"But in fact, Athens itself was no friend of pilosophy until after the death of Socrates..."

Most of what you post here I agree with. However it should be noted that Aristotle felt it necessary to leave "lest Athens sin twice against philosophy."

Indeed. One doesn't necessarily acquire the proper respect for the unearned. I have earned my way and built a company under my own steam and credit. I tell my Mother I hope she lives long enough to spend all of her money. There were a few rough times when she offered to help early on, but I refused. My siblings have had different ideas... I do not approve of their unpaid "Loans"...

Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller pre-1896 would be two of my heroes. However, during the last part of Andrew Carnegie's or John Rockefeller's lives, they essentially planted orchards in the forms of libraries and scholarship funds. There has been some good to come out of that, and I would expect that they derived some satisfaction from it. However, that was the worst part of their lives, and while I will see to it that my own kids and grandkids' college funds are taken care of, I don't plan on saving enough to allow them to live unproductive lives. They will have to prove themselves worthy of the money they inherit, and I mean this in the context that Francisco d'Anconia said it during the money speech.

Sure. One might plant an orchard late in life knowing his children or grandchildren may prosper from the effort, enjoy the satisfaction of knowing a job well done and watching it grow in remaining years.

Point well taken, ObjectiveAnalyst. There could be a reward in itself. I doubt that would be common, but certainly possible.

Hello jbrenner, j_IR1776wg,
Pardon me for interjecting here, but I would suggest that just because one may not live to see their wishes fulfilled does not mean that they may not acquire satisfaction from putting into motion actions which may benefit posterity. This can be reward in itself.
Respectfully,
O.A.

I do not mean to be offensive with this statement, but if one does not believe in an afterlife, of what profit is it to not be able to live long enough to enjoy the fruit of one's labor? Christians plant seeds and water them and have faith that they will be rewarded for the good that they have done. But an objectivist cannot be non-contradictory if he/she cannot live long enough to see such fruit.

"Having no positive, reachable goals leads to despair"

Maybe. But so many of us have planted seeds knowing full well that we wouldn't live long enough to enjoy the fruit and did not despair in doing so.

I will continue fighting for the truth, but where, when, and how are valid questions. Ayn Rand did not quit fighting, and neither will I. Something to work toward is critical. Having no positive, reachable goals leads to despair.

What I meant by the infection comment is that moochers and looters are growing their numbers and their debt so fast that we can't keep up.

No Social Darwinism here! Humans are not germs - we are capable of thought.

"If the answer to those questions is longer than our lifetimes, then what do Gulch citizens have to look forward to?"

Hey jbrenner it is more about fighting for the truth. Do you think Ayn Rand would have quit fighting for her ideas merely because she had reached the end of her life without Galt's Gulch becoming a reality?

Bear in mind what is possible Robbie. Article V requires that 3/4 of State legislatures approve the proposed amendments.

Yes. Hopefully peaceful first via Article V and voting, then otherwise.

You're right. It doesn't matter anymore. The collective debt and unfunded liabilities make it such that it doesn't matter anymore where we go in the US. This is why many of us have shrugged and are exiles in our own country.

Nice Beatles pun, CircuitGuy, given my Tax Man rant. Well.. you know. We all want to change the world. No, I don't want a violent overthrow of the US government. Just like the colonists came to America to flee persecution, it is time to do so again. Going back to Lana's point on a different thread, I think that it is possible to flee such persecution and start over again.

Agreed. Fleeing is different. Fifteen years, ago and perhaps even six or seven years ago, the US could be saved. The cancer has metasized too far at this point.

By itself, the oath doesn't solve the problems, but it prevents the vast majority of them. The oath is a wide spectrum antiviral, antibacterial vaccine.

Fleeing to somewhere else is completely different from a revolution here. Jefferson envisioned states and even cities experimenting with completely different rules, but the Federal gov't ended up homogenizing everything.

What would the Gulch look like in terms of the six issues I mention in this post: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/69...

What would be different in an ideal society vs. ours? I agree with the oath, but does taking it solve the problems? Or do we just have a bunch of AS fans dealing with the same issues.

America's situation - an infection that reproduces faster than one's phagocytes can reproduce to stop it.

You say you want a revolution?

Setting aside the legal issues, it's hard to imagine a violent overthrow of the gov't resulting in more liberty. If there are enough liberty-minded people to overthrow the gov't, couldn't they bring about change peacefully and legally?

Go down some in this thread to see that I just commented on how you can't do much voting with your feet anymore. It wasn't my representative that voted for this abomination (Obamanation?). It was the representatives and senators in other districts and states that decided that Gulch citizens were on the dinner plate.

You can only do so much voting with your feet. Most people who seek liberty have already moved to states with no income tax and communities with low tax burdens. The progressive/collectivists have aggregated in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc., and we can't vote their politicians out. This is the reason why most people like their own US representative but despise Congress in general. We can fund candidates who can bring about the progressive/collectivists' destruction... maybe.