didn't get to read about it.
>I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the
>opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes
>in how much regulation.
Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too
minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think
California culture is based on the idea "lets run away as soon as
somebody says 'government'."
Tian Harter
--
http://tian.greens.org
Saturday I saw the San Jose EarthQuakes beat the New England
Revolution 2 to 1 at Spartan Stadium. Going in the gate, they
gave everyone a #1 FAN ring comemorating their becoming
2001 MLS Champions on 10/21/01.
Mac
>> It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though.
>> After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which
>> suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a
>> dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock,
>> accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto
>> the surface...
Mannie that Wyoh died years later (although early by Loonie
standards) of cancer arising from her enforced stay on the
surface when first brought to the Moon?
---Mac
djinn
news:20020408150134...@mb-ml.aol.com:
> djinn wrote:
>
>
> It's a funny thing, but the Technology guy at the top of the heap
> when I worked for AOL was a guy named Oglethorpe. The first
> time I mentioned him to my father, he wanted to know if that
> Oglethorpe was related to the Georgia Aristocracy from the Prison
> Colony days. I gave him a "how should I know?" type of response,
> which he found very insufficient. I'm still curious. It would be
> something if it turned out that burried in the corporate oligarchy
> is a batch of closet blue bloods....
>
The General himself didn't stay in GA. Don't believe any of his descendents
did.
Georgia was less a prison colony than an experiment by social reformers.
Very few of the colonists were violent criminals. There were debtors, the
'homeless' of the day, Scots who were considered political problems back
home, etc.
>>The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict.
>>Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies.
>>Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and
>>grudge resolving.
>
> That's what all the yammerheads were doing. Mannie
> avoided that stuff, so we didn't get to read about it.
>
>>I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the
>>opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes
>>in how much regulation.
>
> Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too
> minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think
> California culture is based on the idea "lets run away as soon as
> somebody says 'government'."
>
Interesting, my observation has been more like, "if there's not a
government agency to regulate that, why don't we form one, and our
relatives can work in it".
Really CA govn't is annoying to someone from another state.
Its not surprising the Libertarian party was formed here.
For a real-life 'Manny' kind of person, check
Bryan R. Stahl
news:ulp3bu0lr3lg0cv9o...@4ax.com...
Hazel told Colin about it in _Cat_.
Bryan
Simon Jester
...
> My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my
> own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
> grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory
> types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by
vigilantes,
> that it makes me and mine "bad people."
Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents,
but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
Simon
Simon Jester
> In article <101827405...@eurus.uk.clara.net>,
> Simon Jester <simon...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> If Earth is China, who do you see as the West? What offworld
> markets are there in MiaHM?
>
Potentially, the rest of the Solar System. In Prof's words:
"Luna's future lies in her unique position at the top of a gravity well over
a rich planet, and in her cheap power and plentiful real estate. If we
Loonies have sense enough in the centuries ahead to remain a free port and
to stay out of entangling alliances, we will become the crossroads for two
planets, three planets, the entire Solar System."
> I don't think HK is the right analog. Maybe some historical asshole
> of the universe frontier town which is unpleasant but which is
conveniently
> situated to send expeditionary missions out from.
>
> Anyone watching _Shackleford_ on A&E? I'm thinking of the various
> sealing and whaling stations around the Antarctic circle. Nasty places
> to live but useful as expedition bases. Except there are no Antarctic
> colonies at present, so maybe not the best analogy.
>
> One long term problem that the Loonies would face is that
> other places are easier to get to Earth from and can get to Earth
> easier than the Moon. Some bright fellow may get the idea of building
> facilities there, to take some of the business away from the Moon.
>
...
- although those facilities have not been built at the time of TMiaHM. Using
the Moon would be more convenient than going direct between the Earth and
the rest of the Solar System. Building more convenient facilities (eg. at
Lagrange points) might be more economical in the long term - but Lunar
facilities already existed, and Loonies were experts in spacial logistics.
David Silver
> In article <3CADBB0A...@verizon.net>,
> David Silver <ag.pl...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>>I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
>>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
>>if it alludes to nothing much?
>>
>>Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S.
>>History.
>>
>
> Given the context, I suspect a Tuckerism. When did RAH meet Ginny?
>
>
Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM
turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to
land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12,
1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies,
still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we
memorized as children in Grammar School.
Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing
of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement
of English-speaking colonists in what was "the New World." That was
another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National
Holiday.
TreetopAngel
"Simon Jester" says:
But, I only know about my nefarious Grandparents and their generation. Who
knows what lies and schemes THEIR ancestors used to get into the US. I
assume, since there are no anecdotes, that they were just as bad or maybe
worse than Mannie's ancestors. OR maybe they were all hard-working, good
people who never did anything of import and thus never had stories told
about them. One whole side of my family (paternal grandfather) has no
history, because my Grandfather never spoke of it and would tell anyone who
asked, it was none of their business. My Dad even suspects his name is
false, the man had no history, that we can find before he met my
Grandmother.
Elizabeth
Nuclear Waste
"Simon Jester" <simon...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:101834967...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
Sort of like Americans being proud of criminal ancestors who revolted
against their rightful English government for insufficient reasons?
NW
John David Galt
> turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to
> land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12,
> 1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies,
> still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we
> memorized as children in Grammar School.
Considering that he personally started the slave trade, this ought to be
a day of mourning.
> Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing
> of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement
> of English-speaking colonists in what was "the New World." That was
> another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National
> Holiday.
Do we know the date the lost Roanoke group landed? I've heard one of
their log books was recovered.
John David Galt
>> working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current
>> interest in how limited government economy might work.
> "Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
It worked in Iceland for 350 years. Friedman discusses this in "The
Machinery of Freedom." I have a hunch that most of these ideas were not
Heinlein's own but were suggested by Robert LeFevre (Prof).
dont be fuelish
>Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM
>turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to
>land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12,
>1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies,
>still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we
>memorized as children in Grammar School.
I would never have thought of Heinlein as a member of the "500 years
of resistance" crowd. At least attacking the moon, they really were going
to an uninhabited world. At least I think it's uninhabited.
>Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing
>of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement
>of English-speaking colonists in what was "the New World." That was
>another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National
>Holiday.
Thank you. All I knew about was the 1607 part. Although what "high
mountains and limited fertility" have to do with Virginia is beyond
me. When I think of Virginia, I think of roads that have been used for
a thousand years to trade tobacco that are now superhighways.
Tian Harter
--
http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will
clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.
John David Galt
>> minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think
>> California culture is based on the idea "lets run away as soon as
>> somebody says 'government'."
> Interesting, my observation has been more like, "if there's not a
> government agency to regulate that, why don't we form one, and our
> relatives can work in it".
>
> Really CA govn't is annoying to someone from another state.
>
> Its not surprising the Libertarian party was formed here.
Sorry, that was in Colorado.
But you're sure right about the over-regulation here. California's urban
areas are so infested with socialists they might as well be on the east
coast. Our rural areas are saner, but don't have the votes to split the
state.
But I sure wish we could deport Hanoi Jane and her ilk to New York.
TreetopAngel
"dont be fuelish" > Tian Harter
> --
> http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
> Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will
> clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.
It was me...I hit the counter! :)
The Number Of The Beast!
Elizabeth/TreetopAngel
(the things I will do for entertainment)
dont be fuelish
I have updated my sig for your entertainment.
Tian Harter
--
http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
TreetopAngel, AKA Elizabeth, is TheBeast.
John David Galt
> As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying:
> "My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and
> they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as
> a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
>
> There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement:
> "Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do."
>
> Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small
> (1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.
>
> Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual.
> Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is "simply an
> old murderer". Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational
> Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this
> a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?
I don't regard Prof (or LeFevre) as a dubious source at all. And I see
Prof's statement as a universal truth, one of the cardinal axioms of
libertarianism.
And from there, one quickly realizes that governments are not sources of
legitimacy at all: they are merely organizations whose members use force,
and claim a monopoly on force, and which the well-connected and the
politically skillful can use as a means of bullying other people. And in
any given set of circumstances, using the government to compel someone is
morally exactly the same as doing the same bullying yourself (it is just a
means of doing so). If I have injured you and you are entitled to use the
courts to collect damages, you would be equally justified (but probably
less safe because of public opinion) to just collect the payment yourself.
Conversely, if I have not done anything to justify you forcing a payment
from me, then lobbying for a tax is just as wrong as robbing me yourself.
This view does not necessarily deny the concept in "Starship Troopers"
that each of us owes something to his society. But it does mean that that
obligation is "between you and God" and not enforceable, since government
and society are both abstract entities, and only individuals exist for the
purpose of moral law.
In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in
privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as
"Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"], or the
US as it appears in "Coventry". But there would also be substantial
ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge's "The
Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
Nuclear Waste
"dont be fuelish"
> Thank you. All I knew about was the 1607 part. Although what "high
> mountains and limited fertility" have to do with Virginia is beyond
> me. When I think of Virginia, I think of roads that have been used for
> a thousand years to trade tobacco that are now superhighways.
A thousand years of tobacco trade? I may start smoking again just to
celebrate. Which tribes traded which brands?
NW
TreetopAngel
"dont be fuelish"
Thanks, I think! :)
Actually I just got lucky, happened to read your post and hit the link at
the right time. I wonder how 665 and 667 feel right now...
Elizabeth, The Beast
(hubby likes that sig and agrees wholeheartedly)
Simon Jester
>
> "Simon Jester" says:
>
> > TreetopAngel wrote:
> > ...
> > > My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my
> > > own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo,
> paternal
> > > grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory
> > > types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by
> > vigilantes,
> > > that it makes me and mine "bad people."
> > ...
> >
> > Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury
grandparents,
> > but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
> > him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> But, I only know about my nefarious Grandparents and their generation.
Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
despite it?
Simon
Simon Jester
>
> "Simon Jester" <simon...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:101834967...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
> > Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury
grandparents,
> > but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
> > him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>
> Sort of like Americans being proud of criminal ancestors who revolted
> against their rightful English government for insufficient reasons?
>
Absolutely! Mannie would fit in quite well among that bunch of
foaming-mouthed radicals, class-traitor aristocrats, ex-convicts, turncoat
soldiers &c.
;-)
Simon
TreetopAngel
"Simon Jester":
which was a long walk with a short rope. My concern is that, just because
my ancestors were criminal or otherwise outcasts from society, does not
mean that I am. I am NOT my ancestors, heck I am not even my parents. What
they (all my ancestors) have done with their lives has no bearing on how I
live my life.
Although, I do know the punishment for stealing horses and the rationale
behind it at the time. Hence, I don't steal horses, I don't like the
consequences if caught. I don't break the law, not because I am so
obviously moral and upright, but I don't feel like dealing with the
consequences. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Good Advice.
I see the same thing with Mannie, just because his ancestors were criminals,
it does not make him a criminal too. Mannie is not a criminal in my eyes as
he does nothing against the rules. Yes, he cheats Authority, but Authority
has made it easy for him and Mannie is only doing what is normal in his
society. Everybody thinks of ways to cheat Authority. In Luna there are no
rules, only courtesies. Discourteous people don't last long and Lunar
society never misses them.
