If they import labor it might be because the locals are belligerent to the corporate interests and culture of Del Monte. You can't hire locals if they accuse you of stealing their land and have a strong motivation to sabotage your operation if given the chance. Hiring scabs that are not members of the local union, or an unfriendly local population, is a long time-honored tradition among the world's wealthiest companies.
My home in Texas is worth $100,000.00, is quite comfortable and has many modern amenities (and no, it's not a trailer). Real estate in the 3rd world is magnitudes cheaper, and so is labor. The rugged, eco-friendly pioneers in the US who are building and living in their own earthships and other types of sustainable homesteads spend more on permits, professional fees, and fighting local building codes than what they spend on construction materials, so the $100k+ cost for a home is a myth perpetuated by Wall Street and the over-regulation of private home building.
If you visit the capital cities of many African countries they can seem very "Western" on the surface. Wealth in most 3rd world countries is typically concentrated in the cities, as many 3rd world countries are also the source of much of the world precious resources, such as diamonds, gold, oil, gas, Uranium, exotic hardwoods, and rare earth elements. Once you leave city limits the beautiful and modern paved roads give way to dirt roads and poverty. There are many alternative types of structures, such as straw-bale, cob, rammed earth, sand-bag, etc. Not all are appropriate for every location or situation, but there is usually a very simple type of structure that can be built using local resources and labor. Proper design, such as South-facing windows in northern climates, reduce the need for expensive and high-tech HVAC systems that require the infrastructure you speak of. Many people in some of the worst 3rd world conditions aren't even worries about housing - they're happy with their mud and sheet-metal huts - but they desperately need a way to produce their own food without relying on UN aid convoys of bagged rice and wheat.
We can demand that the 3rd world first mimic our development by building roads, gas stations, auto dealerships, McDonald's and Walmart, or we can work with them to develop and alternative path that can allow them to develop without committing decades to building fragile infrastructure that can so easily be sabotaged or destroyed during the frequent and devastating wars that plague many parts of the 3rd world. Whatever is done, never give the money to government to let them "help" their people. Such efforts have only lead to extravagant mansions, private jets, and a stronger military for those in power.
Decentralized power generation, wireless networks, biointensive agriculture - these are just some of the tools that are working and making a difference in many parts of the 3rd world. Forget the $100k home, the family car, bottled Evian water, and fitness clubs - even the US is having a hard time sustaining this type of existence. One of the major initiatives in the 3rd world is getting a goat to impoverished families http://www.planusa.org/content1565803?tp=VE1HUj0xLHRpZD0xNjIzNzA2LA%3D%3D. Do this first. A billion dollars would go far. Save the $100k homes for the next generation that grow up with the $99 laptop initiative - they'll probably take your kid's software engineering gig for a wage your kids wouldn't be able to live on.
There's a reason why the armies of the world prefer to field the youngest soldiers to the harshest conditions of the front line. This has been true for all history. Give a 16, 18, or 20 year-old a gun and tell him he's a hero, and he will charge against all hell and fury if you tell him to. Armies that don't care about civil rights, the Geneva Convention, or public opinion prefer even younger soldiers. After a little more time to mature, men in their 30's and 40's tend to be much less enthusiastic about such things, and my presumption excludes those older men who have decided to let themselves go physically.
As for the other post regarding the "positive" side of PTSD, I think it's worth noting that when the US has been able to engage in war without significant allied casualties the public has been much more accepting. As long as the US sticks to surgical strikes and SEAL team extractions of terrorists and war criminals, the US public will eat it up. Tell the public that we're going to invade with ground forces and occupy a country indefinitely then public support goes down the tubes, as it should. People saw the shell shock of soldiers returning from the Great War, and as such WWI never held a positive image in the American conscious. The horrors of WWII were tolerated because most Americans felt they had done everything to avoid war and were dragged into it. Korean vets experienced flashbacks and Vietnam forced us to recognize PTSD. When you see the suffering and mental torment of the vets returning home your much less likely to support a rush to war. But training and arming 3rd world peasants to kill and maim each other - that's OK.
1st: Radar cannot penetrate underwater and the part of the GHOST ships that are above water have the same type of design and material as the stealth fighter. 2nd: One of the goals of supercavitation is to achieve faster-than-sound speed underwater. Since sonar uses sound waves to detect objects, if you could travel toward a ship equipped with sonar you could reach them before they had a chance to detect you. Other ships would eventually detect you, but there would be such lag in detection that it would be extremely difficult to fire artillery, rockets, or torpedoes onto your position unless you traveled a straight or predictable path for a good length of time. The fact that the boat exists indicates that the torpedo technology is probably already on board US vessels - meaning that the US could sink just about any ship before the enemy even knew torpedoes where in the water.
