Me

 
Hey, this is awesome.  Okay now for something completely different; I just want to make sure I am tracking things.  In this Vesta storyline there are two subplots. One the Gent who brought all these people from Massachusetts is not getting along with the veteran Vestans (not sure why, specifically-re-reading required) and another subplot is that these busybodies are forming this water committee and eventually that obnoxious cousin who was almost in a duel is getting dropped into this whole situation.  Also, the whole thing is a flashback to the main EFT story line.  Have I missed anything?
-O

Have I missed anything?

Well, meanwhile back at the ranch....

That's about it...
I think Pilgrim dislikes the miners because Pilgrim considers himself cultured and educated, and likewise considers the miners uncultured and ignorant.
That kind of personal issues will eat a person up, I tell you.

That's about it...
I think Pilgrim dislikes the miners because Pilgrim considers himself cultured and educated, and likewise considers the miners uncultured and ignorant.
That kind of personal issues will eat a person up, I tell you.

I kinda get the intimation that it goes beyond that.

The character of Pilgrim represents the sort of person whose sense of self-identification (and self-valuation) depends preponderantly upon his vision of himself as intrinsically superior.  It's the essence of the "aristocratic" impulse.

For such a critter to feel contentment, he needs hoi polloi to denigrate and despise.  Ain't no way to see the glitter if there ain't no mud in the picture against which to get a contrast, right? The only place for him to find that on Vesta is among the miners and secondary services providers who support the mining economy, the nyekulturny grubbers-after-goodies in the floating islands hitherabouts.

What you're claiming "will eat a person up" is for Pilgrim and his ilk the very breath of life itself. 

Now, if you're looking for that which eats Pilgrim and the Mascons the proverbial new asshole, consider that the competent, capable, wealth-generating miners look upon them as ridiculous idiots, and simply don't give a damn about 'em.  The Mascons are pretty much completely irrelevant to anything the real Belters - Pilgrim's hoi polloi - value or need.

That, children, applied to Pilgrim, "will eat a person [of the Mascon type] up."

The character of Pilgrim represents the sort of person whose sense of self-identification (and self-valuation) depends preponderantly upon his vision of himself as intrinsically superior.  It's the essence of the "aristocratic" impulse.

Yes, but that is pretty much true of any self-identified group. They see themselves as somehow superior to others. Poor, barely literate, hardscrabble farmers in the Bible Belt feel superior because they are going to heaven and you are going to hell.

The particular case of Pilgrim and the Mascons is one I see among modern liberals and also--curiously enough--many shallow, self-proclaimed libertarians/Objectivists. There is even a name for it, "libertarian macho flash" and it goes something like this:

"But who will take care of the poor?"

"Fuck'em if they cannot take care of themselves!"

Fuller discussion here:

http://www.mi.lp.org/Lists/SuccessNotebook/DispForm.aspx?ID=10

(For you government lovers, these poseurs do not speak for the underlying ideologies. They are just the loud, obnoxious fringe, begging for attention. Market anarchists, libertarians and, yes, even Objectivists are still people. And like all their fellow humans, they are compassionate and imbued with a desire to help others. The only difference being, they are not willing to put a gun to your head to force you to be compassionate as they see fit. Instead, they seek voluntary solutions.)

The character of Pilgrim represents the sort of person whose sense of self-identification (and self-valuation) depends preponderantly upon his vision of himself as intrinsically superior.  It's the essence of the "aristocratic" impulse.

Yes, but that is pretty much true of any self-identified group. They see themselves as somehow superior to others. Poor, barely literate, hardscrabble farmers in the Bible Belt feel superior because they are going to heaven and you are going to hell.

The particular case of Pilgrim and the Mascons is one I see among modern liberals and also--curiously enough--many shallow, self-proclaimed libertarians/Objectivists. There is even a name for it, "libertarian macho flash" and it goes something like this:

"But who will take care of the poor?"

"frack'em if they cannot take care of themselves!"