If Mannie tried the same things on Earth, yes, he would be punished if
caught. Difference is...there are rules and laws on Earth. But Mannie is a
very courteous person, only finds ways to buck authority figures, same as
every other human on this planet. He doesn't kill, at least not until the
revolution starts and Authority pushes. I skipped classes while a juvenile,
does that put me in the same class of criminal as maternal great uncle? I
was breaking truancy laws. I lived with current spouse without benefit of
marriage, does this equal social outcast, same as paternal grandfather?
Small rebellions against Authority, Mannie never hurt anybody, until they
began hurting him and his family and his fellow Loonies. It is the same
with me, roll up parking ticket and throw it away, but don't hurt my family
or it will be regretted.
Elizabeth
Simon Jester
>
> "Simon Jester":
...
> > Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
> > despite it?
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> I never said I thought well of the horse thief, he deserved what he got,
> which was a long walk with a short rope. My concern is that, just because
> my ancestors were criminal or otherwise outcasts from society, does not
> mean that I am. I am NOT my ancestors, heck I am not even my parents.
What
> they (all my ancestors) have done with their lives has no bearing on how I
> live my life.
>
I agree wholeheartedly; some of my (more distant) ancestors almost certainly
did things that would merit capital punishment in any civilised society.
My criticism of Mannie was not that he was descended from criminals (he
could hardly help that), but that he was *proud* of their criminality.
Simon
David Silver
> "Simon Jester" wrote:
>
>>As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying:
>>"My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and
>>they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as
>>a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
>>
>>There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement:
>>"Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do."
>>
>>Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small
>>(1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.
>>
>>Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual.
>>Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is "simply an
>>old murderer". Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational
>>Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this
>>a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?
>>
>
> I don't regard Prof (or LeFevre) as a dubious source at all. And I see
> Prof's statement as a universal truth, one of the cardinal axioms of
> libertarianism.
>
But is "libertarianism" any different from the Jeffersonian democracy as
Jefferson propounded it. And can it exist in anything other than the
idealized agrarian dream, er, society Jefferson hoped would be created?
Can it be tolerated to exist in the more heavily-populated urban
societies we have today?
And if not, what's the 'solution,' if any exists? Or is "libertarianism"
anything different in quality of thought from the ivory tower
non-starting dreams of any sterile overly-intellectualized academe?
> And from there, one quickly realizes that governments are not sources of
> legitimacy at all:
Only if you reject the notion of a quasi-tacit adoption of the compact
that exists as you find it or as is created and daily renewed around
you. You even get to bitch about it -- free speech is part of the
compact you've found [until Ashcroft figures out a way to get around
it], limited to no incitement of sedition coupled with the old clear and
present imminent danger test; but if you fail to act, fail to start that
revolution every generation that Jefferson thought would occur, then the
"quasi" part of quasi-tacit takes over, today.
> they are merely organizations whose members use force,
> and claim a monopoly on force, and which the well-connected and the
> politically skillful can use as a means of bullying other people.
Nuthin' there new. Ask the Stone Gang that Mannie's forebears and Slim
belong to, and Hilda later marries into. They didn't consider themselves
a "gubmint," did they, do you suppose? Let's go look someplace for the
sort of "ungoverned places" you below say are postulated by various
writers. How 'bout the Oakwood community in Venice, California, next
door to where I now live, after dark, when the LAPD's Pacific Division
is busy 'crushing crime' elsewhere? Do the Shoreline Crips and 'V-13'
(or whomever their successors are -- I'm a little out of touch with
current intelligence by CRASH -- most of my police officer buddies are
retired) who emerge whenever the Black & Whites or OD Tac units aren't
around to contest for control of the streets and alleys consider
themselves governments? Do you consider them governments?
Why not? They're no different than the Stone Gang postulated in TMiaHM,
but just as the Stong Gang they "claim a monopoly on force," you'd be
amazed at how "politically well-connected" they are, and they certainly
do bully other people (especially those who presume to try to stop their
selling drugs). They assassinated one community 'activist' who tried
just last year. Cops still ain't put away who killed him.
I suppose the only difference between them and the black-and-white-gang
that patrols in radio cars is their leaders aren't elected by
potentially all the enfranchised community every two years as is Ruth
Galanter, the lame-duck (thank God, at last!) councilwoman for that Los
Angeles City Council District.
What's the difference between Authority in the postulated libertarian
paradise of TMiaHM and the Los Angeles City Council (weak Major system,
here), Mr. "Galt"?
I'll tell you: the Authority exercised no legislative powers on behalf
of its unfranchised constituency -- the "non-citizen" populace of Luna.
"Non-citizen" advisedly, because, it appears as to those no longer
convicts (assuming what is reasonable, that the franchise could be
restored once a term was served), most had derived citizenship from one
or another F.N. member state.
Under the quasi-tacit acceptance of the compact here in Los Angeles
County, unless you plan to lead a successful revolution -- maybe a
succession from Los Angeles, they're popular lately, if you care to
avoid the kind and occasionally violent attentions of the "force" --
your City Council occasionally tries to pass laws to keep the
cockroaches belonging to the Crips and V-13 off the streets, so long as
Galanter lets the LAPD enforce those laws in her district.
> And in
> any given set of circumstances, using the government to compel someone is
> morally exactly the same as doing the same bullying yourself (it is just a
> means of doing so).
So say you (or LeFevre). If you don't mind, I'll let the LAPD confront
the Crips and V-13. They're, all three of them, a lot better armed and
much younger than I am, today. Of course, when I did live in Venice,
once upon a time nearly a generation ago, there was that time I held
some folk under a shotgun until the LAPD did arrive ... and they were
pretty damned quick once the dispatcher understood what my wife on the
phone was saying. ["Shots fired. See the man with the shotgun on the
roof of the garage overlooking the alley north of Navy Street between
Speedway and Pacific . . . " First came the helicopter, then lots of
Black & Whites, even some Blue & Whites from Santa Monica.]. I'd rather
have sanctioned and trained bullies around wearing dark navy blue
uniforms than fight set duels if you don't mind, the contrary situation
really scares the hell out of my wife and daughter -- to say nothing of
me. Do you really think law enforcement is "bullying" in all cases? Or
really in any case?
> If I have injured you and you are entitled to use the
> courts to collect damages, you would be equally justified (but probably
> less safe because of public opinion) to just collect the payment yourself.
Really? Just walk up to you and say: "lemme have my damages," huh? We
ain't got any legally-sanctioned bullies to protect me from you around,
now, do we? Just like a Shoreline Crip, unless you feels in a Santy
Claus mood, you whips out your piece [probably the cheaply made one that
L. Neil has whatizname, the kid, in the Prometheus Award novel, invent]
and blows me away, right? So what's my wiser course of action: do I lay
in wait and shoot you in the back first, then collect from your bank?
"Lady, I'm here to make a withdrawal on Mr. Galt's account for my
damages. Just fill the bag I'm giving you until I tell you to stop, and
nobody will get hurt. I blew his ass away yesterday, so no one will
complain, except maybe his wife and children and homeboys; and I'll blow
their ass away too, if I have to. Oh, and don't touch that button under
the counter, please. Thanks."
Forgive me, or not, as you please, but I resist having to go to this
trouble to collect my reasonble damages. Somehow I also think it might
be more than merely "less safe because of public opinion." Bankers
usually get nasty about trying to make withdrawals on other folks' accounts.
Even the barbarian Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tribes (including medieval
Iceland, for that matter) had a "government," usually tribal or clan
elders and leaders, that imposed the order you (or Mr. LeFevre) think
would flow necessarily in this idealized 'libertarian' society.
> Conversely, if I have not done anything to justify you forcing a payment
> from me, then lobbying for a tax is just as wrong as robbing me yourself.
>
Who decides what is "justify"? You? Or the rest of us? Custom? Or would
you rather it be done by force ad hoc? "Wahl, we got us a situation heah
. . . them canals is overflowing with sewage that's runnin' inta the
crik 'cause none of you libertarians livin' by 'em have put in plumbing
or sewage tanks like we axed ya ta, clams is a-dying, peeple is
a-gettin' sick, and fish don't swim up or down in Ballona Crik no more
-- they jest floats on the top, and it's pizenin' tha fishin' in tha
bay. We gotta hire the barge and sum mules from Santy Monica to dredge
the crap out. Everyone pony up $1,000 for the kitty, or I, 'Black
David,' will send my Crip minions over to yo' houses, one at a time, and
hit you on the head, steal 'n burn all yo' stuff, and pleasure yo' wif
and daughters until you do pony it up."
[Well, if you don't pay taxes to me for these ad hoc cops, don't you
think I'll pay them by giving them the opportunity for loot and rapine
just like in the 'good ol' days'?]
The notion that people can get by peacefully without an established
government to regulate matters of health and safety, anywhere but on a
widely-scattered and unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.
> This view does not necessarily deny the concept in "Starship Troopers"
> that each of us owes something to his society. But it does mean that that
> obligation is "between you and God" and not enforceable, since government
> and society are both abstract entities, and only individuals exist for the
> purpose of moral law.
>
What does "God" have to do with it? His Kingdom isn't of this world.
What the hell does he care about it? Or is this simply a handy excuse to
deny any responsibility whatever? Sound specious to me, John David. Do
you have any bridges to sell me, too?
> In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in
> privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as
> "Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"], or the
> US as it appears in "Coventry". But there would also be substantial
> ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge's "The
> Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
>
All 'nice' thought experiments fit for folk in ivory towers smoking the
same skinny cigarettes they smoke in the Pentagon when they come up with
the *real* REMF lunacies. Why do you suppose, in pre-Revolution Luna,
Mimi learned all those tricks Mannie doesn't know about, and probably
doesn't even want to think about? Didn't the "Golden Rule" habitat wind
up with "cheese" in its ventilation system? 'Tisn't a mistake Heinlein
called the experimental population of the society in TMiaHM one of
'loonies' and 'lunatics.' The problem with the academic mind is it
frequently fails to recognize ironic humor and below-the-radar satire.
But if you'd like to make your case a little more realistically, I'll read it. :-)
TreetopAngel
"Simon Jester"
But, what else does Mannie have to be *proud* of, it would be boring to hear
over and over about his accomplishments. Even in a society of convicts and
their heirs, there tends to be a hierarchy of cons. Not many murderers are
sentenced to Penal colonies. Debtors, petty thieves and dissidents, people
the government doesn't want to deal with, because of overcrowding in
prisons. I guess I would even try to dredge up a *Salem Witch* as an
ancestor rather than a pickpocket or somebody who couldn't pay their bills.
I may even try to throw a murderer or two in there to try to give the
impression that I come from tough stock. It's not to a person's benefit to
appear weak in a society of lawbreakers.
Elizabeth
Nuclear Waste
"Simon Jester"
> Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
> despite it?
This ignores the social matrix in which Mannie grew up. It was a prison.
Have you read _Sixth Column_? If not, I recommend it. If so, I direct
your attention to their opening of the temple in Denver, and a short
discussion about a young boy. Odd social circumstances lead to odd social
conventions. Also note that Mannie is proud of his multi great ancesstress
who was killed for being a witch. All of this while NOT BEING CERTAIN WHO
HIS FATHER WAS. See also the quote in notebooks about lizards and
dinosaurs, and apply it to prisoners.
NW
dont be fuelish
>John David Galt wrote:
The other difference is that there is no paperwork you can
file when you want the wrath of the law to decend on a
bad one. If a member of the black-and-white-gang does you
wrong, all you need is his badge number to have a fair shot
at making his life miserable.
