How Would the Gulch Not Devolve Into Statism?

Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 1 month ago to Government
83 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Talking about my question of *where* a Gulch could be located, Lana wrote "Maybe the real first step is to form a group of serious members and outline the goals of such a community."

That made me realize I'm not even sure what a Gulch government would be like. Suppose somehow a libertarian state comes into existence. How would it be different from the US?:
1. Self-reliance - The first generation there would be self-reliant by definition. The struggle would be pass those values to all the children.
2. Regulations - Maybe some things that are handled by regulations would be handled by courts in the Gulch. Regulations in the US control things that used to be settled by litigation, making the US less litigious than it used to be. Would the Gulch keep some regulations but keep them more narrowly focused on activities that have a clear proven cost on others?
3. Taxes - Most people who think taxes are too high want to maintain spending on at least one of the three largest areas of spending: military, Social Security / Medicare, Welfare for the poor. It's a cliche that politicians like to say "I'll balance the budget without raising taxes, or touching Social Security or the military," Unless we agree to cut all those things, there need to be separate Gulches. That means when some evildoers are laying the possible foundation for WWIII, our response has to be, “we have a small army supported by minutemen if the evildoers come here.” If grandma becomes paralyzed by a stroke, the family and maybe people from her church get ready to open their pocketbooks or provide care once she spends through her $200k life savings in four year's time. I say people can rise to those occasions, but would we have to resist the temptation to look to gov't for a solution.
4. Weapons - In my mind there's a continuum between banning mild weapons such as pepper spray and allowing people to build weapons of mass destruction. Most Gulch citizens would want to allow shotguns, semi-auto rifles, and handguns. There might be debate about someone who wants to protect his house with a UAV equipped with high explosives. If there were a Gulch would the same gun debate persist but just about different weapons?
5. War on Drugs / Terror – The simple solution is to treat drugs as a medical problem for those who seek addiction treatment and treat “terrorism” as a criminal problem using the same court system that tries people who commit murders for more quotidian motives, e.g. to get the insurance money. Would everyone buy into that?
6. Disgusting Behavior – Disgusting behavior is grown adults flirting with 12 y/o boys and girls, someone contacting the family of a murder victim claiming to know how the victim died as cruel prank, lewd behavior in public, burning flags or other items held as sacred to get attention, drawing pictures glamorizing rape, incest, murder, etc. Do we just allow these things as the price of liberty? Do we state somehow in the Constitution, we won't give in and start using force to stop disgusting behavior.

Suddenly I think the biggest problem with Gulch is NOT where to hide it or how to coexist with existing power structures. It's how not to slide back to statism. On all six (6) of those issues, I can see us going from a very free society to right back where we are-- a little island micronation with moderately high taxes, with half the taxes going to defense, and half going to social spending, and all other gov't functions sustained through borrowing. The same people who defend their right to have an automatic rifle, want men with guns to protect the children from drugs and other human problems. That's depressing. If you tell me, "but taxes would be 25% less b/c we wouldn't be buying baby formula for some irresponsible single parents and we wouldn't be subsidizing grandma's medical care," it doesn't make it that much less depressing. Great, instead of sending 40% of our profits in fed and state quarterly estimates, we get to send 30% of our profits. That's a small step toward liberty, but not libertarian paradise.

If I want a liberal paradise where the vast majority are politically liberal, work in jobs related to research, science, and technology, and believe in respecting civil liberties even for unpopular things like polyamory, I already live there. My luck I was born here. I have heard there are rightwing versions all over. How do we get the libertarian version?

Even assuming the Gulch magically existed in the open and other gov't's and peoples of the world left it alone and never attempted to meddle, how would we keep the Gulch from devolving into statism?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by jetgraphics 10 years, 1 month ago
    DEMOCRAZY - - - OH NO, you don't want a democrazy. Miserable form of government. Nasty.

    DEMOCRAZY - that form of government where the rights of individuals are at the mercy of the majority. Where the majority can vote itself benefits taken from the minority. Inevitably becomes corrupt and is overshadowed by an oligarchy that can manipulate public opinion to distract from the voting fraud. The worst form is a socialist democrazy, where government sponsored slavery and theft are implemented under the guise of compulsory charity. (Slavery : compulsory labor for the benefit of another. Theft : expropriation of property for the benefit of another.) No matter how pitiful or deserving the recipient is, slavery is not an acceptable remedy for the ills of mankind.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 10 years, 1 month ago
    "Maybe the real first step is to form a group of serious members and outline the goals of such a community."

    If you’d like some assistance in visualizing a “revolutionary” form of government, you might start with the Declaration of Independence.

    ...
    READER’S DIGEST OF LAW
    ...
    Law simplified into one sentence:
    "All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent."