If in fact the boat can travel up to 200mph it would be extremely difficult to track or follow without a high speed aircraft dedicated to this purpose. And such a plane would need to rely on visual contact with the vessel because it evades detection by radar. Methods to attack such a craft at max speed would be limited, such as flying right up to the boat and using visual sights to engage the vessel with machine guns, canon, unguided rockets, and/or optically guided missiles (where the pilot has to control the flight of the missile with a remote control and visually guide it into the target). Needless to say that many if not most of the "low tech" options, such as machine guns or rockets do not work so well at high speeds and many modern fighter jets aren't even equipped with such weaponry. The only modern type of weapon, the optically guided missiles, are very expensive.
At such high speeds though, I would hate to think what would happen if it were to hit a porpoise or sea turtle.
You're not considering the cost of living differential in the 3rd world. One billion dollars would go a long way. Such a city could be a great success if it was built primarily with local labor and resources. Using techniques from Sustainable Architecture en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture such a city could be built without the expensive and extravagant features common in American building. Most such structures would have to be similar to earth ships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_ship in material, construction, and function.
Sustainability has to be a cornerstone of any development in the 3rd world. The local population must do the work and labor, learn the trades, teach each other, and make use of local resources with appropriate technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology. Some projects are already in the works that make use of remote solar energy and wireless communication to take a quantum leap past the decades it has taken for the developed world to build its power and communication infrastructure. Solving 3rd world problems definitely takes some out-of-the-box thinking. If you go into a remote part of the Congo with plans to build a Walmart you have already failed.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Most of us who have posted negatively is because of what seems to be a very self-focused decision. I think there are many of us who want to help feed the hungry, house the homeless, and cure the ill, but we also have challenges of our own, children to raise, and even have fears for providing for our own retirement. You cannot help others if you cannot even help yourself. That said, many of us give to charities, tip waitstaff generously, lend tools to neighbors we barely know, etc. If I had billions I know I would have a few more luxuries that I do now, but I would like to think that I would give myself up entirely to hedonism. That said, I don't know Ellison's motives. Carnegie was highly criticized most of his life and only near the end did he become the renowned philanthropist he is remembered as today. Maybe Ellison will build an orphanage and a charity hospital on the island and set up a foundation to fly the world's poor and needy to Hawaii for treatment. But seriously, who am I kidding. Most people once they reach a particular stage of wealth develop a very hardened shell. They know so many around them, even their own friends and family, resent their wealth. Those who act most kindly to them they suspect of being superficial, only wanted to be included in their wills. The more wealth you have the more people ask you for money, and there are plenty who try to put you into a guilt trip or flat out insult you for not giving enough. One of the worse things you can do is give to charity and leave your contact info. The National Do Not Call list makes exceptions for charities to hound you at your personal phone number and by mail. It can be almost as bad as owing a debt collector. And the charities sell your info to other calling lists. So I can see how coming into wealth could lead you to be cold and calloused, but that is a challenge that must be overcome to be a decent human being.
There's also nothing wrong with publicly exposing extravagant spending by the wealthy, especially when behavior is unethical, like buying ivory, hiring child labor, or abusing domestic staff. I don't see anything unethical yet about Ellison's purchase, but it is easy to presume a self-driven motivation given his history of purchasing extravagant play things. There's also nothing wrong with citizens and governments applying social pressure on the wealthy to do more good with their wealth. If most of the rich managed their assets like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates there would probably be much less resentment and animosity like you see in the OWS movements. At some point there can be concern that too small of a minority could gain too much of the wealth, which is a genuine threat to the success and security of a democracy. Corporations should not be allowed to be "too big to fail". Once in such a position it is too easy for them to make their demands and get what they ask for. The American Revolution was fought more against the over-reaching influence of the East India Trading Company than it was a rebellion against UK parliamentary government. Though King George III, the UK monarch, had very little in the way of government authority in the UK, he was a major shareholder of the East India Trading Company, and it was the actions of his company and it's lobbyists that led the US to rebel. Most literature of the time directed anger squarely to King George. The British Prime Minister during the American Revolution was Lord Frederick North, yet most Americans wouldn't recognize the name if they heard it.
Another example of 1% owning 98% of the wealth. Next you'll hear him bitch and moan that he pays most of the taxes on the island and the 1,900 other residents aren't paying their fair share.
If you are "truly free" as you describe in Anarcho-Libertarian terms, then you will likely end up with a Roman-style fire department.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting: "...Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while their employer bargained over the price of their services with the distressed property owner. If Crassus could not negotiate a satisfactory price, his men simply let the structure burn to the ground, after which he offered to purchase it for a fraction of its value..."
After 2000 years of development your suggestion is to go back to an archaic scheme, except that yours involves pre-paying in advance for a service you will most likely never need (hey, more profit for the rich. That's a good thing, right? After all, they're job creators - even though you had a better job or business before you needed to become their servant). Requiring such a fixed fee with such a drastic consequence is a hard position to put someone into when they are having financial trouble (which can happen to anybody, regardless of how smart or hard working you are). I would hate to see how a Libertarian would talk a suicidal person standing on a ledge - probably "JUMP!"