>> If I have injured you and you are entitled to use the
>> courts to collect damages, you would be equally justified
>> (but probably less safe because of public opinion) to just
>> collect the payment yourself.
>
>Really? Just walk up to you and say: "lemme have my
>damages," huh?
I have read that in Japan, if an airplane somebody owns
falls out of the sky with your beloved on it, the CEO of that
airline will personally track you down and give you lots of
money. The reason that system works is because the guy
really doesn't want to write that kind of check. He doesn't
want to write those checks so much that he is willing to
pay professional people to keep him from doing it.
Here you have to sue for damages. I like their response to
that situation a lot better. I notice they are trying to try it
with the WTC famalies. I hope it works.
>Well, if you don't pay taxes to me for these ad hoc cops,
>don't you think I'll pay them by giving them the
>opportunity for loot and rapine just like in the 'good
>ol' days'?]
Seems to me the cost of those guys is included in the price
of drugs in their teritories. I think it is a much better idea
to get your stuff from people that get their stuff from more
harmless channels.
>The notion that people can get by peacefully without an
>established government to regulate matters of health and
>safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and
>unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.
Yeah, but how do you regulate a govenment you can't buy
a seat in? I've never managed to get any face time with my
assembly member, and it isn't because I never participated
in my community. She is not an isolated case. I once lived
in a Congressional District almost four years without ever
meeting the Congressman. I even ran against him without
meeting him.
Tian Harter
--
http://tian.greens.org/
Last night at the Santa Clara County Green Party
meeting, www.WarnerBloomberg.org and www.votejo.org
both showed up, as well as Michael Borenstein from the
El Dorado County Green Party. More dignitaries than usual.
dont be fuelish
I don't have that kind of specific details. All I remember was a plaque by the
road
on I-64 near Afton Mountain that said it had been used for a thousand years by
tobacco traders. It goes from the Richmond area towards West Virginia and Ohio,
whomever that connected.
The only road in the area with a tribal name is 29, peices of which are called
the
Seminole Highway. It could be that was used by the Seminoles to get tobacco.
Twenty nine is an interesting road. It is only two lanes in some places, but it
serves as a main artery connecting Washington with Charlottesville. The name
changes many times along the way, and there are even things like an
intersection
with Routh 666.
Anecdotally speaking, I have lots of evedence that tobacco was an imporntant
trade good in this country long before GIs used cigarettes for money. For
example, I went to a 4th of July Celebration on Capitol Mall in DC one time,
and there was an old Native American woman who told some stories and
played a drum for us. At one point she explained that it was traditional to
give
the drummer tobacco to show respect and appreciation for their work.
Come to think of it, I remember lots of smoking in TMIAHM, but no growing
of tobacco. Does that make sense?
David Silver
> David Silver wrote:
>
[snip]
>>The notion that people can get by peacefully without an
>>established government to regulate matters of health and
>>safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and
>>unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.
>>
>
> Yeah, but how do you regulate a govenment you can't buy
> a seat in? I've never managed to get any face time with my
> assembly member, and it isn't because I never participated
> in my community. She is not an isolated case. I once lived
> in a Congressional District almost four years without ever
> meeting the Congressman. I even ran against him without
> meeting him.
>
You infiltrate the establishment, Tian. You form a "non-political"
organization, meaning non-partisan, with lots of votes on a single
issue. I once had fifteen minutes face time with Cranston. He'd decided
to go anti-Vietnam War, but had decided he'd be damned if he'd be
labeled anti-veteran. It took some doing, first we organized Vet
fraternity chapters at 17 southern California colleges, and somebody
knew the right assistant working for him, but he fixed the local VA for
us, really.
dont be fuelish
>dont be fuelish wrote:
>
>> David Silver wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>>The notion that people can get by peacefully without an
>>>established government to regulate matters of health and
>>>safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and
>>>unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, but how do you regulate a govenment you can't buy
>> a seat in? I've never managed to get any face time with my
>> assembly member, and it isn't because I never participated
>> in my community. She is not an isolated case. I once lived
>> in a Congressional District almost four years without ever
>> meeting the Congressman. I even ran against him without
>> meeting him.
>>
>
>You infiltrate the establishment, Tian. You form a "non-political"
>organization, meaning non-partisan, with lots of votes on a single
>issue. I once had fifteen minutes face time with Cranston. He'd
>decided to go anti-Vietnam War, but had decided he'd be damned
>if he'd be labeled anti-veteran. It took some doing, first we organized
>Vet fraternity chapters at 17 southern California colleges, and
>somebody knew the right assistant working for him, but he fixed the
>local VA for us, really.
Maybe it would help if I explain how deeply political I think our
problems are, and how deeply political the solutions need to be.
First I take a greenback that somebody has given me for one of
my stickers, for example the one that John Anderson (the guy that
ran as a 3rd Party Presidential Candidate before I started paying
much attention to these things) used to pay for one (pulls bill off
side of filing cabinet) and point to the GOD on it. Then I say "see
that god in green ink on the greenback? Green Party Member."
One time I pulled that routine on a woman that didn't get it, so
I explained "If someone agrees with me, that's a 'political position'."
"If someone disagrees with me, that's a 'political position'."
I gave that explination to a guy one time down at Shoreline Park,
and he said to me "And if they have no opinion, that's also a
political position."
Usually I don't get into that kind of thing. I just trade a dollar
bill for the MEND YOUR FUELISH WAYS sticker, that being
what passes for "non-political organizing" in my world. If you
see one of them on a machine, you can be assured that it was put
there by somebody that paid cash on the barrelhead for it. That is
my way of infiltrating the system. I consider the population of
people who have noticed them in passing to be a "non-political"
organization, although the truth is probably closer to them being
a political non-organization.
Nuclear Waste
You forgot religious nuts and monopolists.
NW
djinn
news:3CB32E02...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us:
>
> Sorry, that was in Colorado.
>
oops.
Eric S. Harris
>
> > Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM
> > turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to
> > land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12,
> > 1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies,
> > still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we
> > memorized as children in Grammar School.
>
> Considering that he personally started the slave trade, this ought to be
> a day of mourning.
"The slave trade"? I'm confused.
He did bring Indians back from the Western Hemisphere (as slaves, IIRC). That
is not what people have in mind when they refer to the slave trade, in
connection with the New World. Usually they mean transporting African slaves
(normally purchased from Africans, BTW) from Africa to the Americas or the
Caribbean.
I don't recall him bringing any African slaves to the New World. Perhaps I
missed that, or learned that and forgot it. I certainly don't know everything
there is to know about Columbus. -Eric S.
--
E-mail privacy: http://www.curleywolfe.net/cw/E_Privacy.shtml (Perhaps a bit
over-cautious, she is. Perhaps.)
Eric S. Harris
[snips]
> Anecdotally speaking, I have lots of evedence that tobacco was an imporntant
> trade good in this country long before GIs used cigarettes for money. For
> example, I went to a 4th of July Celebration on Capitol Mall in DC one time,
> and there was an old Native American woman who told some stories and
> played a drum for us. At one point she explained that it was traditional to
> give
> the drummer tobacco to show respect and appreciation for their work.
>
> Come to think of it, I remember lots of smoking in TMIAHM, but no growing
> of tobacco. Does that make sense?
Caught you! Trying to get this back on topic, eh?
Well, you little plan won't work. It won't work, I tell you!
Smoking in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere is OK (aside from the health risks,
including things like setting your mattress on fire if you drowse); in a
low-pressure oxygen-only atmosphere it's probably a Bad Thing.
Was there nitrogen in the mix in Luna? -Eric
Eric S. Harris
>
> David Wright wrote:
> ...
> > I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof's 'rational
> > anarchist' philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at
> > http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
> ...
>
> As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying:
> "My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and
> they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as
> a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
There's a similar notion expressed in Damon Knight's "Rule Golden". The dialog
went something like this: "Who will build the space ships when there are no
governments?" "Men build spaceships. Men will still build spaceships."
And some narration, along the lines of: "It no longer made sense to say that
'England announces this' or 'Japan responds with that'. It made you wonder if
it ever did."
Although it took me a long time to make the connection [1] it is a very clear
illustration of the notion that government is impossible without the ability to
use violence against non-aggressive persons. (Well, people who at that moment
are not aggressing. You know what I mean.)
When violence becomes impossible, government becomes impossible. (And
unnecessary.)
Of course, this WAS science fiction. -Eric S.
[1] I read it before I worked out the inconsistencies in my political views and
discovered I had become a libertarian. I may be wrong, but by gum, I'm
consistent!
--
[The United States] was at war with [bin Laden]. [The United States] had always
been at war with [bin Laden]. -- "1984" (With slight edits to make it fit the
present situation. The Cold War made strange bedfellows.)
[The United States] was at war with [the Taliban]. [The United States] had
always been at war with [the Taliban]. -- "1984" (With slight edits to make it
fit the present situation. Drug wars make strange bedfellows.)
Eric S. Harris
>
> David Silver wrote:
[snips]
> I have read that in Japan, if an airplane somebody owns
> falls out of the sky with your beloved on it, the CEO of that
> airline will personally track you down and give you lots of
> money. The reason that system works is because the guy
> really doesn't want to write that kind of check. He doesn't
> want to write those checks so much that he is willing to
> pay professional people to keep him from doing it.
>
> Here you have to sue for damages. I like their response to
> that situation a lot better. I notice they are trying to try it
> with the WTC famalies. I hope it works.
It's a bad precedent, and I notice it's not the approach they took with the Ruby
Ridge and Branch Davidian families. The Weavers sued (and settled out of
court). I don't know the status of the Davidians' suit, if any. Apparently the
unofficial policy that April day was "let it burn, then prosecute the
survivors".
> >The notion that people can get by peacefully without an
> >established government to regulate matters of health and
> >safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and
> >unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.
Likewise. But just because anarchism seems unworkable doesn't mean that
totalitarianism is the ideal. Or the two varieties of totalitarianism-Lite (tm)
hawked by the Ds and Rs. (I can't tell Pepsi from Coke, either.)
> Yeah, but how do you regulate a govenment you can't buy
> a seat in? I've never managed to get any face time with my
> assembly member, and it isn't because I never participated
> in my community. She is not an isolated case. I once lived
> in a Congressional District almost four years without ever
> meeting the Congressman. I even ran against him without
> meeting him.
It's tough for us "third-party" types. But getting better lately.
Still, I'm considering switching to (or supplementing partisan activity with) a
market-based approach: bet the rank and file that their favorite party won't
follow through. It'll either open their eyes or empty their pockets. (Or
both.) Either way, a win for the White Hats.
If I can find 1000 Republicans who are too proud or too stupid to admit the
obvious, I'll never have to work again. Worst case scenario: I have to come up
with a million dollars in a hurry, because the Republicans actually DID reduce
government. I'd endure the shame of personal bankruptcy to see that happen.
(Figure the odds.) -Eric
--
Eric S. Harris
> The Loonie warnings for the Thames shot stated that the impact would be
> "north of Dover Straits opposite London Estuary". Looking at the map of
> England in my atlas, this makes an impact at roughly 1.5 degrees East by
> 51.5 degrees North seem most probable.
>
> The depth of the water at this point is indicated no more precisely than
> between 0 and 50m. It is a long way from any deeper water, so probably not
> much more than 20m.