    ★ Government recognizes and explicitly protects private property ownership.
    ★ Government recognizes and explicitly protects natural and personal liberty from trespass.

    Declaration of Independence soundbite:
    => Job #1 = secure rights (endowed by our Creator)
    => Job #2 = govern those who consent
    . . . (Caveat - consent waives job #1)
    => All Americans are created equal before the law - no one has higher status. This is also the source of the Republican form of government.

    GOVERNMENTS : created by compact to secure rights do not have rights - they have delegated powers and bestow privileges and immunities on those who consent.

    ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION :
    => Create a perpetual UNION of member states and their governments
    => Delegate certain powers to the United States, in Congress assembled

    USCON:
    => The United States, in Congress assembled, is reorganized into three branches, allegedly to balance power, but requires the State officers to swear an oath to the supremacy of the U.S. constitution.
    => People have rights and powers (protected by government)
    => Citizens have privileges and immunities (granted by government)

    In other words, the institution of government was to secure rights, via prosecution of deliberate trespass and adjudication of accidental trespass. And govern (i.e., rule, regulate, restrict) only those who consent.
    ★ Anything more is suspect.
    ★ Anything less is unacceptable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 1 month ago
    The best government would be founded on a constitution that is clear and simple to read with rules that are not ambivalent in any way. Here are a couple of examples:
    MYOB -- Mind Your Own Business.
    You have the right to say no to anyone about anything.
    In 1776 these would be givens. In 2014 they have to be spelled out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MaxCasey 10 years, 1 month ago
    Interesting post, because most of the problems you outline are the results of irrational behavior. Why would such irrationality be tolerated or invited into the gulch in the first place? As for the shape of the governing body, Rand has outlined much of a potential working model in her books, and it certainly wasn't based on democracy. Restitution and disputes would be handled by the courts, which would be funded by a fee paid by those engaging in commerce, sort of like an "oh shit" or "just in case" fee. Everything was predicated on a voluntary exchange of values, i.e. lassiez-faire capitalism. She didn't ever get much into the executive or legislative too heavily, but based on her penchant for individual rights, one can assume that taxes would be out of the question. Then of course comes the inevitable question of how to fund the government. Well one could take the approach of "if you use it pay for it", but that doesn't really get too far in reality. We all know that those who don't pay still benefit indirectly. I was fortunate enough to work with an old man a while ago who had a very novel approach to government funding, and it all centered around nationalizing the federal reserve. Stick with me here, its going to get weird for a second. As you all should know by now the Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express. Its a private bank that creates Federal Reserve Notes out of thin air and lends them to banks and our government for varying interest rates. For the purposes of this discussion we will focus on the private banks. These smaller private banks then make loans to entrepreneurs without any real risk to their own capital. The entrepreneur takes what is essentially a worthless piece of paper (the check representing money created from thin air) and proceeds to use raw materials to fashion some good, or service, let's say a building (think Roark here). Now that building is sold for a small profit and the loan plus fees and interest is paid back to the lending bank and the original loan is paid back to the Federal Reserve plus interest. The interest and fees paid to the Federal Reserve and Lending Bank are only worth anything because of the builder who created value from raw materials. The loans didn't create value, they were just manufactured from nothing, and until there was a building said to be worth that loan, the loan had no real value. Still with me? Great. So the Federal Reserve and the local lending bank, profit from what? What did they risk? NOTHING! The risk was assumed by the Builder. The Builder created the value. The builder's skill and capability is what gives value to the money. Think about it. So how about instead of the Federal Reserve profiting for doing basically nothing, and instead of the local bank making cash for essentially no risk, we turn around and limit the local lender to receiving a fee commensurate with servicing the loan and that is all, and then the "interest" on the loan from the Federal Reserve is used to fund the functions of government, all the way back down to the local level. Of course we are talking about doing this in the Gulch, and from scratch. I can't say that this F-ed up country we live in could work this way or not, but what a system like this, or similar to this would do, is provide a system of funding for government, that is paid for by productivity, and not by theft. The government would of course be bared from borrowing, and their budgets would be predictable, and their policies would encourage entrepreneurship because their bottom line would be dependent on it.

    I'm sure I'm missing something, but hey, its an idea.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 1 month ago
      Welcome to the Gulch, Max. If you enjoyed the novels, you will find the non-fiction challenging. MaxCasey wrote: "She didn't ever get much into the executive or legislative too heavily, but based on her penchant for individual rights, one can assume that taxes would be out of the question." In fact Rand was explicit about no taxes and about people paying for government services directly. However, her focus was on more fundamental topics in philosophy because those determine the others. In other words, if you want a good political system, you need a solid epistemology. Cause and effect: the cart cannot come before the horse.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years ago
      Thanks for this comment.