Under our current system in most American communities, taxes are assessed based on property values. If you're poor and own a shabby little shack, you pay less tax but you still (in theory) get the same police and fire protection. If you're too poor to own and have to rent, your landlord pays the tax from a portion of your rent. If you are really poor there are usually programs available to help you make ends meet, such as housing subsidies (which can be quite profitable for savvy landlords), and you still get police and fire protection. So for all the people who aren't paying their taxes, no, the IRS doesn't come in with guns blazing. Those who make plenty of money but chose to not pay their taxes do get raided. I'm not saying that's the best system, but yours leaves the financially disadvantaged in smoldering ruins.
And you're wrong about LIVES on the line. There were pets inside that died. They might have possibly been rescued but a system that pits haves against have-nots got in the way. Give a system like this enough time and a Dickensonian dystopia will set in. The economic viability of the persons trapped inside will be considered before rescue is attempted, on the basis that "there just aren't enough resources to save everybody" (which has always been and still is utter bullshit). Don't believe it? - There's already a large number of Libertarians and Conservatives who think that illegal immigrants should not receive emergency-room treatment. It only takes a little time and some profit-motivated rationalization to desensitize decision makers to undervalue human life.
There is also too much chance of administrative errors getting in the way of providing an essential service that EVERYBODY needs (imagine you did pay but the records were not updated and your house was left to burn. Sure you could sue, but that's AFTER the unnecessary destruction, and you won't have enough money for a decent lawyer). Given that most of the world's wealth is held by a small minority, such Anarcho-Libertarian will lead to the middle class losing whatever they have left and the wealthy few taking it all. When you look at the history of human civilization that seems to be the natural order of things. It's probably destined to happen sooner or later. The fact that so many middle-class individuals fall into such Anarcho-Libertarian and Neo-Conservative reasoning defies all logic. Reminds me of my brother-in-law - he works 70 hours a week but has tens of thousands in medical debt and just lost his home, but when it comes to politics he is convinced that Obama-Care will make his situation worse. In his mind he is lucky the Dems didn't pass legislation for universal health coverage like you get in Canada, UK, and much of
Why not allow the Lana'ians the right to self determination? Of course, they may get evicted by their new landlord before the next election. And then, would that make Ellison the sole resident of Lana'i? I could see it now...sole resident and only registered voter of Lana'i elects himself as mayor, sheriff, and county judge. In his new role he will assess tax against his property, receive tax from his offshore bank account, and use those funds to pay for improvements to Lana'i. Talk about a win-win situation.
He could always operate the Island the same way that Disney Inc. operates Disney World. The Government of Florida created the Reedy Creek Improvement District, a special government district that essentially gave the Disney Company the standard powers and autonomy of an incorporated city. Disney later founded the Drainage District as a public corporation with the power to condemn and acquire property outside its boundaries "for the public use". It used this power at least once to obtain land for Canal C-1 (Bonnet Creek) through land that is now being developed as the Bonnet Creek Resort, a non-Disney resort. Disney later incorporated two cities, Lake Buena Vista and Reedy Creek, to serve "the needs of those residing there".
Through the Reedy Creek Improvement District, Disney could construct almost anything within its borders, including a nuclear power plant (which it never built, opting instead for a more traditional plant that supplements power from outside of the District). The District, as with any municipal corporation, can issue tax-free bonds for internal improvements. The District also has been given exemptions to state zoning and land use laws.
The Disney-controlled town of Celebration, Florida, which was built with many of Walt Disney's original ideas, which have evolved into a form of New Urbanism, was deannexed from Bay Lake and the District to keep its residents from having power over Disney by providing for separate administration of the areas.
A five-member Board of Supervisors governs the District, elected by the landowners of the District. These members, senior employees of The Walt Disney Company, each own undeveloped five-acre (20,235 m) lots of land within the District, the only land in the District not technically controlled by Disney or used for public road purposes. The only residents of the District, also Disney employees or their immediate family members, live in two small communities, one in each city. In the 2000 census, Bay Lake had 23 residents, all in the community on the north shore of Bay Lake, and Lake Buena Vista had 16 residents, all in the community about a mile north of Downtown Disney. These residents elect the officials of the cities, but since they don't actually own any land, they don't have any power in electing the District Board of Supervisors.
Everything publicly run is run by the District; the cities are a formality. The District runs the following services, primarily serving Disney:
Fire protection and emergency medical services: through four fire station: Reedy Creek Emergency Services Environmental protection. The District collects data and ensures that large portions remain in their natural wetland state. Building codes and land-use planning Utilities: wastewater treatment and collection, water reclamation, electric generation and distribution, solid waste disposal, potable water, natural gas distribution, and hot and chilled water distribution, through Reedy Creek Energy Services, which has been merged with the Walt Disney World Company Roads: Many of the main roads in the District are public roads maintained by the District, while minor roads and roads dead-ending at attractions are private roads maintained by Disney; in addition, state-maintained Interstate 4 and U.S. Highway 192 pass through the District, as does part of the right-of-way of County Road 535 (formerly State Road 535).
