Distractions from Objectivism
Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago to The Gulch: General
I am shocked by the negative comments about me on the “What the Gulch Is” thread. I knew people disagreed on stuff, but I didn't realize people were thinking about not using the website just because of me or that so many people think I'm anti-Objectivist. I agree with the tenor of the vast majority of what I read here, so I assumed people similarly agreed with me.
Some comments focus on things I know most people disagree with me on:
Anthropogenic Global Warming – AGW will likely have huge costs in the future. It's one of the biggest problems of our time.
President Obama – He is doing a decent job, as mainstream politicians go. No one person can stop the trend toward more intrusive/costly gov't.
PPACA – It's a mixed bag and a huge improvement over the system we had based on vestiges of WWII-era price controls. We need to get away from gov't “systems”, but IMHO the law did more good than harm.
Welfare Programs for the Poor – They're not always alms. If it's moral to do forced taxation for a proven program to catch an incarcerate criminals, it's moral to do forced taxation to provide something like job training if it's proven to reduce criminal behavior.
Religion – Most educated religious people of the world are moderates whose worldview is informed by their cultural traditions but who generally accept reason and religious pluralism in their daily lives. The raving Bible-thumper, the Islamist militant, child-molesting priest, and the people who promote essential oils are the exception to the rule, the man-bites-dog cases that grab our attention. We need to promote pluralism and avoid needlessly taking on someone's Olive Tree (in the Thomas Friedman sense of the phrase).
How these fit into Objectivism is a very good question beyond the scope of this post. All the things I agree with most people here on are also beyond the scope.
I don't apologize for disagreeing with people, but I sincerely apologize to anyone I've been cranky with regarding my pet peeves. My peeves are arguments that sound like this:
- “My life is ruined because of [President Obama, Wall Street, monetary policy, etc].”
- “You voted for President Bush. That means you're personally responsible for Medicare Part D and the invasion of Iraq.”
- “I keep yelling at people about how stupid they are, but for some reason they won't respond by changing their minds.”
- Any argument that says something is non sequitur or based on faulty premises without stating the logical fallacy or faulty premises.
I am sorry about when I let my peeves make me rude.
I feel weird responding to any posts with this thread out there of people carrying on condemning me. Should I just respond with my ideas on a posts about things like ham radio, being cautious of the tidy narrative that the US was founded on purely libertarian principles, or about John Adams and imposing democratic gov't and central banking on the world, without regard for all the people saying they don't want me to comment at all? I don't want to bother people when there's a universe of people, maybe people you might consider anti-Objectivist, to talk to.
I feel awful about distracting people from Objectivism, and I want it to stop.
Some comments focus on things I know most people disagree with me on:
Anthropogenic Global Warming – AGW will likely have huge costs in the future. It's one of the biggest problems of our time.
President Obama – He is doing a decent job, as mainstream politicians go. No one person can stop the trend toward more intrusive/costly gov't.
PPACA – It's a mixed bag and a huge improvement over the system we had based on vestiges of WWII-era price controls. We need to get away from gov't “systems”, but IMHO the law did more good than harm.
Welfare Programs for the Poor – They're not always alms. If it's moral to do forced taxation for a proven program to catch an incarcerate criminals, it's moral to do forced taxation to provide something like job training if it's proven to reduce criminal behavior.
Religion – Most educated religious people of the world are moderates whose worldview is informed by their cultural traditions but who generally accept reason and religious pluralism in their daily lives. The raving Bible-thumper, the Islamist militant, child-molesting priest, and the people who promote essential oils are the exception to the rule, the man-bites-dog cases that grab our attention. We need to promote pluralism and avoid needlessly taking on someone's Olive Tree (in the Thomas Friedman sense of the phrase).
How these fit into Objectivism is a very good question beyond the scope of this post. All the things I agree with most people here on are also beyond the scope.