      I agree with all of it except I like our monetary system and I don't think the problems I lay out are caused by irrational behavior. Let's set aside the monetary question and focus on irrationality.

      It seems rational to have gov't doing some of the same things our gov't does, just not out of control and accounting for a a huge chunk of GDP. This is plausible, since we spend most of our money on defense, and maybe just having everyone armed with a high-power rifle along with a minimal army might provide the same level of protection. My question, though, is isn't this just a smaller less-intrusive version of the gov't we have. Maybe the answer is yes, and that's a good enough cause to create a Gulch over. If so, Gulch residents would have to guard vigilantly against creeping expansion of gov't.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
      That's a really nice train of thought. Well done.

      Here's another thought: eliminate fiat currency entirely. If all currency was merely a representation of an actual item of value (gold, silver, platinum, etc.) then neither a private nor government bank can rip people off by printing money.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by MaxCasey 10 years, 1 month ago
        Two immediate things come to mind, 1st) all the problems with metal currency in the past, heavy, fraud, shaving etc. 2) Fort Knox. Yes the money could be backed by gold, but is there really any gold there? Can we audit it, etc. Bitcoin has done some cool things with tracking transactions and keeping trades honest, some could be learned there, but also consider that "fiat" isn't really the correct term when the currency is directly tied to a "real" good or something of tangible value, unlike when the government "borrows" money from the Fed, who prints it from thin air, in the previous example, while a central authority creates the physical currency, its not exactly the same as what we have now.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
          So there is a chance of fraud on an individual level with real currency vs the certainty of fraud on a national level. Great. This is why I favor the idea of banks being the issuers of currency and not the Federal government (not to mention the whole Keynesian mess).

          The problem I have with bitcoin (not that it isn't a great idea) is that it has no intrinsic value. That concerns me as to its long term viability. And let's just admit that bitcoins are every bit as manufactured as the current US dollar - just not by a quasi-governmental entity.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 10 years, 1 month ago
    REPUBLICAN FORM - that form of government wherein the people directly exercise sovereignty, and are served -not ruled- by government (and its subject citizens). The sovereign people retain possession of all their inalienable rights, powers, and liberties, and no democratic majority can vote them away. The servant government only exercises power by special delegation. Though not the most perfect form, it is the best form, securing the maximum liberty and freedom to its sovereign people.
    (promised in Art. 4, Sec. 4, USCON)

    GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly..."
    - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

    What to verify to establish evidence that the republican form is still protected by American law:
    __ Private property rights (absolute ownership by individuals)
    __ Natural liberty (sovereign prerogatives of the landlord)
    __ Personal liberty (rights of the freeman upon the public roads and waterways)
    __ Natural rights (which includes those explicitly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence)
    __ Rights and liberties are not subject to taxation, regulation or impairment
    ...
    If one has absolute freedom upon one’s property, and freedom to travel upon the public ways, and government cannot trespass upon your rights and liberties - except by your consent -or- to secure the rights of an injured party, what more do you want?
    ...
    NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123

    NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
    - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

    " Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
    - - - 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lana 10 years, 1 month ago
    Everything in life is a game... The rich have figured out how to hold onto their money. The politicians have figured out how to hold onto their power. The religious leaderhave figured out all of this too...
    So the question is how smart are we to design our future without falling into the standard mold. I mentioned religion because of the tax implications... Corporation... How about non-profit where the corporation provides all the basic necessities, like housing, food, clothing, education, medical.....etc? Small personal income tax?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by brs02 10 years, 1 month ago
      Your comments regarding various groups sound more like an Occupy Wallstreet type than libertarian. The tax code was used to silence the free expression of religous groups (LBJ).
      Your talking about a non-proft company to provide for everyones needs?!
      I would say all of the shortcuts (regulations) the US has used to avoid writng law or litigation is precisely the avenue used by statists. Our Constitution was designed to resist change and move slowly to make sure footed steps. In activity in COngress is the best thing fro the counry... look what happens when they run.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lana 10 years, 1 month ago
        I guess I moved too quickly onto the practical matters rather than clarifying the philosophic.
        If the gulch is created in the US what would be the assumptions that it would have to work with?
        I was assuming that the gulch would have to have a strategy to deal with the US government and all of its demands. I assumed that the strategy would strive to hold onto as much of the earnings of its
        members as possible. That in the creation of wealth in the gulch that the interactions with the US government would skewed in favor of the gulch by taking advantage of the current laws etc....etc
        Someone or some entity will have to deal with the outside world.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lana 10 years, 1 month ago
        I was suggesting that the gulch itself be incorporated. This gulch corporationo's mission would be to lessen the individual's tax burden. So instead of paying for rent, utilities etc with post tax dollars the corporation could be used to pay these with pre tax dollars and pass on the savings to the members. This corporate membership could be optional where not everyone has to work for the corporation. Medical could also fall under a provided benefit from the corporation. So if you work for the corporation you would have benefits like rent, utilities, transportation all paid for, while you may collect less of a salary you would have a lot more discretionary cash at your disposal.
        These are just ideas on beating the tax system given that nothing will be done to change it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
      What may not be immediately obvious is that under the original Constitution of the United States, there were neither corporate nor individual income taxes. All Federal Government revenue came from international trade.