I'm not sure about lions, but wolves will kill coyotes that infringe on their territory, but they will not eat them. Coyotes will kill foxes that also compete for the same food source, and generally the coyotes will not eat the foxes. Killing your prey and killing your non-prey competitors are both common in the animal world. Animals, even predators, do not always eat everything they kill.
No, but if your end goal was to declare independence and create your own little fiefdom, owning and controlling all of the land on an island would be a first start. Owning a MIG-29 to defend your new sovereign territory would be a major part of your plan. Now if you peacefully told the world community "up yours" and stopped paying taxes and did your own thing on your own island, any government who would send in military force to overthrow you could face political backlash.
True. In fact in countries where there is no support structure or social safety net, people tend to have as many children as possible so someone will be there to take care of them if they get old or sick. Billions of future taxes dollars can be saved by investing now in free and easily obtainable birth control and something similar to Social Security like we get in the US. Since the cost of living in these 3rd world countries is already so low, the cost of such social security could be a fraction of what it costs for Americans. There was a time back in the 1950's and early 1960's when the whole world loved America (except Communists, off course). The Marshall Plan rebuilt our enemies economies rather than subject them to reparations, and today Germany and Japan both have a great relationship with the USA and the rest of the global community. The Peace Corps was making a difference in 3rd world countries, and the US was not meddling so much in other countries affairs (except Iran, and we are still paying that price today). Even with the Vietnam War, the US played more of an advisory role and only in rare cases did Green Berets engage in battle with their indigenous forces. Things changed when the US thought it could just send in bombers and troops to tackle problems directly.
Today the US is still making the same mistakes. At the outset of the war with the Taliban the US came to the aid of the Northern Alliance and it was Afghans defeating the Taliban backed with US training, weapons, air support, and a small number highly skilled special forces. As more US troops entered Afghanistan the situation just got worse. The war in Iraq was a disaster from the beginning.
Obama and the EU with NATO did things right in Libya. No country, no matter how fierce their internal enemies might be, is ever going to be truly welcoming of foreign troops occupying their country to "fight for them". Special forces that leave as fast as they came might be tolerable, and the same maybe with drones and air strikes.
Helping people in a war torn 3rd world country is no easy task, as was plainly the case in Somalia. Most 3rd world countries today have at least some region where a minority group is resisting the current regime and the regime does not want this region to get resources, so that is one reason for mass starvation (a recent example could be Southern Sudan). It might take a strong-arm policy to go these types of regimes and say "we are going to fly into xxxx region and deliver food and medical supplies. We are going to help them build or re-build their infrastructure. We are going to bring in consultants to teach them how to be self reliant. We will try to act as a mediator to settle disputes between your regime and this population. If you block our efforts we will add guns and ammo to our shipments and leave behind Green Berets to train the population to resist your regime."
The challenge to the US and the world community is to take on this approach without allowing such altruistic efforts to be compromised by our own industrial-military complex who would be more than happy to go into these regions, fuel civil war, and plunder resources while nobody is looking. To suggest that US and European exploitation of 3rd world resources doesn't fuel some of these internal conflicts is very naive.
A shame too. Someone with Mr. Ellison's entrepreneurial capability might have a chance of making a difference in some 3rd world hell hole. He could give away his $1 billion to some NGO and let it be squandered on overhead, or he could tackle the problem head-on. That's what RG LeTourneau did after he made his millions. He founded two cities, one in Peru and one in Liberia, and supplied both cities with capital resources, such as his earth moving equipment. Unfortunately the Liberian project failed, but the Peruvian project still lives on today.
It was also part of a Republican strategy to over-turn communism from the inside. China today is communist in name only. It is now a fascist state, given that the current regime has a capitalist agenda while retaining communist-style totalitarianism.
Let's give Larry the benefit of a doubt. He has a MIG fighter jet and now a secure base to operate from. Maybe he's going to take out Koni with a GP-9 and disperse GMO seeds that will overcome the jungle with food people can actually eat.
Slashdot Mirror
If they import labor it might be because the locals are belligerent to the corporate interests and culture of Del Monte. You can't hire locals if they accuse you of stealing their land and have a strong motivation to sabotage your operation if given the chance. Hiring scabs that are not members of the local union, or an unfriendly local population, is a long time-honored tradition among the world's wealthiest companies.
http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8689:cameroon-the-bakweri-lands-and-the-abuse-of-a-people&catid=25&Itemid=58
My home in Texas is worth $100,000.00, is quite comfortable and has many modern amenities (and no, it's not a trailer). Real estate in the 3rd world is magnitudes cheaper, and so is labor. The rugged, eco-friendly pioneers in the US who are building and living in their own earthships and other types of sustainable homesteads spend more on permits, professional fees, and fighting local building codes than what they spend on construction materials, so the $100k+ cost for a home is a myth perpetuated by Wall Street and the over-regulation of private home building.