>
> The closest town to the impact would be Margate, on the Kent coast, which
> would be roughly 15km away. (Central London would be roughly 110km away, as
> the pig flies.) The height of the waves at Margate would therefore be circa
> 7cm high (approx 3 inches), given a 2 kt impact.
>
> OTOH, the Loonies warn that the impact "would cause disturbances far up
> Thames".
From "Moon": "A maximum of instructive shrecklichkeit with minimum loss of life.
None, if possible"--was how Prof summed up doctrine for Operation Hard Rock and
was way Mike and I carried it out. Idea was to hit earthworms so hard would
convince them--while hitting so gently as not to hurt.
If the Loonies exaggerated the damage in the warning, no huhu. Diminishes
credibility only slightly. Big rocks falling from sky scary even if water only
gets ankle-high on shore. This time. -Eric
Nuclear Waste
"Eric S. Harris"
> If I can find 1000 Republicans who are too proud or too stupid to admit
the
> obvious, I'll never have to work again. Worst case scenario: I have to
come up
> with a million dollars in a hurry, because the Republicans actually DID
reduce
> government. I'd endure the shame of personal bankruptcy to see that
happen.
> (Figure the odds.) -Eric
Why look for 1000 Republicans when 1000 Democrats would be much easier to
find, and quite a bit easier to seperate from their money?
NW
dont be fuelish
Yeah, but there is only $10 in the pocket of each Democrat.
Republicans part with that kind of money every time they sneeze.
Tian Harter
--
http://tian.greens.org/
Last night I saw Y Tu Mama Tambien, a Mexican movie
with subtitles that explained the title was "And your
mother to". I have rarely seen a randier movie that
talked about Seattle and the election of Vicente Fox.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> dont be fuelish wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> > Anecdotally speaking, I have lots of evedence that tobacco was an imporntant
> > trade good in this country long before GIs used cigarettes for money. For
> > example, I went to a 4th of July Celebration on Capitol Mall in DC one time,
> > and there was an old Native American woman who told some stories and
> > played a drum for us. At one point she explained that it was traditional to
> > give
> > the drummer tobacco to show respect and appreciation for their work.
> >
> > Come to think of it, I remember lots of smoking in TMIAHM, but no growing
> > of tobacco. Does that make sense?
>
> Caught you! Trying to get this back on topic, eh?
>
> Well, you little plan won't work. It won't work, I tell you!
>
> Smoking in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere is OK (aside from the health risks,
> including things like setting your mattress on fire if you drowse); in a
> low-pressure oxygen-only atmosphere it's probably a Bad Thing.
>
> Was there nitrogen in the mix in Luna? -Eric
>
> --
flying has to be at normal or better pressure, and IIRC the reservoir
bubble is maintained at slight overpressure. At such pressures, pure
oxy is toxic.
A cigarette will flare at no more than twice earth-normal oxy
partial pressure whether solo or mixed -- and so will your cells.
A pure oxy atmosphere that maintains tolerable partial pressure of
oxy is only one-fifth normal /total/ pressure, and gets blasted
uncomfortable to hazardous re evaporating your body fluids, a rate
that depends on pP of atmospheric H20, which depends pretty much on
the total pressure (and temperature) of the system since "air"
doesn't hold a lot of water under any conditions. If the pP of water
at body temp is greater than the pP of water in the air of the
moment, you'll evaporate, and even at normal pressure you're usually
doing so.
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
David Silver
[snip]
>
> In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in
> privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as
> "Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"], or the
> US as it appears in "Coventry". But there would also be substantial
> ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge's "The
> Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
>
>
Returning to the scene of one of my crimes in this thread, I can
understand why John David Galt hoped any of the "substantial ungoverned
places" would be much more similar to a liberatarian utopia than "Coventry."
My only question to John David, or others, is: what makes you think RAH
would expect that?
Consider "Coventry." Here's a precis written by me that I think fairly
represents it. The precis is part of a copyrighted article I've
published and, by quoted myself in part, for fair use discussion, I am
not waiving that copyright.
[begin copyrighted portion]
" Plot synopsis of "Coventry"
"Coventry" is an oft-ignored short story in The Future History
Series chronologically and conceptually taking place between the
novelette "If This Goes On . . ." (ASF, Feb-Mar 1940, rewritten and
expanded for collection 1953) and the novel Methuselah's Children (ASF
Jul-Aug-Sep 1941, rewritten and expanded for book publication 1958). The
author postulates a highly evolved and comfortable society in which
democracy has been restored following 'The Second American Revolution'
against the theocratic dictatorship imposed by Nehemiah Scudder, the
"Prophet," and his successors, a revolution described in "If This Goes
On . . .". The patriots who restored this freedom have engrafted to the
Constitution of 1783 an agreement known as the "Covenant," defined as
the custom of all to refrain from doing any damage to other citizens--a
"golden rule" imposed into law, to insure the maximum possible liberty
for every person.
In the story, Heinlein's protagonist David MacKinnon is by
occupation an English Literature Professor--immediately a tip-off of the
author's viewpoint, given Heinlein's expressed disdain for some
practitioners of that occupation [See, the essay "Who Are The Heirs of
Patrick Henry: Afterword" republished in Expanded Universe (1980); see
also: the character of Clyde Leamer in Cp. XI, Time Enough For Love
(1973)]--who violates the "Covenant" by committing atavistic violence.
He breaks the nose of someone who calls him an "upholstered parasite,"
surely 'fighting words' to a Literature teacher! In his words, "I simply
punched a man in the nose for offending me outrageously."
The State convicts him of the essential crime of believing
himself capable of judging morally his fellow citizens and feeling
justified in personally correcting and punishing their lapses--being a
danger to all that, from its societal standpoint, makes him mad as a
March Hare. He is sentenced to choose between the Two Alternatives
normally offered offenders in that society. The choice: either undergo
submission to psychological readjustment to correct his tendency to
wish to damage others, or having the state withdraw itself from him--by
exiling him to Coventry, is Hobbesian in the extreme. Here, Coventry is
a very real place--separated from the rest of the Country and kept so by
an physical Barrier thought impassable--a mysterious wall of force
fields. Addressing the Court, MacKinnon castigates his society for its
choice to fit into a "cautious little pattern" of "compromising 'safe'
weaklings with water in their veins . . . [who've] planned their world
so carefully you've planned the fun and zest right out of it." The
English teacher, a self-defined "rugged individualist," chooses Coventry.
What do you suppose the author who many today consider the
prophet of the Libertarian Party, "rugged individualists" all, had in
store for this "rugged individualist"? What MacKinnon finds in Coventry
changes him and is the story.
Before passing through the Gate into Coventry, an Army guard
advises MacKinnon he may elect to return at any time, by presenting
himself at the Gate, at the cost, however, of mandatory submission to
"psychological readjustment." Entering Coventry, MacKinnon first
encounters a customs station manned by fellow "rugged individualists"
working for their own government who "tax" him by confiscating at
gunpoint nearly all his "imported" possessions. So much for the
Crusoe-like independence he imagined would exist in a land of "noble,
independent spirits who give each other wide berth and practice mutual
respect."
Left virtually penniless, he next is conveyed to a court that
fines him for ineffectually resisting the imposition of customs 'duties'
(he had reached for his rifle which one guard neatly shot out of his
hands to avoid filling out necessary reporting forms had he elected to
kill him), then sentences him to an additional ten days for vagrancy to
serve while awaiting auction of his remaining property to pay his fine.
Undoubtedly the expected 'deficiency judgment' will result from the
'auction,' hence: more jail time. In jail he meets a fellow prisoner
named "Fader" Magee who befriends and helps him escape. From him he
learns that the territory of Coventry is subdivided into three realms,
the largest, so-called "New American," governed by the people who've
taxed and imprisoned him; next, a smaller "Free State," which is an
absolute dictatorship ruled over by the "Liberator," where the
watchwords are Duty and Obedience; and, finally, the small mountain
domain of the "Angels," populated by an unreconstructed remnant of the
Prophet's followers under a theocracy complete with a Prophet Incarnate
and all the trimmings. All three claim to be the only legal government
of the United States and look forward to redeeming the rest of the
Country. War is ongoing between the Liberator's Free State and New
America. While fugitive he meets a secret organized guild of thieves
that, through Magee's intercession, enables him to continue evading New
America's law by sending him to refuge with "the Doctor," a natural
healer in voluntary exile practicing his skill in a society that most
needs his skills--whose person and household are sacrosanct. There, he
also discovers Persephone, a fifteen year old orphan girl, adopted by
the Doctor, whose naive and childlike innocence engendered by her lack
of contact with the Outside or even with other inhabitants of Coventry
is tempered with readings unchecked from the library of a sophisticated
and protean-minded man of science. Finally, when 'Fader' Magee returns,
he discovers through listening to a conversation between the Doctor and
Magee that New America and the Free State have allied, developed a
weapon that will defeat the Barrier around Coventry, and plan to attack
the United States Outside the Barrier. Magee, who believes this weapon
is certainly dangerous, leaves to attempt to penetrate the Barrier and
warn the Outside against it, after telling MacKinnon how he intends to
avoid the Barrier. Time passes, and when it appears Magee has been
unsuccessful, naive Persephone decides to simply drive to the Gate and
warn the Outside. MacKinnon dissuades her, knowing that Free State and
New America guards are patrolling. Instead, he takes the life-risking
route Magee explained to him. He incurs serious injury, but succeeds in
bringing the warning to the Outside. Expecting mandatory submission to
psychological readjustment, he is surprised to find society deems him
"cured" of his maladjustment, the evidence of that being his physical
sacrifice in bringing the warning. He is also surprised to find that
'Fader' Magee is Lieutenant Magee, an undercover intelligence officer,
assigned to penetrate and spy out the doings of the societies of
Coventry." [end portion that is copyrighted]
My question, restated is: In light of this development of alternatives
by the author himself, how can any libertarian think Heinlein thought a
libertarian utopia might develop in any substantially ungoverned place.
It didn't in Coventry, which went from pretty much was exists today,
viewed darkly though what many believe are typical Libertarian glasses,
to worse: two dictatorships, pick your flavor?
Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
up with people?
William Dennis
David wrote:
> Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
> avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
> up with people?
In order for a society to exist without government, *every* individual
would have to be willing to govern themselves, never interfering with the
rights of others.
Of course, this is impossible.
Heinlein was a libertarian, but he didn't have any illusion that it was the
perfect "ism" on which to base society.
--
Bill Dennis
http://peoriatimesobserver.com
http://billdennis.net
djinn
news:3CB993CC...@verizon.net:
> My question, restated is: In light of this development of alternatives
> by the author himself, how can any libertarian think Heinlein thought a
> libertarian utopia might develop in any substantially ungoverned place.
> It didn't in Coventry, which went from pretty much was exists today,
> viewed darkly though what many believe are typical Libertarian glasses,
> to worse: two dictatorships, pick your flavor?
>
> Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
> avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
> up with people?
>
When I first read Coventry as a kid I thought that it had two points. The
first was to take a 'Rugged Individualist' and subject him to a dose of
reality. Instead of Noble Savages our hero found savages. Civilized ones,
but savages.
The second was a reflection on government. The governments inside Coventry
are like the governments existing now. Heinlein seemed to be making a side
comment on how we run things. Take your choice, organized crime, rule by
bully, or religious fervor. These are in contrast to the government outside
coventry, which was rational and humane. Affected my views of government
ever since...