I don't apologize for disagreeing with people, but I sincerely apologize to anyone I've been cranky with regarding my pet peeves. My peeves are arguments that sound like this:
- “My life is ruined because of [President Obama, Wall Street, monetary policy, etc].”
- “You voted for President Bush. That means you're personally responsible for Medicare Part D and the invasion of Iraq.”
- “I keep yelling at people about how stupid they are, but for some reason they won't respond by changing their minds.”
- Any argument that says something is non sequitur or based on faulty premises without stating the logical fallacy or faulty premises.
I am sorry about when I let my peeves make me rude.
I feel weird responding to any posts with this thread out there of people carrying on condemning me. Should I just respond with my ideas on a posts about things like ham radio, being cautious of the tidy narrative that the US was founded on purely libertarian principles, or about John Adams and imposing democratic gov't and central banking on the world, without regard for all the people saying they don't want me to comment at all? I don't want to bother people when there's a universe of people, maybe people you might consider anti-Objectivist, to talk to.
I feel awful about distracting people from Objectivism, and I want it to stop.
Assumptions often lead to erroneous conclusions.
There are two assertions in your post with which I disagree and welcome rational discussion:
"Welfare Programs for the Poor – They're not always alms. If it's moral to do forced taxation for a proven program to catch an incarcerate criminals, it's moral to do forced taxation to provide something like job training if it's proven to reduce criminal behavior. "
This is a perfect example of an "argument" which Ayn Rand would respond to by saying, "Check your premises."
Rand never said or wrote that "forced taxation" is moral and she never supported the idea of tax funded "job training" programs, including "public" education at any level.
"President Obama – He is doing a decent job, as mainstream politicians go. No one person can stop the trend toward more intrusive/costly gov't."
President Obama is far from being a "mainstream politician" and he's doing more as one person to accelerate the trend toward more intrusive and costly government than all of those who held the office before him...combined.
I have no doubt that you believe what you wrote about Obama, but believing something does not make it a fact of reality. What Obama has done and is continuing to do at an accelerated pace can be factually demonstrated. Even though it is not being reported in the mainstream media, the factual information is available and many have provided links to it in their posts here in the Gulch (as well as express their own opinions).
I believe that all who desire to express their opinion should be able to so so "freely" with the exception of the trolls, and I don't regard you as one.
Yes. This is key. We get closer to the truth by experiments, observations, and reason. Part of that is being open to new evidence that we are wrong.
thanks.
I'm posting Ellsworth Toohey's speech on how to rule men's souls from the Fountainhead for those who have may have forgotten Rand's description of evil and may have been driven from the Gulch by yours.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-...
The technique he employed was to be anti-Reason viz. the Kantian concept that you are blind because you have eyes, deaf because you have ears, dumb because you have a brain. The tactic you employ is to make sweeping unproved assertions as if they are self-evident truths requiring no further proof. In that, you are a match for Barrack Obama. Trying to engage in reasoned discourse on your assertions concerning;
AGW
President Obama
PPACA
Welfare programs for the poor
Religion
is to waste precious time boxing with shadows - an effort unworthy of a reasoning mind.
I cannot understand why so much energy was expended on your marshmallow utterances when benign neglect would have sufficed.
I have no contempt for you personally. I have no idea who you are. This site is dedicated to the ideas of Ayn Rand. Among her many talents was the ability to choose words to explain her ideas with laser-like precision, that is, her readers are left with no doubt as to where she stood on any particular issue. The greatest philosopher Aristotle wrote "...the strongest of all our convictions is that two contradictory statements are not both true at the same time..."
You, on the other hand, posted these statements "President Obama – He is doing a decent job, as mainstream politicians go. No one person can stop the trend toward more intrusive/costly gov't.”
and
- “My life is ruined because of [President Obama, Wall Street, monetary policy, etc].”
in the same post!
I have no idea what these statements mean. What is a "decent job"? If he is doing a "decent job" why has it ruined your life.?