If you visit the capital cities of many African countries they can seem very "Western" on the surface. Wealth in most 3rd world countries is typically concentrated in the cities, as many 3rd world countries are also the source of much of the world precious resources, such as diamonds, gold, oil, gas, Uranium, exotic hardwoods, and rare earth elements. Once you leave city limits the beautiful and modern paved roads give way to dirt roads and poverty. There are many alternative types of structures, such as straw-bale, cob, rammed earth, sand-bag, etc. Not all are appropriate for every location or situation, but there is usually a very simple type of structure that can be built using local resources and labor. Proper design, such as South-facing windows in northern climates, reduce the need for expensive and high-tech HVAC systems that require the infrastructure you speak of. Many people in some of the worst 3rd world conditions aren't even worries about housing - they're happy with their mud and sheet-metal huts - but they desperately need a way to produce their own food without relying on UN aid convoys of bagged rice and wheat.
We can demand that the 3rd world first mimic our development by building roads, gas stations, auto dealerships, McDonald's and Walmart, or we can work with them to develop and alternative path that can allow them to develop without committing decades to building fragile infrastructure that can so easily be sabotaged or destroyed during the frequent and devastating wars that plague many parts of the 3rd world. Whatever is done, never give the money to government to let them "help" their people. Such efforts have only lead to extravagant mansions, private jets, and a stronger military for those in power.
Decentralized power generation, wireless networks, biointensive agriculture - these are just some of the tools that are working and making a difference in many parts of the 3rd world. Forget the $100k home, the family car, bottled Evian water, and fitness clubs - even the US is having a hard time sustaining this type of existence. One of the major initiatives in the 3rd world is getting a goat to impoverished families http://www.planusa.org/content1565803?tp=VE1HUj0xLHRpZD0xNjIzNzA2LA%3D%3D. Do this first. A billion dollars would go far. Save the $100k homes for the next generation that grow up with the $99 laptop initiative - they'll probably take your kid's software engineering gig for a wage your kids wouldn't be able to live on.
So, that's what the GOP has been putting into the water.
There's a reason why the armies of the world prefer to field the youngest soldiers to the harshest conditions of the front line. This has been true for all history. Give a 16, 18, or 20 year-old a gun and tell him he's a hero, and he will charge against all hell and fury if you tell him to. Armies that don't care about civil rights, the Geneva Convention, or public opinion prefer even younger soldiers. After a little more time to mature, men in their 30's and 40's tend to be much less enthusiastic about such things, and my presumption excludes those older men who have decided to let themselves go physically.
As for the other post regarding the "positive" side of PTSD, I think it's worth noting that when the US has been able to engage in war without significant allied casualties the public has been much more accepting. As long as the US sticks to surgical strikes and SEAL team extractions of terrorists and war criminals, the US public will eat it up. Tell the public that we're going to invade with ground forces and occupy a country indefinitely then public support goes down the tubes, as it should. People saw the shell shock of soldiers returning from the Great War, and as such WWI never held a positive image in the American conscious. The horrors of WWII were tolerated because most Americans felt they had done everything to avoid war and were dragged into it. Korean vets experienced flashbacks and Vietnam forced us to recognize PTSD. When you see the suffering and mental torment of the vets returning home your much less likely to support a rush to war. But training and arming 3rd world peasants to kill and maim each other - that's OK.
1st: Radar cannot penetrate underwater and the part of the GHOST ships that are above water have the same type of design and material as the stealth fighter.
2nd: One of the goals of supercavitation is to achieve faster-than-sound speed underwater. Since sonar uses sound waves to detect objects, if you could travel toward a ship equipped with sonar you could reach them before they had a chance to detect you. Other ships would eventually detect you, but there would be such lag in detection that it would be extremely difficult to fire artillery, rockets, or torpedoes onto your position unless you traveled a straight or predictable path for a good length of time. The fact that the boat exists indicates that the torpedo technology is probably already on board US vessels - meaning that the US could sink just about any ship before the enemy even knew torpedoes where in the water.
If in fact the boat can travel up to 200mph it would be extremely difficult to track or follow without a high speed aircraft dedicated to this purpose. And such a plane would need to rely on visual contact with the vessel because it evades detection by radar. Methods to attack such a craft at max speed would be limited, such as flying right up to the boat and using visual sights to engage the vessel with machine guns, canon, unguided rockets, and/or optically guided missiles (where the pilot has to control the flight of the missile with a remote control and visually guide it into the target). Needless to say that many if not most of the "low tech" options, such as machine guns or rockets do not work so well at high speeds and many modern fighter jets aren't even equipped with such weaponry. The only modern type of weapon, the optically guided missiles, are very expensive.