Now back to your question.
Beyond This Horizon might be a better example of a Libertarian Utopia. Its
full of rational people who walk around armed and settle their differences
between themselves. It took genetic engineering ( or the 30's equivalent)
to get them to the point their society could work.
BTH is Heinleins answer. Modify people to the point where they have high
intelligence and feel social responsibility, and add in some dangerous
social conventions such as dueling so that natural selection isn't
completely overridden. The intelligent people won't outlaw their dangerous
conventions because they're smart enough to realize the conventions are
good for society as a whole.
The answer: Invent new people! :)
--
Dave
If a rule is not straight, it cannot be used to make a square,
If a compass is not correct, it cannot be used to make a circle.
The individual is the rule and compass of affairs. One cannot rectify
others while being crooked oneself.
Huainanzi
Arthur McNutt
In article <3CB993CC...@verizon.net>, David Silver
<ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
[snip a typically well written cogent essay of Coventry]
>
> My question, restated is: In light of this development of alternatives
> by the author himself, how can any libertarian think Heinlein thought a
> libertarian utopia might develop in any substantially ungoverned place.
> It didn't in Coventry, which went from pretty much was exists today,
> viewed darkly though what many believe are typical Libertarian glasses,
> to worse: two dictatorships, pick your flavor?
>
> Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
> avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
> up with people?
>
through Coventry. MacKinnon is Hugo's "Mario the Dreamer" from Les
Miserables (The book--I've never seen the musical and never will). Also, of
course, Coventry's MacKinnon is illustrative of RAH's ever recurring theme
of maturation as you touched on above.
Truly, the only example of Heinleinian Utopia in his body of work would be
found in his descriptions of families; Snug Harbor in TNofB or LL's
family(s) in TEfL. This, among other things, explains why the deep
conversations about politics in TMiaHM were so inconclusive except in the
negative sense. He didn't have much hope for dignity and freedom being found
much outside one's family. There are no forms of Government capable of
providing this universally.
Government is Government, and is, at its heart, dictums enforced by Gammas
in purty uniforms with shinny badges and way-cool guns. Even the
eye-for-an-eye golden rule governments like those found in TNotB and
Starship Troopers, which would appeal to many Libertarians, were not, by a
long shot, utopias. Starship Troopers was handled more that way than most, a
near-Utopia, but it was handled that way because of the point he was making.
He did advocate the frontier as an Utopia in general. And this applies more
to your supplementary question; LL said, and others among RAH's characters,
that once a place "fills up" with people it was too late for that society.
Again, this points us back to his Utopia of family. Look at Hoag, before he
realizes who he truly is--isn't this a sharp attack on society in general?
And what of when he does come to himself--doesn't his love for that society
despite and because of those flaws overcome the former objections? To me,
this indicates an underlying theme in all his works--that society is flawed,
that it is impossible for the individual to truly thrive as he/she should
within it. However, another universal theme is that all we have is each
other-so deal with it.
And no matter who they are, vote the rats out of office. And vote the next
crop of rats out too.
---
Art
dont be fuelish
>In order for a society to exist without government, *every*
>individual would have to be willing to govern
>themselves, never interfering with the rights of others.
>
>Of course, this is impossible.
I'm not so sure. I think there are roles for both
interpretation and negotiation in what is possible
given the scope introduced above.
>
>Heinlein was a libertarian, but he didn't have any illusion
>that it was the perfect "ism" on which to base society.
That seems to contradict the evidence. TMIAHM is
Libertarian, or at least Mannies quadrant was.
Tian Harter
--
Today I showed Peter Miguel Camejo, the Green Party
Candidate for Governor of the State of California, my
new Ohio quarter. He seemed moderately underwhelmed.
William Dennis
"dont be fuelish" <rahf...@aol.com1stOH25c> wrote in message
news:20020415025859...@mb-ml.aol.com...
> William Dennis wrote:
>
> >In order for a society to exist without government, *every*
> >individual would have to be willing to govern
> >themselves, never interfering with the rights of others.
> >
> >Of course, this is impossible.
>
> I'm not so sure. I think there are roles for both
> interpretation and negotiation in what is possible
> given the scope introduced above.
> >
> >Heinlein was a libertarian, but he didn't have any illusion
> >that it was the perfect "ism" on which to base society.
>
> That seems to contradict the evidence. TMIAHM is
> Libertarian, or at least Mannies quadrant was.
Actually, TMIAHM proves my point. The revolutionaries were of a libertarian
bent -- more anarcho-capitalistics than libertarian -- but the populace
wasn't. They started sinking into socialism almost as soon as the
revolution was over. By the time TCWWTW rolled around, government had
become downright oppressive.
David Silver
[snip]
>
> Ultimately, the lives of millions of people are saved by Mannie performing a
> small act of compassion.
>
> These are just a few thoughts on a subtly complex book - further points for
> discussion would include:
>
> What else could be seen in it?
> What strengths and weaknesses?
> How does it fit into the development of Heinlein's writing style?
> What does it say about Heinlein's politics, given overt approval of a
> near-anarchistic system, yet one which eventually turns into a more
> conventional form of government?
>
> The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
> own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
". . . the lives of millions of people are saved by Mannie performing a
small act of compassion." How about one more contrarian crime?
How does one compare the morality of Wyoh Knott, as she first expresses
it, in her wish of blowing up the Authority Complex that houses the
Holmes Mark IV that is "Mike" to the morality of Mannie who orders Mike
to commence throwing rocks that ultimately kill civilians on Terra?
Knott might have managed without injury to herself to plant a bomb that
destroyed the Complex, likely killing any civilian worker near the
Holmes Mark IV (they 'fink' for Authority, don't they?); she even might
have induced some other revolutionary loose cannon to carry a suicide
bomb into the complex to get close enough to detonate, or even, "greater
love hath no revolutionary," carried it herself?
Does it matter morally which of these three options she chooses to
employ, so long as nearby civilian workers die as a reasonably
foreseeable consequence?
Is this glorious revolution worth the life of even one unwarned
convicted and employed in slave-labor by Authority, but otherwise
innocent, who is working near the computer in the Complex that day? Who
is entitled to play "revolutionary government" to decide whose lives are
worthy of being sacrificed for the ideal of freedom they seek? And how
does that square with Prof's, Wyoh's, and Mannie's little discussion of
the evil of decision by uncaring governments the night they hatch their
conspiracy? Isn't the distinction between "B-cell" and an uncaring
government specious?
Now compare Mannie giving the order to Mike to start throwing rocks at
"unoccupied areas;" and then to throw them at Federated Nations' office
buildings, or throw them at Norad under Cheyenne Mountain?
Yes, war has been declared by their Declaration of Independence and
plainly the F.N. have been attacking them and their survivial; and
people and governments have been warned; but . . . is not it reasonably
foreseeable that people will flock to the "unpopulated" target areas?
That ships may be en-route at sea passing through those areas? Civilians
had picnics on the field of the first Battle of Bull Run, didn't they?
Got in their little carriages and rode out from Washington and from
Richmond to see the sight of battle from both sides, didn't they?
What about once the target shifts to Cheyenne Mountain? Is there a moral
difference between the one who throws rocks from afar, trying to miss
civilians, and one who carries the bomb strapped to her chest knowing
well that nearby working civilian-slave laborer convicts are going to be
killed in the Authority Complex when it goes [and worse, since the
computer controls lots of things, including air, ' . . . by and by it
will get a little stuffy . . . then the panic will start in the domes.
Do you know where your P-suit is? Are its bottles fully charged?']?
Mannie doesn't have to look in the eye all the GS-4 file clerks, GS-7
computer programmers, technicians, the mechanics in the motor pool, the
air conditioning maintenance men, etc., die alongside the military as
rocks drive deeper and deeper. Does that make him more or less morally
culpable?
And then we aim at the F.N. buildings: are there infants in the first
floor day care nurseries of these buildings as there were in Oklahoma
City? Maybe today you're not too sympathetic with the agents of the
F.R.S. (it is April 15th after all, and their predecessors the I.R.S.
are particularily loved by anyone except their children, if them,
today); but not all the space in these office buildings are devoted to
the tiny sub-department that sets prices on the one-way grain traffic
from Luna and ignores the ecological drain, is it?
Each different agency in each building might just have a tiny, tiny
"Fairy Godmother Department" where the GS-5 who's out sick most of the
time decides to come in, put down her knitting that day, and plunk her
magic wand down on your invalid veteran uncle (permanently disabled in
the last brush war in wherever it was), or your grandmother, who's out
of luck for support from her family because you got convicted of
poaching deer and were deported and nobody at the church thinks the
grandma of a "lag" should be helped, that day the rock arrives. Every
bureaucratic organization, not just military ones, has that tiny
department.
What 'revolutionary government' is entitled morally to decide that all
the Fairy Godmothers die? Or even all the infants down in the first
floor nursery, children of the working mother clerks who work in the
evil department that sets grain importation quotas? Does it make a
difference that Mannie doesn't even know who these people are or what
little good they might occasionally do? Should Mannie have to look them
in the eyes before they die, just as Wyoh will have to do with the
janitor and his broom if she carries the bomb into the Authority Complex?
Who, of the two, Wyoh at the beginning, or Mannie at the end, is more
moral? What's your moral or ethical guess?
John David Galt
>> In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in
>> privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as
>> "Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"], or the
>> US as it appears in "Coventry". But there would also be substantial
>> ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge's "The
>> Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
David Silver wrote:
> Returning to the scene of one of my crimes in this thread, I can
> understand why John David Galt hoped any of the "substantial ungoverned
> places" would be much more similar to a libertarian utopia than "Coventry."
>
> My only question to John David, or others, is: what makes you think RAH
> would expect that?
I'm not at all sure RAH would expect that.
ISTM that "Coventry" contains a great contradiction which reveals a major
blind spot on the author's part. On the one hand, the judge who sentences
the protagonist makes clear (as do several others, there and in Methuselah's
Children) that the Covenant says you are free to do anything you like that
doesn't cause harm to others; that even if something is explicitly banned,
they can't force you to choose between psych treatment and Coventry without
first showing that you harmed someone, or at least put them in substantial
fear. On the other hand, the mainstream US (in so far as we see it in the
background of those two stories) is a very quiet place, with next to no
night life; something like Utah today. Does he really think that in a free
world, no one will want to indulge in sex, drinking, rock&roll, or drugs?
Human nature says that a large minority will -- _especially_ when a regime
that imposed heavy penalties on all those things ended a generation ago.
(Real world examples of this sort of backlash can be seen in the ex Soviet
Union today, and in the US' alcohol consumption figures since Prohibition
ended.)
> fields. Addressing the Court, MacKinnon castigates his society for its
> choice to fit into a "cautious little pattern" of "compromising 'safe'
> weaklings with water in their veins . . . [who've] planned their world
> so carefully you've planned the fun and zest right out of it." The
> English teacher, a self-defined "rugged individualist," chooses Coventry.
>
> What do you suppose the author who many today consider the
> prophet of the Libertarian Party, "rugged individualists" all, had in
> store for this "rugged individualist"?
If anyone in the libertarian party or movement ever used that title about
RAH, I never heard about it, and I should have. RAH was "somewhat
libertarian" but would never have been comfortable in the party or
movement. Certainly he was uncomfortable with a lot of the diversity
that the movement is about.