Your words, like those of Obama, are open to any interpretation your readers would care to make of them. Whether this is because of defect or by intent one is left with the sense that you are posting on the wrong site.
The thing about "My life is ruined b/c of X" was an example of claims that annoy me. I was apologizing if I let my annoyance make me rude.
Should you choose to reply please don't dissect my comments and attack the weaknesses in my writing. I am not a writer, nor a public speaker. I'm not a highly educated person. I'm just a guy who discovered Objectivism just in time. Literally. And I am convinced that it is the only thing that can fix this country. Just not convinced there is enough time.
Anyway, I started this with a question. Let's talk Objectivism.
I would like to make an objective point and reference cg's "My life is ruined b/c of X" condescending remark.
I take this remark personally and I have an example of how bo IS ruining my life...
Since we are now forced to pay more than double for health ins. then we did two years ago, how is that NOT a move toward ruining my life? It is thievery by way of stealing the value of my productivity (MY money), when your property, what you've worked for and earned, is forcibly taken, that IS stealing your life. Financially it's a HUGE hit to us (which is beside the point), but it's painful and difficult and we can't even opt out. This is not only theft, it is use of force, which is anti freedom. When you take away the freedom of individuals and use force that is slavery. Theft of life. Does slavery and financial theft some how NOT ruin people's lives?
CG's remarks are often not in line with objectivism. Appreciating a writer's fiction does not make one an objectivist. cg's A does not equal A and he refuses to see it. (Forced charity, by way of taxation, is also something he supports.)
I guess I'm so used to people talking that way I didn't even catch the condescension (thanks spellcheck) in that remark. Perhaps that will work to my advantage for now as I have not reached the level of frustration that some of you have so, maybe, if I can't reach him I might at least be able to understand him.
I understand your anger at the health care act although my shop has been lucky so far and our insurance policy has received a stay of execution twice now so increases have been minimal. You do bring up an interesting point that I have been wondering about recently and maybe would be a good topic for a different conversation and that is the ACCRAAPAA whatever is force. The initiation of force, even. At what point does this initiation of the use of force demand the retaliatory use of force? If you have already discussed that one please point me to it. Love to see what others think about it.
Oh, and you guys don't have to watch if it is too painful. Lol. Although I was hoping someone out there will help make sure my premises stay in line as well.
Holy craaaap.
16th amendment if I had to guess, though I was thinking it was a little later.
.
.
.
Nope. That was it. I agree.
No one is going to attack you or point out the "weakness in my writing." This is an introductory site for Objectivism. Consider making a post that asks some questions. We're present and interested.
That part was kind of intended to hopefully keep CG focused on the question as I have noticed a tendency of his to pick at the questions others have asked instead of answering and my vocabulary (or lack thereof) may leave my questions open to that. I do appreciate the offer and though I think I have a decent understanding of Objectivism this, um, exercise, may lead me to some questions I didn't realize I had.
Sorry. Did that sound dirty to anybody else here?
I'm not a plant though. And my honest goal here is to educate, or be educated as the case may be. I just like to bring a little humor along the way.
RMP said type slower, you might try reading slower as well. Take time to understand what is said. After thinking about it a minute I realized that may be a cause of some of the misunderstandings. Look at my comment and your reply as an example.
I do not think any mainstream national politician is promoting reducing the size and scope of gov't. Instead it's a laundry list of things they thing the gov't can insert itself into.
We need IMHO to be able to say gov't shouldn't do something without that implying it shouldn't happen. Gov't shouldn't be at war with people who use drugs or guns, but that doesn't mean we want people using them all the time. It means we just don't grant gov't power in our lives over those areas. It's the same thing with paying for middle-class medical care, cancer research, or having an enormous military to respond with tens of thousands of troops when ISIS or other evil people do ghastly things.