      Interesting thought, isn't it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 10 years, 1 month ago
    How would a libertarian government be different?
    1) strict limiting of the areas the government can be involved in at all. Much stricter than Constitution.

    2) simplified fixed flat tax on income over some inflation adjusted amount to support agreed government functions. No changes in rate. No exemptions. No big bureaucracy to manage it all.

    3) Only things that are effectively initiation of force or fraud on others, that at least can be shown to harm others, are crimes. All criminal prosecutions made on any other grounds are null and void. All laws and regulations that do not have this characteristic are rescinded.

    4) The people are secure in ALL there papers and effects including electronic ones. No government roundups of citizen data without specific sufficient and warrant specifying what is to be searched are allowed.

    5) No "policing the world" by government.

    6) Separation of economy and state.

    7) Separation of education and state.

    8) Separation of science and state.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 1 month ago
      Yours is by far my favorite answer.

      I would gladly accept (not agree) with all of these. i think #2 is simplistic b/c just having a flat rate doesn't simplify thing. Calculating income is what's complicated. The rate is a simple calculation. This whole thing is an artifice of those who want to the rich to pay less under guise of simplification.

      Anyway, I would gladly adopt the whole program for the US. I'd rather err on the side of less gov't power, esp with US in serious trouble for excessive gov't power.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lana 10 years, 1 month ago
    I do not believe you can have an entity like the gulch without a governing body. The governing body needs to deal with internal and external forces. This governing body holds the individual and the communities survival as the highest goal.
    There needs to be someone who looks out for the good of the gulch with well thought out strategies, like lawyers hired to protect the interests of the corporation. There are so many dangers to such a community.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 10 years, 1 month ago
    If you form an "Objectivist Society" and it is successful there will be looters ready to come in and take over. They may work slowly, as have the Fabians in the UK and the US, over decades, rather than months or years, presenting themselves all the while as proper Objectivists. The successful long-haul infiltrator will produce philosophically worthwhile essay and speeches, and will gain a following.

    A takeover can come entirely from within. In business there is a saying, "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

    I do not know how to defend against takeovers. The recommendation I have heard is eternal vigilance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 1 month ago
    Let me refer you to my own essay on Galt's Gulch, on Conservapedia.com (where I serve as an administrator):

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Galt%27s_Gu...

    Galt's Gulch is a feudal society. Membership, don't forget, is by invitation only. So the ultimate sentence for overly irrational behavior is banishment.

    Midas Mulligan is the feudal landlord. He, Francisco, Hank Rearden, and Ragnar Danneskjöld are the primary stakeholders. These four form a Committee of Safety--though actually Midas sends John Galt to act as his proxy on that Committee.

    Committees of Safety classically consist of a combination of those who have the biggest stakes in law and order, and those specialists in the application of force who are best able, and motivated, to exert force when the Committee deems it necessary. Midas, Francisco, and Hank (after he joins) are stakeholders. (So will Dagny be, once she builds a railroad to serve Francisco's copper mine.) Ragnar is a force specialist. He has a ship, and a method for defense (or offense). The others can best afford to pay for that defense, because they have the most to lose from either:

    A) invasion, or

    B) a breakdown in law and order.

    The people pay rents to Midas, but do not pay taxes as such. (Taxes are "moneys paid to ensure law and order," from the Greek "taxei" meaning "order.") Instead, Midas, Francisco, and Hank pony up most of the funds, and provide volunteer guards where needed. Ragnar does his sea raiding and, I imagine, takes a little bit off the top as his fee in addition to making full restitution to the strikers.

    Everyone is allowed to have any sort of weapon he deems necessary. But in an invitation-only community, crime never pays, because crime can never last.

    Seats on the Committee of Safety are open to anyone willing to support its activities in a big-enough way. But that Committee has no authority to lay or collect taxes, duties, imposts, or excises. Remember: these are civic-minded, and like-minded, individuals who have the most to lose, so they exert the greatest effort. Anyone who thinks the Committee is over looking anything, is invited to join. But "if you're gonna stay, you gotta play."