> My question, restated is: In light of this development of alternatives
> by the author himself, how can any libertarian think Heinlein thought a
> libertarian utopia might develop in any substantially ungoverned place.
He didn't, and I don't either, in one sense. A stable community of ANY
kind requires police who can and will enforce order. But that does not
necessarily imply that the police are a monopoly, or represent a state in
the traditional sense. And it certainly doesn't imply that the police
enjoy the special immunities they do today (which is David Friedman's
definition of the distinction between a state and anarchy).
> Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
> avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
> up with people?
Pretty much the same as in a governed place: there has to be a body of
accepted custom that people follow, which includes concepts of live-and-
let-live and some means of enforcement against those who won't. The big
difference is that the state-as-mommy won't be there; everyone has to
realize that providing for their own security is their job. I offer
Vinge's "The Ungoverned" and Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" as
more thorough explanations of how this would need to work.
David Silver
>>John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>>In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in
>>>privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as
>>>"Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"], or the
>>>US as it appears in "Coventry". But there would also be substantial
>>>ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge's "The
>>>Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
>>>
>
> David Silver wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>> What do you suppose the author who many today consider the
>>prophet of the Libertarian Party, "rugged individualists" all, had in
>>store for this "rugged individualist"?
>>
>
> If anyone in the libertarian party or movement ever used that title about
> RAH, I never heard about it, and I should have. RAH was "somewhat
> libertarian" but would never have been comfortable in the party or
> movement. Certainly he was uncomfortable with a lot of the diversity
> that the movement is about.
>
>
In what sense are you using the term "diversity," John David? Diversity
of ideas about political organizations or non-organizations?
>>My question, restated is: In light of this development of alternatives
>>by the author himself, how can any libertarian think Heinlein thought a
>>libertarian utopia might develop in any substantially ungoverned place.
>>
>
> He didn't, and I don't either, in one sense. A stable community of ANY
> kind requires police who can and will enforce order. But that does not
> necessarily imply that the police are a monopoly, or represent a state in
> the traditional sense. And it certainly doesn't imply that the police
> enjoy the special immunities they do today (which is David Friedman's
> definition of the distinction between a state and anarchy).
>
If I understand you about what Friedman's definition excludes, that's a
toothy subject in itself. Can you point to me an article, online (or
elsewhere if need be) that discusses this distinction of Friedman's?
>
>>Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
>>avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
>>up with people?
>>
>
> Pretty much the same as in a governed place: there has to be a body of
> accepted custom that people follow, which includes concepts of live-and-
> let-live and some means of enforcement against those who won't. The big
> difference is that the state-as-mommy won't be there; everyone has to
> realize that providing for their own security is their job. I offer
> Vinge's "The Ungoverned" and Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" as
> more thorough explanations of how this would need to work.
>
Vinge's "The Ungoverned," a short story, seems only available in _The
Collected Stories of Vernor Vinge_, a hardbound listing at about $30
(although Amazon is selling one-third discounted). Still, I'm not sure
that price is offset by the bonus of acquisition of a copy of the
"ground-breaking" "Fast Times at Ridgemount High," so I can see what
that story was all about before Sean Penn as "surfer dude," or whatever
his name was got, his hands on it. Anywhere else you know where I can
find a copy of "The Ungoverned" to read, John David?
David D. Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_, also a hardbound, lists
at near the same $30 price, and is not discounted.
Still, the topic "Heinlein and Libertarianism," might be an interesting
one for a future chat meeting. Any interest in 'hosting' such a
discussion, and in proposing a reading list (of Heinlein and a few
selected other works), John David? [Same illusory promises I made Chris
Zakes: less mooching on pre-meeting posts, as and if you wish; moreover
I won't refer to you as a Texican, either ;-)]
djinn
Friedman's web page at
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Libertarian.html
has a lot of articles. Haven't read but a couple of them so can't advise on
their content.
He has interesting ideas though.
Eric S. Harris
Actually, the same bet would work for either. (Details available on request.)
-Eric
David Silver
[all snipped]
Twenty-four hours, and not even a nibble? Darn!
The thought of destroyed Fairy Godmother Departments must have got 'em
all. Caused brain seizures!
I keep waiting for someone to ask me what I really think (or what I
think Heinlein really thought), but there'll be time enough for that
Saturday, I suppose . . . When mooching doesn't work, sometimes dynamite
does. :)
NOTE: I doubt whether she'll be reading this anytime soon, so I'll slip
a small announcement into this thread this way rather than again
imposing on Dave Wright to E-Mail to the reading group list, which some
of you do not receive anyway because you haven't asked to be added. Mrs.
Heinlein has been a little under the weather, lately, but she's getting
stronger now, and *might* briefly attend the upcoming Saturday chat for
a short time if she's strong enough.
She has told me her eighty-sixth birthday will be on next Tuesday, a
week from today (and, of course, it is likely, her health willing, to be
feted elsewhere off-line at a quiet small dinner for her by nearby close
friends that evening). Please don't E-Mail birthday congratulations to
her, because while she was ill a monumental amount of E-Mail, some
pertaining to important business, piled up on her, and it's going to
take her a long time to sift through it; but if you drop into the chat
early on Saturday (please remember the daylight savings time change has
already occurred), from 5 to 8 PM, EDT (I repeat, Eastern *Daylight*
Time), we might spend a *very* brief time at the beginning of the chat,
if she's there, expressing to her our early Happy Birthday wishes
without embarrassing her very real shyness.
Also, please do not comment on the immediately above portion of this
post; and please snip it from any comment you may make to the part above
"NOTE."
Thank you for your consideration.
David Wright
"David Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CBC85E...@verizon.net...
> David Silver wrote:
>
> [all snipped]
>
>
> Twenty-four hours, and not even a nibble? Darn!
>
> The thought of destroyed Fairy Godmother Departments must have got 'em
> all. Caused brain seizures!
>
> I keep waiting for someone to ask me what I really think (or what I
> think Heinlein really thought), but there'll be time enough for that
> Saturday, I suppose . . . When mooching doesn't work, sometimes dynamite
> does. :)
>
(snip)
You haven't fooled me, (I think). I am pretty sure what you really think :)
but, to be honest, this thread combined with current events and some in the
past have bothered me greatly and has given me quite a lot to think about. I
have yet to get it really sorted out. Don't know if I will any time soon.
Thanks
David W.
Ed Reppert
fuelish <rahf...@aol.com25604839> wrote:
> The reason that system works is because the guy
> really doesn't want to write that kind of check.
The reason that system works is that a concept called "giri", which
Westerners sometimes call "face", is still important to the Japanese.
We would do better to call it "honor".
Teresa Redmond
<ag.pl...@verizon.net> quoth:
>David Silver wrote:
>
>[all snipped]
>
>
>Twenty-four hours, and not even a nibble? Darn!
>
>The thought of destroyed Fairy Godmother Departments must have got 'em
>all. Caused brain seizures!
>
>I keep waiting for someone to ask me what I really think (or what I
>think Heinlein really thought), but there'll be time enough for that
>Saturday, I suppose . . . When mooching doesn't work, sometimes dynamite
>does. :)
David, I read your post, but had a hard time figuring it out. I need
to read it again, and will respond from Google, since I tend to delete
all messages at one time from this newsreader and lose things that I
really did want to come back to...
Anyway, give me a little time to digest, and I will respond. :-)
--
~teresa~
^..^ "Never try to outstubborn a cat." Robert A. Heinlein ^..^
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ & http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/
"Blert!!!" quoth Pixel, a small, yellow cat.
email me at pixelmeow at aol dot com or yahoo dot com
MSN messenger ID = pixe...@passport.com
Yahoo Messenger ID = pixe...@yahoo.com
AIM id = pixelmeow
Teresa Redmond
David, you have really gotten me to think about this, and it's
troubling for me. As I have mentioned here before, another author I
read is Robert Jordan. I am currently reading the 8th book in his
Wheel of Time series, in which one of the characters is the
"Daughter-Heir" of her country, Andor. This country only has Queens,
never a King. She is the heir to the throne, and is caught up in a
lot of stuff that would be way to hard to explain here, but something
that I find interesting is that we follow her thoughts on being a good
Queen.
Recent events in the story deal with a Sister of hers, in the
organization she belongs to (way too complicated to explain, something
of a sorority but only for those who can work the magic of this
world). This sister is commited to the Dark side, and has recently
been found out. The organization is committed to the Light, so she is
in a whole lot of trouble, but she must be questioned to find out who
else has broken her oaths to the organization and what they are all up
to.
Elayne, the Daughter-Heir, who is one of the Sisters who have captured
this "Darkfriend", is high in the hierarchy of the group present at
this time. One of the leaders. Her thoughts are that if you order
something done, you are in effect doing it yourself, even if you are
not in the room where it's done. No matter what, if you order it, you
are doing it. She knows that she, in effect, is ordering the sister
interrogated, and there's no way to get around that, even if other
sisters do the questioning. So, she decides that she must, herself,
conduct the interrogation. No excuses. She is queasy over it, she
feels bad about it all, but she must do it herself, and not foist it
on anyone else.
I don't know if this explains my feelings on Wyoh's or Mannie's
morality, at any point in _Moon_, but it's what I thought of while
reading your post. If you order something done, you are doing it by
proxy (if I understand that term correctly). No excuses. If people
die because of it, it is your fault just as surely as if you had gone
and personally killed that person with your own hands.
Of course, this is all an idealistic feeling for me, I have no idea
how I would act in the same situation. I don't know that I'd have the
stomach to do what either of them did, just because I'd be too caught
up with the fact that civilians *can* get caught up in all of this.
And everyone who would die because of something I did would sit right
on my shoulders looking at me.
Well, enough of that. Thanks for listening. :-)
--
~teresa~
(posting from Google...)
David Silver
[snip]
>
> I don't know if this [a discussion of responsibility in one of Robert
> Jordan's novels] explains my feelings on Wyoh's or Mannie's
> morality, at any point in _Moon_, but it's what I thought of while
> reading your post. If you order something done, you are doing it by
> proxy (if I understand that term correctly). No excuses. If people
> die because of it, it is your fault just as surely as if you had gone
> and personally killed that person with your own hands.
>
So we agree, then? Whether you give the orders or do it yourself, you're
equally responsible for the consequences. That leaves the question of
moral culpability, if any exists under the circumstances.
> Of course, this is all an idealistic feeling for me, I have no idea
> how I would act in the same situation. I don't know that I'd have the
> stomach to do what either of them did, just because I'd be too caught
> up with the fact that civilians *can* get caught up in all of this.
> And everyone who would die because of something I did would sit right
> on my shoulders looking at me.
>
The dilemna posed by the novel MiaHM is this: there seems no way the
Lunar Republic can counter-attack the Federation, i.e., go on the
offensive itself, without striking the Earth. They cannot interdict the
Federation Navy; they have none of their own, they really have no
effective anti-aircraft (anti-spacecraft) weapons except close in; they
have no raiders, no invasion force -- and their invasion force, if they
had one would crumple under Earth gravity; they have no allies (the
Venus Republic won't be sending its Navy, the Little David, on by as it
did in Between Planets, to drive off or sink Lord Cornwallis' fleet so
his brother can be boxed in at Yorktown ... there is no F.N. army on
lunar soil to boxed in. There is no effort to spark a rebellion against
the F.N. on Earth to divert it; no more profitable colonies in India to
entice other powers to attack. There is no SovUnion or ChiCom to keep up
the long supply lines to bleed the will of F.N. to resist the breakaway
Lunar Republic.