Most people believe in forced taxation to pay to policing because we cannot exclude those who don't want to pay. I do not claim to speak for most Objectivists, who may want a purely voluntary system or something else I'm not even aware of. My thought is if similar programs that help the poor provide a similar non-excludable benefit, forced taxation can be used to fund those programs too. "Helpful" programs are addictive and hard shut down. My understanding (possibly misunderstanding) of many Objectivists is they're saying gov't can't fund anything that at all smacks of being at all helpful because it too easily turns into alms, a bloated budget, and a back-door way for gov't to control people. They would rather spend $100k prosecuting and incarcerating someone than spend $10k in job training because they think "this program would reduce crime or increase productivity" as a facile excuse that can be used to justify any gov't spending.
Actually, you don't speak for any Objectivists CJ. While I am certain you are a fan of Rand's fiction, you are not an Objectivist - nor do you possess an understanding of what Objectivism is.
Please refrain from labeling yourself an "Objectivist", or implying in any way that you represent "Objectivism", or that you know what Objectivism is, in the future. Questions are fine of course. Assertions, not so much. I do not want to confuse new members.
Like most here, you are a student of Objectivism. And, we welcome your questions and opinions.
Thank you CJ.
Since then I've read most of her output multiple times (exceptions are the collected early works and The Objectivist Epistemology).
I have even supplemented my contextual knowledge by taking courses in philosophy at a local university.
And even after all of that, I am still *very* hesitant at calling myself an Objectivist.
Maybe after I've built up enough historical and philosophical context to be able to competently tackle The Objectivist Epistemology, maybe then I'll consider calling myself an Objectivist.
But certainly not until then.
Difficult to read, difficult to follow and difficult to understand. One of my favorite Objectivism books. Completely changed the way I hear people speak and read what they write. But I haven't read any of them twice.
This is NOT what Objectivists think. Objectivists support a proper government which is necessarily small. They do not support incarceration of people taking or selling drugs. They ARE supportive of PRIVATE charity.
You are purposely mis-representing what Objectivism is, as usual.
I too agree gov't should be small and am supportive of private charity.
Lol. Always wanted to say that.
Seriously "It's obvious from my comment" was a completely unnecessary part of that sentence.
Here's something I may not get much agreement on (not sure) but I'm going to say that the size of the government as a number by itself is irrelevant. It must be the size it must be to carry out it's proper functions. The area of concern is the proper functions.
This has been far more brain exercise than lurking in the shadows and keeping my comments inside my own head. The thoughts have to be much more concrete when you try to write them down. Which is, of course, part of the reason for the hesitation to do so.
It's only part of the story. Size and intrusiveness matter. It could be small but intrusive or bloated but not intrusive.
Don't be too thankful for my interest yet, I was thinking of it more as morbid curiosity. (hope you got a sense of humor)
I was led to Atlas Shrugged by a large number of references to it on ThePeoplesCube satirical website. Look it up, it's awesome. I investigated it, bought it, and almost never put it down till it was done. All my family read it just to see what the hell got into me. Then I devoured everything I could get my hands on and I liked the non-fiction even more because it helped me to understand so much better. I hope you like it and stay with it.
To the rest of your reply, I've been trying for hours to figure out what to say to that. My first thought was "he didn't answer the f^%$king question." Please don't be offended yet. I'm sure I'll do better sooner or later. I've read it and re-read it and I can't figure out how that answers the question I asked. The closest I can get is that, in your mind, to your knowledge, you have chosen the lesser of two evils. I would have to disagree but I know I would have a hard time arguing that considering the last two choices we had. I am surrounded by energy industry (coal, electricity, natural gas, and some oil) and my shop is support for those industries so, as you can imagine, we're hurting right now. All that is to say that an energy friendly socialist would be my choice for the lesser of two evils.