    Questions?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 1 month ago
      @Temlako
      Would other gov't of the world have a legitimate complaint in saying you banish all irrational people to use and drain away our most productive? Maybe they want to banish their unproductive to your Gulch. This would lead to conflict.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 1 month ago
        Banishment simply means "go anywhere but here." It does not necessarily mean "go to such-a-place and stay there." Yet that is how a lot of immigration services run things, on the assumption "a civilized country for every person." The Gulch is a special place, don't forget. An individual in the AS story universe has exactly two places to live: the Gulch, and the outside. Even after the collapse, John Galt said, "We will open the doors of our city to all who *deserve to enter.*"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 1 month ago
      wow, tem, you've really thought about this. here are some questions:
      1. why Rearden over Wyatt on the safety committee?
      2. why is it a feudal society? Classic definition is not Rand-like. I mean serfs, the only way to advance was through the military (protection) etc...
      3. I love the privateering angle. Ragnar's "take back to gulch"
      I read your earlier comment about your profession. db's brother is a pathologist and has a lab in Mayo and his dad had his own lab in western Kansas for many years.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 1 month ago
        Rearden was the one everyone in the Gulch looked up to as the one they would most want to have join them. Besides, when Ragnar met him on the road, he told him, "Yours is the largest account left to settle." I figured also he would come with a good part of his workforce, all prepared to guard his new leasehold with guns. After all, Francisco got him to the Gulch after Tinky Holloway's rioters nearly killed him. Besides: I did not see Ellis Wyatt deploying any guard force on his leasehold. (Although, to be sure, Ragnar did appoint him to command the land forces that invested Manhattan Island and then invested the State Science Institute grounds, prepared to storm Project F if the elite team of Ragnar, Dagny, Francisco, and Hank Rearden failed in their rescue mission. If you follow the link to my essay on Ragnar Danneskjöld, you will see how I retold the story of that rescue--from his point of view.)

        2. The society is basically feudal in that one man, i.e. Midas Mulligan, owns all the land. In the Middle Ages, he would carry the title of Duke, meaning one who can lead. To be sure, this society does not have all the trappings of feudalism. No one is bound to the land. MIdas might own the land, and its mineral wealth, and can lease it out to whomever will strike a good enough deal with him. But he does not own anyone's labor on any part of that land.

        3. Remember what a privateer is: a sea raider who works under license. This, as opposed to a buccaneer, or one who seizes wealth by force for his own benefit without regard to anyone's rights.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 1 month ago
          to your point 3. it's even better than a license-you cannot steal from a thief...the force is defensive
          point 2. I have a hard time seeing the Gulch today as land based. I think its members would be much more effective as a virtual community. You can "re-charge" no matter where you are and what you are accomplishing on the "outside."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 1 month ago
            A virtual community might have worked, to some degree, in the very beginning. But you cannot eat virtual food, nor drink a virtual drink, nor shelter in a virtual shelter. You need real food, real drink, and real shelter. That's why you need a land-based community.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 10 years, 1 month ago
              I see what you are saying if we were forming a nation. But, the Gulch was never the goal.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 1 month ago
                Recall John Galt's word to Dagny: "We started with no time limit in view. We did not know whether we would ever live to see the looters' state collapse. We knew only that this was the way we wished to live."

                In other words, John Galt, with Midas Mulligan's help, decided the term of the strike would be INDEFINITE. And one does not sustain a virtual community indefinitely.

                Furthermore, Ellis Wyatt, Andrew Stockton, et al. needed a real community to retreat to. After their public decamping from Wyatt's Junction, Colorado, and its various communities (Marshville, Hammondton, etc.), they had to HIDE. And they weren't comfortable with hiding in plain sight.

                And any virtual community needs a real counterpart to sustain it. Whether that's the United States Mail or the Internet Corporation for the Assignment of Names and Numbers. Only the very real community of Galt's Gulch could be beyond the reach of either.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 10 years, 1 month ago
    It can't not devolve into statism.

    It has never happened, and will never happen. The most free nations have eventually devolved, it is the cycle of the body politic. If you've never seen it, you need to look at it.

    This cycle has been observed so many times in history that it may as well be called a law. People in Bondage are emboldened by Spiritual Truth. Spiritual Truth gives them Great Courage. From Great Courage they earn their Liberty. Liberty yields Abundance. Abundance eventually devolves into Selfishness. Selfishness yields Complacency. Complacency matures into Apathy. Apathy turns into Dependence. And Dependence once again puts the original founders' descendants back into Bondage.

