"TheGovernmentIsAlwaysCorrectData"? Not as short, but more likely to attract funds from the center! And you could change -Corrrect- to Right if there is a change in parasites (sorry, I think I meant party)

Not a moment -- or a day -- too soon! Or too late, though I'm a bit tardy, GMT-wise, to convincingly congratulate you on your breakthrough.

Ah, a "poison d' avril" :-)

Quite right Perry. We are all community organisers now.

Anyone seen that fecking great limo that the Community Organiser is being driven around in? It is designed to withstand a missile attack, apparently.

Hopeychange!

Why not just call it GOSPLAN?

The State can measure, adjust, influence and control everything if only (if only!) it had enough DATA!

I think you need to go one better and not just become a recipient of the largesse - because you are still passive and subject to the whims of the Apparatus. You need to become part of the Aparatus to create your own little niche to exist in. Of course you don't want to be too far up the chain and be subject to the attendant purges that will take place. So you need to find a nice little office at Bureau X to settle into to preserve yourself but not be so noticeable or exposed to be disposed of. Granted you might have to step on a few necks and execute some noisome directives, but, hey, a small price to pay for self preservation in the New Order.

I get "server not found". Am I typing it wrong?

Nice try. I'm still not disabling the hidden spy cameras in your kitchen. And I'm telling your parents about last Saturday.

I have often questioned whether the standard "take no state money on principal" stance was justified. It seems to place freedom lovers at a disadvantage compared to Liberals and Conservatives.

Perhaps "suck the state dry and hasten it's demise" would be a better strategy after all.

"suck the state dry and hasten it's demise"

Keep in mind that the state merely takes the money from other people, so what you'd really be doing is using the state to suck those others dry and hasten their demise.

A fair point, Linda, but I would respond that the state is a parasite which has grown so large it is on the brink of killing its host. Once the host dies the parasite will too, and since that end seems inevitable it might be best to hasten the process and get it over with. At this point I don't see any other method of removing the parasite; it's far too deeply embedded.

Whoa, Laird, are you touting murder, suicide or as much of both as possible as promising means for ridding ourselves of the parasitic state? We are all hosts now, you know. Even those on the receiving end of all those stimulating bailouts are expected to somehow throw the money about in some sort of way that will keep the state breathing and embedding and printing up more stimulus.

So speaking as a host here, I'm giving preference to plans that don't involve wiping out me or various other people I like just so the state will turn loose and die a mite quicker.

Considering that attempts to "suck the state dry and hasten its demise" really amount to sucking each other dry and hastening our own demise, isn't a bit cheerier and more humane to at least try to tear the bloodsucker out and starve it in a cage whilst being tender and kind to each other? Just a thought, and certainly one easier to think than to do.

Linda, an analogy goes only so far! Of course we're all hosts (well, those of us who are productive and supporting the leeches, anyway). If enough of us decide to stop being producers and become leeches ourselves, wouldn't that essentially amount to John Galt's "strike" and force the change we seek?

The only part of that novel I’ve read or plan to read is Galt’s speech, and I don’t remember any counsel to defeat the leeches by out-leeching them. Not at all. Of course not.

There’s a big difference between refusing to produce for those who would live off your labor and laying claim yourself to the labor and productivity of others. You have the right to what you produce, but not to what the state or any other entity forcibly appropriates from others.

What you're proposing -- in jest, I know -- is to advance and accelerate the rot rather than remove your contribution to it. Fine, except you don't have an actual right to do that.

The only part of the novel which would have benefitted from a severe pruning was Galt's speech. I get about 30 pages into it and start skipping paragraphs, and by about page 75 I start skipping whole pages. I've read the novel numerous times, but never that entire damned speech!

You're right, of course, that Galt (Rand) didn't advocate becoming a leech, merely ceasing to produce for the benefit of others. But is there really a substantive difference between refusing to help fill the cistern and actively helping to drain it? The end result is identical (an empty cistern), and you get there that much faster.

Yeah, I can see how a speech like that would disrupt the flow of the narrative and various subplots, to say the least. As I understand it, Rand wrote her novels as popular conveyances for her philosophy, so it's ironic (if predictable) that so many readers would skip or merely skim the speech that she elsewhere called "the philosophy of Objectivism."

But is there really a substantive difference between refusing to help fill the cistern and actively helping to drain it?

Not if you're focussing on the ends without any regard to the means.

The end result is identical (an empty cistern), and you get there that much faster.

But then where are you, when all you've really practised and learned is how to drain that cistern?

Hey, this is me we're talking about. I know how to fill cisterns, and will get back to it eventually, when the time is right. For now I'm just taking a break and learning a new skill: emptying them. I'm sure Perry will help.

I don't find your "means/ends" argument convincing. You'll need to do better than that. If you'd read the entire novel you'd find that John Galt destroyed his "miracle" motor; Ellis Wyatt burned his oil wells; Francisco D'Anconia blew up his copper mines. And Ragnar Danneskjold attacked and looted government ships. These men didn't just walk away; they took affirmative actions which definitely hastened the collapse of the system. Were they wrong to do so?

I know how to fill cisterns, and will get back to it eventually

Oh, well yes, of course, and what a load off my mind. Sort of.

If you'd read the entire novel you'd find that John Galt destroyed his "miracle" motor; Ellis Wyatt burned his oil wells; Francisco D'Anconia blew up his copper mines.

Whose "miracle" motor? Whose oil wells? Whose copper mines? I acknowledged above that a person has the right to what he produces, and that is for persons both fictional and real the right to dispose of their property as they desire.

And Ragnar Danneskjold attacked and looted government ships.

Really? Wonder what he did with all the loot?

These men didn't just walk away; they took affirmative actions which definitely hastened the collapse of the system.

Which ones signed up for the bailouts and the food stamps?

FWIW, Danneskjold kept meticulous records and returned the "loot" to those from whom it had been taken. (At least, that was his claim.) A Robin Hood, in the true sense.

Anyway, to return to my original metaphor, I still maintain that refusing to help fill the cistern and joining others in draining it are different only in degree, not in kind. I don't see it as a "means-ends" dichotomy. Guess we'll just have to disagree on that point.

Very good Perry.

Neil Cavuto also did an April Fool joke on similar lines.

I wish I had thought of doing so.