Your last paragraph does show a misunderstanding of Objectivism , though, because we do not believe in forced taxation for anything and this sentence: " My understanding (possibly misunderstanding) of many Objectivists is they're saying gov't can't fund anything that at all smacks of being at all helpful because it too easily turns into alms, a bloated budget, and a back-door way for gov't to control people." I had to quote it to be exact about where it is wrong. Objectivists say the gov't can't fund anything that is not the proper responsibility of gov't. Period. Your understanding is proper for conservatives and some libertarians, (duck), but it does not fit Objectivism at all. It is not the gov't responsibility to be helpful. At all. Not. Just.... not. Simply because the gov't cannot be helpful without first taking from someone else.
If you like satire, please stop by papapossum.com where I post original pieces of political satire in verse.
It is not the type of satire which The Peoples' Cube engages in.
Rather, it is "Juvenalian" in style, which means it is less comedic and more (much more) dripping sarcasm and venom.
Enjoy, or not.
I think I have gone to check it out a couple times but keep getting distracted before I can look around. I will check it out. Thanks.
Edit: left a word out
Thank you Mamaemma for the compliment, that is very encouraging.
I also seem to have lost the option to edit. Not sure when, I haven't needed it today till now. I used it the other day to delete a comment I managed to duplicate.
Oh, and that joke seemed funny in my head when I posted it, but maybe, not so much now.
And if CG learns something that's great.
And if I learn something... Well... What are the chances of that happening?
Hey! That was funny!
I found Fountainhead first. At first I thought I'd never make it through, but I suddenly found it interesting. I found AS next.
"you have chosen the lesser of two evils"
That is essentially correct.
"we do not believe in forced taxation for anything"
I've heard some comments here about a gov't funded by all voluntary contributions. I'm intrigued by the idea. It would obviously better to fund gov't w/o taking by force.
"gov't can't fund anything that is not the proper responsibility of gov't. Period."
This seems like begging the question, i.e. it is not proper for gov't to fund certain things because they're not the property responsibility of gov't.
You may know more about Objectivists, libertarians, and fans of AS etc because I sloppily lump them together. I only recently learned that some libertarians do not respect IP rights.
Can you clarify what you're saying about gov't never being helpful? This started with my guess at what goes through other people's mind, just led to confusion. Maybe you could say what you think is the proper role of gov't or ask me if I think some specific thing is within the role of gov't.
"you have chosen the lesser of two evils"
That is essentially correct. ----------- I and apparently many others here would say you are wrong but you based that choice on the knowledge you had at the time and your own values. No one is expected to be all knowing and if we all had the same values none of us would be here. "The truth must be the final arbitor."
"we do not believe in forced taxation for anything"
I've heard some comments here about a gov't funded by all voluntary contributions. I'm intrigued by the idea. It would obviously better to fund gov't w/o taking by force. -----------That would be the optimum long range goal. We all know that it aint happenin anytime soon but that is no reason to ever justify the current theft system.
"gov't can't fund anything that is not the proper responsibility of gov't. Period."
This seems like begging the question, i.e. it is not proper for gov't to fund certain things because they're not the property responsibility of gov't. ---------- Maybe easy to twist but it means exactly what it says. Not certain things, anything that is not the proper function of government. What is handed out must be taken first. It is not voluntary.
You may know more about Objectivists, libertarians, and fans of AS etc because I sloppily lump them together. I only recently learned that some libertarians do not respect IP rights.
----------- Many/most/some? libertarians reject the notion of the necessity of a proper philosophical base. I.E. the "Do no harm" "Axiom" of the libertarians. But why? Why do no harm? Without the philosophical base it can't be accepted, (you are expected to accept it without reason) it can't be enforced, (a proper government is expected to retaliate against initiated force) and it can't be defended (Your opponent is expected to accept it without reason). It is not an axiom.
Can you clarify what you're saying about gov't never being helpful? This started with my guess at what goes through other people's mind, just led to confusion. Maybe you could say what you think is the proper role of gov't or ask me if I think some specific thing is within the role of gov't --------------- The proper role of government is really boiled down to one thing, the protection of the INDIVIDUAL rights of it's citizens. From threats foreign and domestic.