    And so, when you all want to whine and complain at me here, yet again, about how I bring up religious liberty and *gasp* spiritual truth, plainly detailed in the Bible, then fine, whatever... I'm just telling you what's happened already. If you want to preserve freedom, you need perfect human beings. Ain't ever been one of those on this planet, except one time.

    BUT, if you at least have people striving to follow those perfect principles, then you can preserve it longer than you otherwise would be able to. But all men fail eventually. I don't think even a nation governed by true (not fake) Christian men can last indefinitely, because they're all imperfect human beings.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago
    JetGraphics is right. Start with America's founding documents. If we in Atlantis can get our society to last for > 200 years like America's founders did, then it will be a new generation's responsibility to amend any problems that popped up in the interim.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 1 month ago
      You stand accused of fixing coffee and serving it in bed to Kay Ludlow.
      "Dude, she is my wife."
      Did you have sex the night before?
      "Uh, no..."
      So, it was an altruistic act, not the exchange of value for value?
      "Ummm... thinking... thinking..."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago
        Regarding the oath, you expect someone of honor (an expectation of Atlantis citizens) to fulfill any oaths that one takes. In essence, when one violates the oath, he/she would be expected to exile themselves. The hypocrisy one would have to live with would be intolerable. In essence, violation of the oath becomes unforgivable.

        Having an oath enforcement police obviously would make Atlantis statist.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago
        Wow, MikeMarotta and khalling! I knew that there would be people who would disagree with me on the oath issue, but unlike Mike's example about the "sex with your wife the night before" that obviously could not be amended, if I delete my opinion about oath enforcement, can we just agree to disagree? Ouch!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 1 month ago
      j,
      there is no enforcement of the oath. who decides who is following/not following? there are objective laws which should be enforced, but the oath is personal. that's how we get 300M people pledging allegiance to a flag at the same time. absurd. federal employees break the oath to the Constitution all the time...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago
        On second thought, I don't think we would have to worry nearly as much about who would enforce the oath. This community does an extremely thorough job of policing itself on issues of disagreement. If someone were to violate the oath, the ostracism would be insufferable enough that oath violators would beg to leave.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago
    CircuitGuy, the following is meant in good-natured jest, not anything inflammatory. Does this mean that your job in Atlantis would be city planner or councilperson? We certainly wouldn't need many such people, but I haven't seen anyone else volunteer for such a role yet. If I earn a vote, you would be worth considering. There would be many people in Atlantis worthy of my consideration for such a role. That is why I am here.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lana 10 years, 1 month ago
      I think that the council members are made up of problem solving people with a passion and a vision who work within the set parameters of the document that outlines the directives of such a society. They are administrators and leaders. They posses certain skills and attributes.... And a proven track record. Skinner addresses this in Walden Two. It's been awhile since I read Mistress and Walden Two but this is an interesting question. How does someone get on the council and what are the qualification ? We have seen that "majority rules" does not always get the right person elected.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
        I would propose that all political positions be voluntary - ie without salary. This would not only keep the taxes down, but would discourage power-mongers because of the lack of power (money). It would also mean that they wouldn't be sitting around all day thinking about more ways to raise taxes - or playing golf or going on vacation on my dime.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago
        For someone so new to Atlantis, Lana, you are off to a solid start. I haven't read either of the books you mentioned. We have no shortage of problem solving people with passion and vision. This thread is primarily about defining the "set parameters" and qualifications for council members. Your points are well taken. Give me a few hours, and I'll modify an assignment that my students find particularly helpful in this regard to make it more relevant to citizens of Atlantis. I've got to get ready for my Shrug job lest I blow my cover.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lana 10 years, 1 month ago
    I'm not sure the gulch can be a democracy. I like Skinner's Walden Two approach. You have a board of elders, first the boards is comprised of founders, then carefully elected... Nominated candidates. Everything is vulnerable initially so the governing body needs to have the communities future in mind first and foremost. Again Heinlein has a bunch of ideas on government alternatives in Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I also think that any governing body needs to have standards. Just because someone can raise money and talk a good talk does not make for a good leader.... A politician ..for sure.. Leader...Nyet!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 1 month ago
      Lana recommend Skinner's "Walden Two" as a model for Galt's Gulch, but would she recommend some useful structure from the Soviet Politburo or the Teamsters Union or the Democratic National Committee? The ends do not justify the means: the means determine the ends. Skinner denied the existence of volition. He attempted to reduce human cognition to the reflexes of pigeons. His political theories necessarily rest on that moral foundation which comes from his epistemological theories. You cannot _plan_ the political structure of the Gulch. If you want to argue this, do you want to argue Rearden's space arch? Do you want to posit the nature of Galt's Motor? In the story, the owners of the Gulch - Midas Mulligan first, then the people to whom he sold property - developed a very loose governmental structure because of their own personal needs. In that story, perhaps 50 people (including Ragnar's two sons) inhabited the Gulch. An actual community of 1000 or 10,000 is objectively different from that. I have recommended actual case studies such as HOW TO START YOUR OWN COUNTRY by Erwin S. Strauss and CALIFORNIA'S UTOPIAN COMMUNITIES by Robert V. Hine. A significant step in the Scientific Method is to read the substantive literature before you plan your experiment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lana 10 years, 1 month ago
        I will read the books you recommend. Are you aware that there is a publication that identifies all 'intentional communities' and writes about their purpose, membership requirements, location etc. it would be interesting to research which ones are flourishing and why.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 1 month ago
      What's to keep these "elders" from becoming corrupt?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lana 10 years, 1 month ago
        That's a challenge. I think Heinlein had some ideas on this in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. How do you know that someone is moral and ethical? Maybe there are challenges and qualifying tests. The elders don't serve forever just some defined term. They can be circulated out of the council and back again. Maybe the council is formed by a particular need and the right skills set are picked from a pool of talent... There has to be a way to prevent corruption.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 1 month ago
          Lana, thank you for remembering this fine book! I also remember a couple of crucial features of the moon colony. everyone was required to be armed when in public, and if two had an interactive difference, the next person whom they encountered would act as arbiter to resolve it. interesting society, yes?!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 1 month ago
          Not so long as it has humans in the system. Humans are corruptible, thus they will be corrupt. Not always and not everyone, but it will occur. The trouble is, when it starts if it is not rooted out quickly and absolutely, it will spread.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ken_V_K 8 years, 5 months ago
    Hi, Circuit Guy. Great question! I'd think the Gulch itself could never, ever fall victim to statism simply because it cannot; it would always remain unflinchingly true to its founding values, which is what you'd expect. But that makes it susceptible to a dissimilar, corollary sin: religious intolerance. To quote from my novel, Atlas Snubbed, "We don’t call this place Atlantis for nothing. It’s the place of heroes, and we mean to keep it that way." Indeed. To draw a real-life parallel, look at what orthodox Objectivism did to David Kelley: excommunication! That split and its underlying causes are included in my novel as thinly-veiled fiction. So I'd say that's how the Gulch would eventually end up. Pogroms and purges: yes; statism, never.