All that can be done is to first threaten, then demonstrate, then
escalate on to actual attacks on what "military" targets exist on Terra.
It's analogous to George Washington and John Paul Jones having to say:
okay, Colonel Knox, load up your artillery and fire, aiming as best you
can, at Whitehall and Horse Guards across the Atlantic. If you happen to
destroy the East End, full of civilians, we'll have to live with it.
Heinlein's loaded the dice against Mannie. And then he cast them whether
Mannie wanted to play or not when the Prof made it impossible to reach
an accomodation of any sort with the F.N.
"Is you wife still performing nightly at the brothel where you found
her?" or words to that direct effect. Imagine such an inquiry about
Queen Henrietta (?, or was it Caroline?) in Jefferson's Declaration to
George III. We'd be tugging our forelocks and bowing whilst Lord Harry
drove by, yet. Maybe.
No Dominion status, no Commonwealth down the line. Cut them down or die.
That's the difference between Mannie and Wyoh. The difference between
the unnecessary beginning or the compelled end.
Mannie has no true choice save capitulation, and the liquidation of his
family, his people, his nation that would follow. In the words of Marion
Morrison, he's faced with: "A Man's got to do what a Man's got to do."
Lousy situation, eh? Or as Harry Truman is reputed to have at least
thought, "Before I send a quarter of a million boys in to die, I'll try
this gadget."
Anyone see it some other way?
David Silver
[snip]
>
> Anyone see it some other way?
>
I am tempted to wonder, however, had this dispute been brought before
Her Wisdom, Empress of Twenty Universes, whom she would have pointed at
when she said, "Take him out and shoot him."
Professor Bernardo de la Paz, or the F.N. Representative from Buenos Aires?
Or would she have been content to grant them no decision whatever?
djinn
> David Silver wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>
>> Anyone see it some other way?
>>
>
> I am tempted to wonder, however, had this dispute been brought before
> Her Wisdom, Empress of Twenty Universes, whom she would have pointed
> at when she said, "Take him out and shoot him."
>
> Professor Bernardo de la Paz, or the F.N. Representative from Buenos
> Aires?
>
> Or would she have been content to grant them no decision whatever?
If the food projections were correct, she would probably have had the FN
Rep shot for negligence. She may have had the Prof shot too, for trying
violent overthrow as a first rememdy.
If you accept that the Lunies were fighting for their lives, then any means
they use would seem acceptable. So HW wouldn't have been thrilled by the
FN's negligence driving the Lunies to desperation.
OTOH, Luna didn't seem really isolated, so the Lunies could have gotten
word to Earth about the problem. There may have been a political answer. If
so, HW would have shot la Paz too.
dont be fuelish
OK. If you think there is more honor in their system then there is in ours,
I won't argue. However, I know one person with the last name Face. My
feeling is, when she is part of the conversation, we are doing face time.
My hope is that people's names here will continue to be important to them.
Tian Harter
http://tian.greens.org
--
Yesterday I spent the evening phone banking for the
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter. The message was
that this Saturday there is going to be an Earth Day
Rally for San Francisco Bay at Coyote Point, 10 AM.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> David wrote:
>
> > Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
> > avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
> > up with people?
>
> In order for a society to exist without government, *every* individual
> would have to be willing to govern themselves, never interfering with the
> rights of others.
>
> Of course, this is impossible.
This conclusion acknowledges that Free Will ensures that learning is
voluntary, but also presumes "we" are at the mercy of any who refuse
to govern themselves.
"How's that again? I seem to have missed something."
Or to labor it,
"Don't brag to me that nobody can 'make you learn' to keep your
paws off what isn't yours. I don't /have to/ 'make you learn'
anything. I don't even /have to/ hand your paws back to you."
>
> Heinlein was a libertarian, but he didn't have any illusion that it was the
> perfect "ism" on which to base society.
> --
> Bill Dennis
> http://peoriatimesobserver.com
> http://billdennis.net
Dennis M. Hammes
>
...
> And no matter who they are, vote the rats out of office. And vote the next
> crop of rats out too.
>
> ---
> Art
No rat who "counts" the votes will ever be voted out of office.
(Current "counters" throw out /at least half/ the registered votes
for not having performed the "counter's" little religious ritual.)
Dennis M. Hammes
> > I am tempted to wonder, however, had this dispute been brought before
> > Her Wisdom, Empress of Twenty Universes, whom she would have pointed
> > at when she said, "Take him out and shoot him."
> >
> > Professor Bernardo de la Paz, or the F.N. Representative from Buenos
> > Aires?
> >
> > Or would she have been content to grant them no decision whatever?
>
> If the food projections were correct, she would probably have had the FN
> Rep shot for negligence. She may have had the Prof shot too, for trying
> violent overthrow as a first rememdy.
When violence, "if aided by Star herself," was /her own/ first
remedy to a glomming of resources? (First remedy; 29th attempt.)
>
> If you accept that the Lunies were fighting for their lives, then any means
> they use would seem acceptable. So HW wouldn't have been thrilled by the
> FN's negligence driving the Lunies to desperation.
>
> OTOH, Luna didn't seem really isolated, so the Lunies could have gotten
> word to Earth about the problem. There may have been a political answer. If
> so, HW would have shot la Paz too.
But Her Wisdom already knows what this proposal does not: that one
Robert Heinlein, over a century earlier, and without a HOLMES IV or
a staff of Federation economists to his name, solved the equation
for which the FN Senate was legally responsible and presumably
equipped, data for which were /certainly/ reported to Mort The Wart
and his predecessors, since /FN set the prices/.
"Off With His Head!"
They'd be lucky if She stopped with one.
And, considering any author's limited resources and Mr. Heinlein's
self-confessed penchant for the filing of serial numbers, it must
also be considered that "Her Wisdom" /is/ both "Mycroft Holmes" and
"Professor Bernardo de la Paz."
Their Wisdoms do not suicide. "Most often, we are assassinated."
Dennis M. Hammes
"Giri" is a responsibility one is born with; "gimu" is a
responsibility one assumes.
"Face," yes, depends on how well one /is seen to/ carry out those
responsibilities; "honor" depends on how well one /actually/ carries
them out.
Differences are crucial.
Brandon Ray
David Silver wrote:
I do. The Loonies never -- not once -- struck at a civilian, populated
target. They either attacked empty deserts and mountaintops -- giving
three days' warning -- or they attacked legitimate military targets.
I have zero sympathy for any of the civilians who died on earth in this
book. ALL of them, without exception, either deliberately went out of
their way to travel to a target zone, KNOWING that there would be an attack
there, or they were actively aiding the FN's military, either in uniform or
as civilian employees.
We were also told that the rocks that were thrown were extremely accurate.
There were no reports of rocks landing anywhere other than their intended
targets, except for one case where an interceptor missile knocked the rock
off course and disabled its guidance system. So the comparison to blindly
firing 18th Century cannons is not appropriate.
Roger Connor
David Silver wrote:
> < snip >
Yes. I think that you're forgetting that the actual aim of this revolution
is to stop the export of grain to Earth. Everything else is subsidiary to
that aim. So, how does one make sure that the catapult is not usable, and
won't be rebuilt? Get the F.N. to destroy it. That is crucial to the overall
plan. No "settlement" with the F.N. was possible, or really attempted by
Prof. But, to give the Loonies a small chance of surviving, the revolution
had to make the F.N. the bad guys, in order to get the Loonies to rebel in
the first place, to get the F.N. mad enough to destroy the catapult without
destroying (hopefully) the warrens. Having early recognition is equal to
failure. Having the catapult receiving and launching grain is failure! If
the catapult is destroyed, and even a small portion of the colony survives,
it is a success, even if they don't gain recognition. But, such just delays
the inevitable if the catapult is rebuilt.
Roger
David Silver
>
> David Silver wrote:
>
>
[snip]
>>
>>Anyone see it some other way?
>>
>
> I do. The Loonies never -- not once -- struck at a civilian, populated
> target. They either attacked empty deserts and mountaintops -- giving
> three days' warning -- or they attacked legitimate military targets.
>
Not precisely true, Brandon. It was reasonably foreseeable to Prof, who
had lived on earth, and no doubt had the experience of his own
observations, to know that (1) civilians are always employed by
governments in a plethora of positions, few, if any, are essentially
"military' even in military agencies; (2) folk visit, on business, or
otherwise, the physical premises of miliary agencies, for a wide variety
of reasons (Teacher: Children, the next stop on our visit to Washington,
D.C. will be the Pentagon. It's where the protectors of our Democracy
work. Kids: Wow!); (3) people live adjacent to government office
buildings simply because such buildings are located conveniently to
public transportation in cities. Surely, Mike knew at least that with
his encyclopediac review of everything placed accessible to his inputs.
A "legitimate" "military" target, if it is a standard-issue government
building, will necessary involve civilians ("buy 'em like beans" to do
everything except wield the swords -- isn't that what every military
does, even if it isn't to the extent Heinlein's Starship Troopers
urged?). And how much of your local federal government building is
occupied by the *military*? Two percent? Five percent?
We have two rather large standard-issue ones in Los Angeles: forgive me,
but the last time I checked, the only *military* agency occupying any
substantial space was the US Army's Corps of Engineers; and what were
they doing? Mostly civil engineering involving rivers, flood plains,
bridges, channeling water so run-off doesn't flood out the civilians
everytime we get a cloudburst in this irrigated desert here. You want to
find the Air Force [equivalent of the Space Navy]? They're not in the
main federal buildings. They have their own offices near Los Angeles
International Airport, among other spots, here and there. You want the
Navy? Go look down in the Harbors of Long Beach and San Pedro where they
have port facilities. You want the Marines? Except for those guarding
Naval facilities, here and there, since the curtailments of a few
outlaying facilities, you'll have to look at Pendleton, way down by San
Diego and far from the federal building in San Diego, or out past
Riverside by Twenty-nine Palms. Army, except for Corps of Engineers? Not
in Los Angeles County in any significant amounts, since they closed down
the Nike anti-aircraft and missle defenses. You can head a few hundred
miles up the coast and maybe find a few at closed bases and mothballed
reserve facilities and the Presidios, or go out to the desert and find
the Desert Warfare Center located roughly adjacent to the Marines at
Twenty-nine Plans; but there really aren't any military in the "miltary"
targets of the federal office buildings of this area -- excepting a few
procurement types.
Instead what you'll find in 'federal buildings' is a mishmash of all the
cabinet and ABC agencies, employing civilians doing just about
everything else under the sun except being or aiding, directly or
indirectly, the military.
Calling a government building a "military" target is a specious excuse
for killing and terrorizing civilians, 99 and 44/100th percent of the
time in actual practice. Churchill did it when he ordered Berlin be
bombed and Hermann be labeled "Meyer." Hitler did it when he bombed
Coventry, and buzz bombed London and the rest of Southeastern England,
and so on . . . in a sense all aerial bombardments of targets in cities
are simple terrorism of civilians. That collateral casualties are within
the loopholes of "legality" isn't anything but a mere justification for
unconscionable murder. And those murders can be massive. I don't need to
mention Dresden, or Tokoyo, or those two other Japanese cities do I? But
it's the way that wars presently are fought.