Only individuals have rights. The rights of one individual cannot supercede the rights of another. Not even by majority vote. The government has no rights. Only the individuals within have rights. The government protects those rights by means of the military, the police, and the courts. In these three legitimate functions of government there is no means to help anyone. To help someone is to step outside of the legitimate functions of government and it can only do that by initiating the use of force. EVIL. As you come to understand that, youll get angry too.
Yes!
"That would be the optimum long range goal. We all know that it aint happenin anytime soon but that is no reason to ever justify the current theft system. "
Yes!
""Do no harm" "Axiom" of the libertarians. But why? Why do no harm? Without the philosophical base it can't be accepted, (you are expected to accept it without reason) it can't be enforced
I do not understand how axioms can be based on reason and am planning to read more.
"The proper role of government is really boiled down to one thing, the protection of the INDIVIDUAL rights of it's citizens. From threats foreign and domestic. "
I agree with that claim.
"Only individuals have rights. The rights of one individual cannot supercede the rights of another. Not even by majority vote. The government has no rights. Only the individuals within have rights. The government protects those rights by means of the military, the police, and the courts."
Yes, to all that.
"In these three legitimate functions of government there is no means to help anyone. "
These things do help by enforcing natural rights. I'll just say gov't shouldn't IMHO be doing charity work.
That would get you the best information. That one is deeper than I am able to put into words without just copying and pasting a bunch of quotes. "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" would give you the most thorough answers, I believe, but, as noted elsewhere, it is difficult and perhaps not the best place to start.
I will say this, though; Axioms are not based on reason, we use reason to arrive at and understand axioms. Simplest - "existence exists". It can have no further explanation and needs none. To explain why in words on a page is beyond my ability and wouldn't fit here anyway. You will have to find your way there. I will help with any questions you may have to the best of my ability if you're interested.
"These things do help by enforcing natural rights".
I have seen the term "natural rights" referred to many times in these pages and elsewhere. Natural rights do not exist. At least not outside the context of living human beings. Rights are concepts based upon the nature of human beings and the law of identity. They are arrived at through a process of reason and observation of nature (the nature of human beings). I believe this is what most on this site refer to by saying natural rights. It is important to know the difference because when some refer to natural rights, they mean something that exists independent of the human mind and that you can neither fully "know", nor argue with. This is where the word rights becomes bastardized, I.E. animals have rights; the earth has rights, governments have rights, corporations have rights, (or don't depending on which side you're misusing the term for). Only humans have rights and only because we recognize the nature of human beings. Again, keep reading the non-fiction stuff because there is much more to it than what I can put into words.
"I'll just say gov't shouldn't IMHO be doing charity work."
Reinforce this by saying gov't CAN"T do charity work. The gov't does not legitimately have anything to give away. It must first TAKE from somebody else in order to give it away. That cannot be charity. Merely theft.
I agree with "sdesapio" in that "CG" shouldn't be removed, banished, or whatever. I am very sorry that those that are leaving chose to think with their "Hearts"(Ego) rather than their "Minds". If they were thinking with their minds they would immediately realize that being a member of the Gulch has benefits that far outweigh leaving. Especially since all you had to do was ignore CG if you don't like his position on items of discussion. I would bet that not one person dissenting sent him a message and simply explained to him that they would like for him to not comment on their specific posts. No, I don't agree with many of the positions that CG takes. My opinion is that those positions are not very well researched and thought out. However, LEARNING TO THINK is a ongoing process, and although I haven't found the point where Ayn Rand said this; it appears to be the foundation of her life. I truly hope those that said they are leaving reconsider the benefits of being in the Gulch.
Yes, you are right that, and I quote you, "Hank did not let a non threatening situation have power over him"... But, may I remind you, that Hank didn't hang around making conversations with the moochers either. He made his statement and cut it short.
Galt suffered no fools. None of the primary characters in the AS Gulch lost time listening to the drivel of any of the moochers/looters.