At such high speeds though, I would hate to think what would happen if it were to hit a porpoise or sea turtle.
I think Ted Nugent would disagree. He would shoot you, the old lion, the new lion, and mount all your heads in his trophy room.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ted-nugent-obama-vile-and-evil-voters-should-chop-democrats-heads-off-in-november/
You're not considering the cost of living differential in the 3rd world. One billion dollars would go a long way. Such a city could be a great success if it was built primarily with local labor and resources. Using techniques from Sustainable Architecture en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture such a city could be built without the expensive and extravagant features common in American building. Most such structures would have to be similar to earth ships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_ship in material, construction, and function.
Sustainability has to be a cornerstone of any development in the 3rd world. The local population must do the work and labor, learn the trades, teach each other, and make use of local resources with appropriate technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology. Some projects are already in the works that make use of remote solar energy and wireless communication to take a quantum leap past the decades it has taken for the developed world to build its power and communication infrastructure. Solving 3rd world problems definitely takes some out-of-the-box thinking. If you go into a remote part of the Congo with plans to build a Walmart you have already failed.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Most of us who have posted negatively is because of what seems to be a very self-focused decision. I think there are many of us who want to help feed the hungry, house the homeless, and cure the ill, but we also have challenges of our own, children to raise, and even have fears for providing for our own retirement. You cannot help others if you cannot even help yourself. That said, many of us give to charities, tip waitstaff generously, lend tools to neighbors we barely know, etc. If I had billions I know I would have a few more luxuries that I do now, but I would like to think that I would give myself up entirely to hedonism. That said, I don't know Ellison's motives. Carnegie was highly criticized most of his life and only near the end did he become the renowned philanthropist he is remembered as today. Maybe Ellison will build an orphanage and a charity hospital on the island and set up a foundation to fly the world's poor and needy to Hawaii for treatment. But seriously, who am I kidding. Most people once they reach a particular stage of wealth develop a very hardened shell. They know so many around them, even their own friends and family, resent their wealth. Those who act most kindly to them they suspect of being superficial, only wanted to be included in their wills. The more wealth you have the more people ask you for money, and there are plenty who try to put you into a guilt trip or flat out insult you for not giving enough. One of the worse things you can do is give to charity and leave your contact info. The National Do Not Call list makes exceptions for charities to hound you at your personal phone number and by mail. It can be almost as bad as owing a debt collector. And the charities sell your info to other calling lists. So I can see how coming into wealth could lead you to be cold and calloused, but that is a challenge that must be overcome to be a decent human being.
There's also nothing wrong with publicly exposing extravagant spending by the wealthy, especially when behavior is unethical, like buying ivory, hiring child labor, or abusing domestic staff. I don't see anything unethical yet about Ellison's purchase, but it is easy to presume a self-driven motivation given his history of purchasing extravagant play things. There's also nothing wrong with citizens and governments applying social pressure on the wealthy to do more good with their wealth. If most of the rich managed their assets like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates there would probably be much less resentment and animosity like you see in the OWS movements. At some point there can be concern that too small of a minority could gain too much of the wealth, which is a genuine threat to the success and security of a democracy. Corporations should not be allowed to be "too big to fail". Once in such a position it is too easy for them to make their demands and get what they ask for. The American Revolution was fought more against the over-reaching influence of the East India Trading Company than it was a rebellion against UK parliamentary government. Though King George III, the UK monarch, had very little in the way of government authority in the UK, he was a major shareholder of the East India Trading Company, and it was the actions of his company and it's lobbyists that led the US to rebel. Most literature of the time directed anger squarely to King George. The British Prime Minister during the American Revolution was Lord Frederick North, yet most Americans wouldn't recognize the name if they heard it.
... whole world hostage for a ransom.
For 1 millions dollars!!! ....ha ha ha ha!
Maybe the Hawaiians will vote to use eminent domain to make Lana'i the official land fill and sewage treatment facility for the rest of the state.
Another example of 1% owning 98% of the wealth. Next you'll hear him bitch and moan that he pays most of the taxes on the island and the 1,900 other residents aren't paying their fair share.
We should vote for a Libertarian government. Then it would be legal to do both.
It's OK...it's "social entrepreneurism"...much better than that socialist crap they call "charity".
If you are "truly free" as you describe in Anarcho-Libertarian terms, then you will likely end up with a Roman-style fire department.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting: "...Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while their employer bargained over the price of their services with the distressed property owner. If Crassus could not negotiate a satisfactory price, his men simply let the structure burn to the ground, after which he offered to purchase it for a fraction of its value..."