> I have zero sympathy for any of the civilians who died on earth in this
> book. ALL of them, without exception, either deliberately went out of
> their way to travel to a target zone, KNOWING that there would be an attack
> there, or they were actively aiding the FN's military, either in uniform or
> as civilian employees.
>
If it makes you feel better to say so, using the terms "actively aiding
the FN's military," then let me say you're self-deluded and rather
easily satisfied by what you read, because what you maintain flies in
the face of what you can determine to be reality just as easily as
making a trip to virtually any federal building that as ever existed,
save the Pentagon. Timothy McVeigh maintained all those people actively
aided oppression too. Twelve of your fellow citizens, but virtually any
twelve you'd walk into on the street would have done the same, disagreed
with any justification offered for his activities and recommended a
death sentence. How did the children in that first floor day care center
actively aid anything except the blocks they piled up atop one another?
> We were also told that the rocks that were thrown were extremely accurate.
> There were no reports of rocks landing anywhere other than their intended
> targets, except for one case where an interceptor missile knocked the rock
> off course and disabled its guidance system. So the comparison to blindly
> firing 18th Century cannons is not appropriate.
>
"We were . . . told"? And was knocking the rock off course and disabling
its guidance system reasonably foreseeable?
Those were nuclear warheads on those interceptors. Ronnie Ray-gun's Star
Wars that now work, seventy years into the future. And are you sure it
was only one ... didn't Dallas' defenses themselves eat up several? How
do you know where pieces that may have remained go? Are you relying on
Mike Holmes to report the truth? Mike the Jokester, who issued a check
for fifty billion million dollars to a broom jockey? I hope you don't
believe truthful reports on military action in time of war are the rule.
You never had a chance to watch the "Five O'clock Follies," did you?
I'd submit to you that a lot of well-regarded, rather high ranking and
highly decorated, retired military have proven time and again, that the
contrary is true. That's why they call it the "fog of war." You don't
have to take my word for it. I was just a peon back then. David Hackman
wore eagles on his shoulders and could have worn stars had he kept his
mouth shut about the deliberate lies. He has a website that might be
illuminating. You can find it with a search machine.
And what would have happened if China hadn't caved?
But I asked for contrary views didn't I? If you really believe
uncritically what is printed down there in the text in black and white,
then you can argue a contrary view, just as people who read newspapers
and then fail to critically assess what they've read do -- but wasn't
this author the same one who told us, above all, to do what Jim
Gifford's website used to trumpet? Assess "What are the facts . . . etc.?"
You're mooching right back at me, right? ;-) Nice job!
David Silver
>
> David Silver wrote:
>
>
>>< snip >
>>
>>
>>Anyone see it some other way?
>>
>>
>
> Yes. I think that you're forgetting that the actual aim of this revolution
> is to stop the export of grain to Earth. Everything else is subsidiary to
> that aim. So, how does one make sure that the catapult is not usable, and
> won't be rebuilt? Get the F.N. to destroy it. That is crucial to the overall
> plan. No "settlement" with the F.N. was possible, or really attempted by
> Prof. But, to give the Loonies a small chance of surviving, the revolution
> had to make the F.N. the bad guys, in order to get the Loonies to rebel in
> the first place, to get the F.N. mad enough to destroy the catapult without
> destroying (hopefully) the warrens. Having early recognition is equal to
> failure. Having the catapult receiving and launching grain is failure! If
> the catapult is destroyed, and even a small portion of the colony survives,
> it is a success, even if they don't gain recognition. But, such just delays
> the inevitable if the catapult is rebuilt.
> Roger
>
>
I agree, Roger. This demonstrates the difference between tactics and
strategy; here, the strategic aim was very subtle. Not a bad perception. :-)
Brandon Ray
David Silver wrote:
>
> Instead what you'll find in 'federal buildings' is a mishmash of all the
> cabinet and ABC agencies, employing civilians doing just about
> everything else under the sun except being or aiding, directly or
> indirectly, the military.
Yeah, I know. I work in one. :)
>
>
> Calling a government building a "military" target is a specious excuse
> for killing and terrorizing civilians, 99 and 44/100th percent of the
> time in actual practice. Churchill did it when he ordered Berlin be
> bombed and Hermann be labeled "Meyer." Hitler did it when he bombed
> Coventry, and buzz bombed London and the rest of Southeastern England,
> and so on . . . in a sense all aerial bombardments of targets in cities
> are simple terrorism of civilians. That collateral casualties are within
> the loopholes of "legality" isn't anything but a mere justification for
> unconscionable murder. And those murders can be massive. I don't need to
> mention Dresden, or Tokoyo, or those two other Japanese cities do I? But
> it's the way that wars presently are fought.
>
And this is the 56/100 of a time that it isn't true. There were no cities
bombed in "Mistress". There were two military targets mentioned that I can
recall: The Dallas spaceport, and Cheyenne Mountain. Here's what was said
about Dallas:
"'Oh, yes, Dallas -- we destroy Dallas spaceport and should catch some ships,
were six there last time I checked. Won't kill any people unless they insist on
standing on target; Dallas is perfect place to bomb, that spaceport is big and
flat and empty, yet maybe ten million people will see us hit it.'" -- p. 354 of
the hardcover SFBC edition from the mid 1990s
And here's the commentary on Cheyenne Mountain:
"For a century North American Space Defense Command had been buried in a
mountain south of Colorado Springs, Colorado, a city of no other importance.
During Wet Firecracker War the Cheyenne Mountain took a direct hit; space
defense command post survived -- but not sundry deer, trees, most of city and
some of top of mountain. What we were about to do should not kill anybody
unless they stayed outside on that mountain despite three days' steady
warnings." -- p. 333
And there was this comment on the general doctrine:
"'A maximum of instructive shrecklichkeit with minimum loss of life. None, if
possible' -- was how Prof summed up doctrine for Operation Hard Rock and was way
Mike and I carried it out. Idea was to hit earthworms so hard would convince
them -- while hitting so gently as not to hurt." -- p. 326
And, again speaking of Cheyenne Mountain:
"This was one target where we would not be satisfied to get just one missile to
target. We meant to smash that mountain and keep on smashing. To hurt their
morale. To let them know we were still around. Disrupt their communications
and bash in command post if pounding could do it. Or at least give them
splitting headaches and no rest. If we could prove to all Terra that we could
drive home a sustained attack on strongest Gibraltar of their space defense, it
would save having to prove it by smashing Manhattan or San Francisco.
"Which we would not do even if losing. Why? Hard sense. If we used our last
strength to destroy a major city, they would not punish us; they would destroy
us. As Prof put it, 'If possible, leave room for your enemy to become your
friend.'
"But any military target is fair game." -- pp. 333-334
If Mannie's account is to be believed (and he seems to be a pretty reliable
narrator), this was one of the cleanest wars fought since the advent of mass
warfare -- at least from the Loonies' side.
>
> > I have zero sympathy for any of the civilians who died on earth in this
> > book. ALL of them, without exception, either deliberately went out of
> > their way to travel to a target zone, KNOWING that there would be an attack
> > there, or they were actively aiding the FN's military, either in uniform or
> > as civilian employees.
> >
>
> If it makes you feel better to say so, using the terms "actively aiding
> the FN's military," then let me say you're self-deluded and rather
> easily satisfied by what you read, because what you maintain flies in
> the face of what you can determine to be reality just as easily as
> making a trip to virtually any federal building that as ever existed,
> save the Pentagon. Timothy McVeigh maintained all those people actively
> aided oppression too. Twelve of your fellow citizens, but virtually any
> twelve you'd walk into on the street would have done the same, disagreed
> with any justification offered for his activities and recommended a
> death sentence. How did the children in that first floor day care center
> actively aid anything except the blocks they piled up atop one another?
>
Sorry, I am not deluded. You are comparing apples to oranges. The OKC FBI
building is not a military target. NORAD HQ, by any possible measure, IS. So
is any airport capable of landing military aircraft (or, in this case,
spacecraft). If you choose to work on a military base, you are taking the risk
that you may get vaporized some morning.
Also, the bombing in OKC was a sneak attack; these were not. There were three
days' warning given to anyone who cared to listen.
>
> > We were also told that the rocks that were thrown were extremely accurate.
> > There were no reports of rocks landing anywhere other than their intended
> > targets, except for one case where an interceptor missile knocked the rock
> > off course and disabled its guidance system. So the comparison to blindly
> > firing 18th Century cannons is not appropriate.
> >
>
> "We were . . . told"? And was knocking the rock off course and disabling
>
> its guidance system reasonably foreseeable?
>
Yes -- by both the Loonies and the North Americans. The intervening act was
firing an interceptor missile at a rock that was aimed at open water. Had the
interceptor not been fired, the rock would not have been knocked off course.
>
> Those were nuclear warheads on those interceptors. Ronnie Ray-gun's Star
> Wars that now work, seventy years into the future.
The Loonies didn't fire the interceptors. The North Americans did. They were
the ones who chose to detonate nuclear weapons over their own territory, in
order to defend empty water in Lake Michigan, and (noting your correction below)
a clear military target with no civilians nearby, in Dallas. They decided that
saving the spaceport was more important than the welfare of the civilians living
nearby. That's on THEIR heads.
> And are you sure it
> was only one ... didn't Dallas' defenses themselves eat up several? How
> do you know where pieces that may have remained go? Are you relying on
> Mike Holmes to report the truth? Mike the Jokester, who issued a check
> for fifty billion million dollars to a broom jockey? I hope you don't
> believe truthful reports on military action in time of war are the rule.
> You never had a chance to watch the "Five O'clock Follies," did you?
>
I don't know where the pieces went, and I don't care. None of the rocks were
targeted at civilians. Any pieces that hit civilians are the responsibility of
the people who fired the interceptors.
>
> I'd submit to you that a lot of well-regarded, rather high ranking and
> highly decorated, retired military have proven time and again, that the
> contrary is true. That's why they call it the "fog of war." You don't
> have to take my word for it. I was just a peon back then. David Hackman
> wore eagles on his shoulders and could have worn stars had he kept his
> mouth shut about the deliberate lies. He has a website that might be
> illuminating. You can find it with a search machine.
Is it possible that you mean David Hackworth?
> And what would have happened if China hadn't caved?
There would have been more water strikes. The Loonies threatened to attack FN
buildings in major cities. Mannie's commentary earlier in the book indicates it
was an empty threat.
>
> But I asked for contrary views didn't I? If you really believe
> uncritically what is printed down there in the text in black and white,
> then you can argue a contrary view, just as people who read newspapers
> and then fail to critically assess what they've read do -- but wasn't
> this author the same one who told us, above all, to do what Jim
> Gifford's website used to trumpet? Assess "What are the facts . . . etc.?"
>
The only facts we have are the ones Mannie chose to report to us. I think he's
a credible narrator, and by his account, the attack on Earth was carried out
with great restraint and discretion, with virtually all of the casualties the
fault of the Terrans, not the Loonies. YMMV.
But the ugly truth is that in ANY war people get killed -- and a lot of them are
innocent by any reasonable definition. The only way to avoid this is not to
fight the war in the first place. Since, if you believe Mike's projection, the
Lunar Colonies were doomed within 20 years, absent a major policy change that
its owners did not seem inclined to make, the Loonies had little choice.
>
> You're mooching right back at me, right? ;-) Nice job!
>
Well, thanks, I guess. :)