When do you draw the line? How long can one stumble around and NOT make progress? What if they regress constantly? Rand teaches us that, "We are not our brothers keeper".
I would beg the question that the current Gulch members DID reason and decide with their minds.
The heart leads often to excusing contradictions and not seeing the defects in reasoning as well as applying sympathy instead of logic.
I truly believe that CG has a problem. A big problem with logic and reason. I do not believe that anyone in the Gulch can save CG from himself. After all that took place over him and he has been addressed directly about this, he still initiated this incongruent post... As they say, 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'.
To ignore him, in my opinion is cruel. To ask him to leave this forum and tell him why is granting him a chance to understand and learn from his loss.
Respectively my opinion.
Not everyone in life is given the same hand of cards when they start out. Forgive me, but the concept that "All men are created equal" is bullshit. I came from a household of abusive parents, which was actually the least of my problems. As time went on I eventually developed a personality similar the charter played by Hugh Laurie on the TV show "House". Only I was a bit more irritable and I was certainly more vicious if someone crossed me. Lucky for me I gravitated towards people who used reason and spent time thinking in their daily lives that saw something in me that I hadn't seen in myself.
You are absolutely correct: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". But when you have someone that has come to the water hole, and is trying to drink, why would you chase him away just because he is making a few obnoxious noises?
Thank you for responding. I appreciate your candor.
I too have had a tough start in life. It left me with
a "tendency" to shoulder the burden of those who will not stand up for themselves and who do not "think" only react. They require, from those who are stronger and have direction (earned by sweat, blood and tears), time, patience, cajoling, sympathy, counseling, etc.
I know where you are coming from and I understand your endeavors towards those who are disadvantaged and "needy". It is a hard line to draw, yet it must be done.
Time is surely among the most valuable assets we have. Those that are traveling the difficult but rewarding path of Rand's philosophy could use the camaraderie of like minds. If one elects to reduce the value of his time by giving it to those who just don't get it and probably never will... is that not a sacrifice?
I profoundly believe that you can distinguish an individual that has an innate sense of "A = A". You can just tell from their reasoning. While they may not always employ logic or they stumble out of the realm of reason (when emotions kick in) you just know that you both turn on a center point of reason which allows you to freely exchange ideas and work without the conflict that arises from
non reasoning individuals that do not understand "value for value" or that "A = A".
I use this premise and ask myself, "would a D'Anconia take up his time with me to discuss an alternative to living in this world as it is, in other words, would I be one of those honored to be invited to their Gulch?" I strive to be worthy of such an honor and it is a daily struggle which I do not often win.
Thank you.
It is a comfort to know that you are on the journey too.
As for the Libertarians--perhaps things have changed since the early days when I really wanted a political party to support. What I found was a morass of in-fighting about seemingly every point in any platform on the national level, and once a Presidential candidate finally emerged from the process, the first thing out of his mouth when he finally got a hearing was something to the effect that he would cut taxes by 50%. I'm sure it sounded noble to the supporters to have such a champion, but all I could see was a person who immediately lost all interest from anyone not already a believer--and for good reason. Can't anyone see that if such a tax cut were actually enacted the country would probably descend into anarchy, given the inroads the Actual Government had made into the day by day life of the country? Perfectly serious and honorable and principled men with no political sense (it seems to me) would immediately get themselves label crackpots, and as far as I've seen over the succeeding years is that they still can't get a seat at the table to discuss the practical side of Libertarianism.
Since I am the last person to realistically jump into the fray and try to make a difference from within the infighting groups, I opted out. Just how much of one's life and work can one be expected to give up for the sake of such political life? I'm not a quitter, even when I quit !! I just chose to focus on areas where I could perhaps end up making an actual difference.
As for the commenting part, you guys have dragged me out in the open. I'm here now. I may not always be as active as I am right now (when I get my head into a project, other things tend to fade away) but I will be here.
And I will be checking out the interview you mentioned.