After 2000 years of development your suggestion is to go back to an archaic scheme, except that yours involves pre-paying in advance for a service you will most likely never need (hey, more profit for the rich. That's a good thing, right? After all, they're job creators - even though you had a better job or business before you needed to become their servant). Requiring such a fixed fee with such a drastic consequence is a hard position to put someone into when they are having financial trouble (which can happen to anybody, regardless of how smart or hard working you are). I would hate to see how a Libertarian would talk a suicidal person standing on a ledge - probably "JUMP!"
Under our current system in most American communities, taxes are assessed based on property values. If you're poor and own a shabby little shack, you pay less tax but you still (in theory) get the same police and fire protection. If you're too poor to own and have to rent, your landlord pays the tax from a portion of your rent. If you are really poor there are usually programs available to help you make ends meet, such as housing subsidies (which can be quite profitable for savvy landlords), and you still get police and fire protection. So for all the people who aren't paying their taxes, no, the IRS doesn't come in with guns blazing. Those who make plenty of money but chose to not pay their taxes do get raided. I'm not saying that's the best system, but yours leaves the financially disadvantaged in smoldering ruins.
And you're wrong about LIVES on the line. There were pets inside that died. They might have possibly been rescued but a system that pits haves against have-nots got in the way. Give a system like this enough time and a Dickensonian dystopia will set in. The economic viability of the persons trapped inside will be considered before rescue is attempted, on the basis that "there just aren't enough resources to save everybody" (which has always been and still is utter bullshit). Don't believe it? - There's already a large number of Libertarians and Conservatives who think that illegal immigrants should not receive emergency-room treatment. It only takes a little time and some profit-motivated rationalization to desensitize decision makers to undervalue human life.
There is also too much chance of administrative errors getting in the way of providing an essential service that EVERYBODY needs (imagine you did pay but the records were not updated and your house was left to burn. Sure you could sue, but that's AFTER the unnecessary destruction, and you won't have enough money for a decent lawyer). Given that most of the world's wealth is held by a small minority, such Anarcho-Libertarian will lead to the middle class losing whatever they have left and the wealthy few taking it all. When you look at the history of human civilization that seems to be the natural order of things. It's probably destined to happen sooner or later. The fact that so many middle-class individuals fall into such Anarcho-Libertarian and Neo-Conservative reasoning defies all logic. Reminds me of my brother-in-law - he works 70 hours a week but has tens of thousands in medical debt and just lost his home, but when it comes to politics he is convinced that Obama-Care will make his situation worse. In his mind he is lucky the Dems didn't pass legislation for universal health coverage like you get in Canada, UK, and much of
Why not allow the Lana'ians the right to self determination? Of course, they may get evicted by their new landlord before the next election. And then, would that make Ellison the sole resident of Lana'i? I could see it now...sole resident and only registered voter of Lana'i elects himself as mayor, sheriff, and county judge. In his new role he will assess tax against his property, receive tax from his offshore bank account, and use those funds to pay for improvements to Lana'i. Talk about a win-win situation.
He could always operate the Island the same way that Disney Inc. operates Disney World. The Government of Florida created the Reedy Creek Improvement District, a special government district that essentially gave the Disney Company the standard powers and autonomy of an incorporated city. Disney later founded the Drainage District as a public corporation with the power to condemn and acquire property outside its boundaries "for the public use". It used this power at least once to obtain land for Canal C-1 (Bonnet Creek) through land that is now being developed as the Bonnet Creek Resort, a non-Disney resort. Disney later incorporated two cities, Lake Buena Vista and Reedy Creek, to serve "the needs of those residing there".
Through the Reedy Creek Improvement District, Disney could construct almost anything within its borders, including a nuclear power plant (which it never built, opting instead for a more traditional plant that supplements power from outside of the District). The District, as with any municipal corporation, can issue tax-free bonds for internal improvements. The District also has been given exemptions to state zoning and land use laws.
The Disney-controlled town of Celebration, Florida, which was built with many of Walt Disney's original ideas, which have evolved into a form of New Urbanism, was deannexed from Bay Lake and the District to keep its residents from having power over Disney by providing for separate administration of the areas.
A five-member Board of Supervisors governs the District, elected by the landowners of the District. These members, senior employees of The Walt Disney Company, each own undeveloped five-acre (20,235 m) lots of land within the District, the only land in the District not technically controlled by Disney or used for public road purposes. The only residents of the District, also Disney employees or their immediate family members, live in two small communities, one in each city. In the 2000 census, Bay Lake had 23 residents, all in the community on the north shore of Bay Lake, and Lake Buena Vista had 16 residents, all in the community about a mile north of Downtown Disney. These residents elect the officials of the cities, but since they don't actually own any land, they don't have any power in electing the District Board of Supervisors.
Everything publicly run is run by the District; the cities are a formality. The District runs the following services, primarily serving Disney:
Fire protection and emergency medical services: through four fire station: Reedy Creek Emergency Services
Environmental protection. The District collects data and ensures that large portions remain in their natural wetland state.
Building codes and land-use planning
Utilities: wastewater treatment and collection, water reclamation, electric generation and distribution, solid waste disposal, potable water, natural gas distribution, and hot and chilled water distribution, through Reedy Creek Energy Services, which has been merged with the Walt Disney World Company
Roads: Many of the main roads in the District are public roads maintained by the District, while minor roads and roads dead-ending at attractions are private roads maintained by Disney; in addition, state-maintained Interstate 4 and U.S. Highway 192 pass through the District, as does part of the right-of-way of County Road 535 (formerly State Road 535).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District
Not true. A lion will eat what it kills.
I'm not sure about lions, but wolves will kill coyotes that infringe on their territory, but they will not eat them. Coyotes will kill foxes that also compete for the same food source, and generally the coyotes will not eat the foxes. Killing your prey and killing your non-prey competitors are both common in the animal world. Animals, even predators, do not always eat everything they kill.
Sounds reasonable to me.
No, but if your end goal was to declare independence and create your own little fiefdom, owning and controlling all of the land on an island would be a first start. Owning a MIG-29 to defend your new sovereign territory would be a major part of your plan. Now if you peacefully told the world community "up yours" and stopped paying taxes and did your own thing on your own island, any government who would send in military force to overthrow you could face political backlash.
And he has a MIG fighter jet. No, seriously, he really does. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/09/10/larry-ellisons-endgame-buy-hp-to-fight-ibm/
Maybe he's going to take out Koni in 2012.
True. In fact in countries where there is no support structure or social safety net, people tend to have as many children as possible so someone will be there to take care of them if they get old or sick. Billions of future taxes dollars can be saved by investing now in free and easily obtainable birth control and something similar to Social Security like we get in the US. Since the cost of living in these 3rd world countries is already so low, the cost of such social security could be a fraction of what it costs for Americans. There was a time back in the 1950's and early 1960's when the whole world loved America (except Communists, off course). The Marshall Plan rebuilt our enemies economies rather than subject them to reparations, and today Germany and Japan both have a great relationship with the USA and the rest of the global community. The Peace Corps was making a difference in 3rd world countries, and the US was not meddling so much in other countries affairs (except Iran, and we are still paying that price today). Even with the Vietnam War, the US played more of an advisory role and only in rare cases did Green Berets engage in battle with their indigenous forces. Things changed when the US thought it could just send in bombers and troops to tackle problems directly.
Today the US is still making the same mistakes. At the outset of the war with the Taliban the US came to the aid of the Northern Alliance and it was Afghans defeating the Taliban backed with US training, weapons, air support, and a small number highly skilled special forces. As more US troops entered Afghanistan the situation just got worse. The war in Iraq was a disaster from the beginning.
Obama and the EU with NATO did things right in Libya. No country, no matter how fierce their internal enemies might be, is ever going to be truly welcoming of foreign troops occupying their country to "fight for them". Special forces that leave as fast as they came might be tolerable, and the same maybe with drones and air strikes.
Helping people in a war torn 3rd world country is no easy task, as was plainly the case in Somalia. Most 3rd world countries today have at least some region where a minority group is resisting the current regime and the regime does not want this region to get resources, so that is one reason for mass starvation (a recent example could be Southern Sudan). It might take a strong-arm policy to go these types of regimes and say "we are going to fly into xxxx region and deliver food and medical supplies. We are going to help them build or re-build their infrastructure. We are going to bring in consultants to teach them how to be self reliant. We will try to act as a mediator to settle disputes between your regime and this population. If you block our efforts we will add guns and ammo to our shipments and leave behind Green Berets to train the population to resist your regime."
The challenge to the US and the world community is to take on this approach without allowing such altruistic efforts to be compromised by our own industrial-military complex who would be more than happy to go into these regions, fuel civil war, and plunder resources while nobody is looking. To suggest that US and European exploitation of 3rd world resources doesn't fuel some of these internal conflicts is very naive.
A shame too. Someone with Mr. Ellison's entrepreneurial capability might have a chance of making a difference in some 3rd world hell hole. He could give away his $1 billion to some NGO and let it be squandered on overhead, or he could tackle the problem head-on. That's what RG LeTourneau did after he made his millions. He founded two cities, one in Peru and one in Liberia, and supplied both cities with capital resources, such as his earth moving equipment. Unfortunately the Liberian project failed, but the Peruvian project still lives on today.
It was also part of a Republican strategy to over-turn communism from the inside. China today is communist in name only. It is now a fascist state, given that the current regime has a capitalist agenda while retaining communist-style totalitarianism.
Let's give Larry the benefit of a doubt. He has a MIG fighter jet and now a secure base to operate from. Maybe he's going to take out Koni with a GP-9 and disperse GMO seeds that will overcome the jungle with food people can actually eat.
... too bad you didn't study what happened in countries with weak central governments and strong individuals/corporations.
I tried. I even ordered the textbook, but the pages were ripped out and replaced with a Monsanto seed catalog.