    And speaking of my novel, Atlas Snubbed, it directly addresses the methods used by Eddie Willers for dealing with each of your numbered points:

    1. Self-reliance: A given, as you point out. Since Galt's strike resulted in the deaths of millions, the survivors would HAVE to be self-reliant.

    2. Regulation: This is the third of three main political points Atlas Snubbed is out to make, specifically, the Separation of Regulation and State. Eddie sets up a voluntary framework for all sorts of regulations where individuals decide for themselves exactly which ones they want to embrace. And yes, it can lead to some sorts of torts when things go awry, but that is covered by the second main political points of the book, the Separation of Courts and State.

    3. Taxes: Taxation is theft, pure and simple, regardless of any $200,000 medical bill for granny. Objectivism is pretty cold-hearted on the subject of charity, but how Society deals with that is the most important of the three major political points of the book, specifically, the Separation of Society and State. That approach becomes the norm in my novel for the world Outside, but it's also used inside the Gulch for things like traffic lights.

    4. Weapons: To quote a phrase from the Pennsylvania Constitution, people are "responsible for the abuse of that liberty." See "2. Regulation" above. No difference.

    5. War on Drugs/Terror: See "4. Weapons" above. Regardless of what human behavior you speak of, dealing with it all falls under the same mantra: "You have the inalienable right to live your life your way, without interference, provided you respect the rights and property of others." That mantra is the overarching message of Atlas Snubbed. Society's reaction to regulation, taxes, weapons, drugs, etc. stems from it. Even the reaction to...

    6. Disgusting behavior. I added a whole half a chapter about sex and children at the suggestion of Thomas Knapp (2008 VP candidate for the Boston Tea Party) in light of what happened to poor Mary Ruwart's presidential campaign over the topic.