Hm. In my experience, the rather more common response to:

"But who will take care of the poor?"

...has been something more like:

"Goddamn it, I will - and people like me!  Just get these friggin' politicians and the bureaucrats out of our way!"

The eleemosynary impulse is the antithesis of an "entitlement," which is the coercive allocation of resources seized by government thuggery from one group in the private sector and dispensed - as political favor - to another bunch (who are deemed to be "entitled"). 

Yet it works with remarkable consistency and efficacy in the absence of the fundamentally forcible government "welfare" efforts which invariably act to foreclose such voluntary measures to succor 'the poor."

Hm. In my experience, the rather more common response to:

"But who will take care of the poor?"

...has been something more like:

"Goddamn it, I will - and people like me!  Just get these friggin' politicians and the bureaucrats out of our way!"

Yes, this is my response to the question, and no doubt yours as well, but as Sandy said, Anarchists are people too, and people have the most annoying tendency to have differing opinions, and the volume at which they spout them seems to be in inverse ratio to the correctness of the opinion.

Hm. In my experience, the rather more common response to:

"But who will take care of the poor?"

...has been something more like:

"Goddamn it, I will - and people like me!  Just get these friggin' politicians and the bureaucrats out of our way!"

Yes, this is my response to the question, and no doubt yours as well, but as Sandy said, Anarchists are people too, and people have the most annoying tendency to have differing opinions, and the volume at which they spout them seems to be in inverse ratio to the correctness of the opinion.

Unfortunately, that's how and why democracy works.  Which is why I don't vote.  If I do it implies I'm willing to live with the result.

Will eat a person up: What I mean by that is, that a person with a need to be superior will have no rest, ever. They will always need the last word, and in the end that's impossible. Sorry to break it to ya, but that's just how discourse works: there will always (*) be new speakers, and the old speaker will eventually become silent. So, all the efforts you put into seeming superior to others will eventually be completely wasted, you will be ground into the dust.
I personally don't give a rat's ass, but I call it "eating a person up" when I see it reducing their choices, forcing them to act in futile patterns.
Sadly it also tends to harm others in the process, especially since sometimes superiority can only be re-established by killing off or subjugating the new.

(*)Until the end of humans.

The particular case of Pilgrim and the Mascons is one I see among modern liberals and also--curiously enough--many shallow, self-proclaimed libertarians/Objectivists. There is even a name for it, "libertarian macho flash" and it goes something like this:

"But who will take care of the poor?"

"frack'em if they cannot take care of themselves!"

Hmm...hadn't really heard of these people--mostly, I see the above "answer" as given by a troll or sock puppet trying to get a rise out of libertarians/anarchists.   People who claim that we're gun-nut/survivalists and Social Darwinists, and such.  You know, like Contrary Guy and TeamGirl.

The particular case of Pilgrim and the Mascons is one I see among modern liberals and also--curiously enough--many shallow, self-proclaimed libertarians/Objectivists. There is even a name for it, "libertarian macho flash" and it goes something like this:

"But who will take care of the poor?"

"frack'em if they cannot take care of themselves!"

Hmm...hadn't really heard of these people--mostly, I see the above "answer" as given by a troll or sock puppet trying to get a rise out of libertarians/anarchists.   People who claim that we're gun-nut/survivalists and Social Darwinists, and such.  You know, like Contrary Guy and TeamGirl.

I've "met" one of those. Someone with some kind of issues, wasn't happy with my lack of respect for his authoritative method.
When I was doubting whether republican robber barons are really sincere about charity-based care for the poor, as in, will they actually pay, he started on about how he is keeping society afloat and I am a leech and a parasite, and how "my kind" can exist only because of "his kind", while "his kind" can manage just fine on their own.

Thing is, I never said I was concerned for my own welfare... Same person also derided people for drawing social security, in spite of the fact that those people have paid their dues and are fully entitled to take back what the state forced them to set aside.


Let's just say that I have had to downgrade my respect for that person from the baseline I afford to all people.