    Bottom line: Without Galt's religious... uh, I mean PHILOSOPHICAL edicts, the world outside the Gulch is always prone to creeping statism. But as for the Gulch itself, let me quote Frank Herbert's novel, Dune: "When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movement become headlong -- faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thought of obstacles and forget that a precipice does not show itself to the man in a blind rush until it's too late." Sounds like a good theme for a sequel to Atlas Shrugged!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 1 month ago
    hey! if I were alone on the "island", I'd do it all.

    if someone joined me, we'd barter and divide tasks. if more joined us, we'd volunteer and agree to the division of tasks. if a full voluntary system were agreed to, then "donations" would be substituted for taxes.
    the extension of this requires that non-agreed people (children, e.g.) be kept within the protected envelope.

    if I suddenly decided not to agree, I would have to leave. the implication is that anyone attaining the "age of majority" would have to take an oath of agreement with the group, and if someone did not want to take the oath, then goodbye.

    the vertical extrapolation of this requires that the "agreement" become a constitution, and that the oath be taken with a representative of the group alliance ... representative democracy? donations required, else I incur a lifetime debt for defense, representation and barter-result note-taking people called judges?

    just a way to look at this -- from the most basic position forward!

    p.s. never allow a Federal Reserve!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years ago
      Are you saying they kick out anyone who doesn't pay the voluntary taxes?

      Would everyone, generation after generation, maintain citizenship in some country so the Gulch would have a place to repatriate them if they refused to follow the ways the Gulch?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnpe1 10 years ago
        p.s., CG -- the oath is the anchor for staying in the gulch, not something like donations ... an errant but oath-professing child who made no donations would just carry a debt through life, and stay, if the generosity of the rest of us was healthy ... yes?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnpe1 10 years ago
        I'd pay on your account, CG, if you were incurring a debt for defense, representation and judges ... the three branches of the "government", and I'd hope that citizenship -- if not dual -- would be in the gulch. leaving would be a real gripe! like my little home, here, well, we do everything we can to make true friends want to stay!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 10 years ago
          Are you saying the donations would be voluntary? I could see that working if you made public how much people donated and allowed people to earmark their donations.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by johnpe1 10 years ago
            well, yes, you have a good idea there -- make it public knowledge! I am trying to envision a society in which everything is voluntary. sooo much better than our truncated freedom these days!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 10 years, 1 month ago
    Rule #1. A government official violating the constitution is a capital offense.


    From here on out, the rest of the rules would start at "Rule #20" to highlight how important "Rule #1" is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
    How's this for an idea on budgeting: the government shall not spend more in the current year than was collected the previous year in taxes. Automatically rules out anything but a balanced budget! Add in there the priority payments to debt-service and eventually that would die too!

    One can dream...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 10 years, 1 month ago
    You really do not want "civil liberties."

    According to American law, liberty has four types: natural, personal, civil and political.
    ● Natural = absolute freedom (on one's own property or unclaimed land)
    ● Personal = right of locomotion (freedom to travel on public roads and waterways)
    ● Civil = permission from government (licenses, permits)
    ● Political = participation in government (voting, holding office)
    The former two are endowed rights, the latter two are government privileges.

    http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier...
    LIBERTY. 1. Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.
    2. Liberty is divided into civil, natural, personal, and political.
    ...
    It is vital to know the difference, because “the system” only stresses the liberties granted by government, and stands mute on the liberties we are endowed with. You do not see an “American Natural Liberties Union” stalwartly defending natural liberties - because most Americans were tricked into surrendering it.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ gmarklin 10 years, 1 month ago
    People interested in thinking about this issue might want to read "Atlas Snubbed" by Ken Krawchuck.
    It's an unauthorized sequel to Atlas Shrugged that tells the story of Eddie Willers rebuilding a small community outside the Gulch after the collapse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 10 years, 1 month ago
    I see several mentions of private property, yet even the Gulch would be at odds with the UN, who says private property rights must go. With all our government bodies and agencies, both sides of the aisle in this country are moving toward fulfilling that UN agenda. How do we keep that out of the Gulch, and how could we keep the UN out?
    As to the above mentioned drug problem - who pays for the medical treatment of someone who indulges in the drugs? It costs everyone, from the robbed, to the children, the producers whose equal trade is disrupted. Drug use is a an escape, a failure to take responsibility for ones self. Unrealistic thinking and pipe dreams lead people to try to escape consequences and shattered dreams The Gulch is not a place for such non-thinkers. The major criteria for membership is that the member thinks objectively, otherwise we are back where we are now.
    The Native Americans sent those who acted against the tribe into the desert to live alone. Send offenders out of the Gulch to the entitlement utopia (which never did exist in reality). .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
      Perhaps, but let's see the UN come and try to take anything! They rely entirely upon intimidation yet are so full of graft and corruption they defeat themselves.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Stormi 10 years, 1 month ago
        Yeah, but they are steaming full ahead with Agenda 21, which is piece by piece being implemented in this country, while people do not even notice. One day property rights will disappear and they will wonder how. No fight, no legislation, just local ordinances all in place.
        At the optometrist's office this week, I asked him if he wanted to be forced to live above a downtown business. He said he was a city boy. I asked if he wanted his kids in that location. "No, I want them to have a yard and a pool." - which they do have. See how easily people fail to think things through without prompting?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo