10

So What To Do?

Posted by $ sjatkins 9 years, 10 months ago to Politics
61 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Most objectivists I have known say we have a long slog of educating people ahead of us and that we can't expect much to improve until this is accomplished. But Ayn Rand herself experienced that most people are very strongly resistant to this kind of education. They belittle and deny it from the beginning tossing out ad hominem and other logical fallacies with abandon.

We also experience a Government that is far far away from what objectivist minarchist legitimate government would be. On the order of 99% of all the regulatory and enforcement agencies writing and enforcing the rules on all of us are not elected or even very directly subject to control by anyone who is. So it is very unlikely that even an objectivist educated reasonably large chunk of the population could change much by voting or even running for political office.

So what is left? Violent revolution? We have said for so long that it isn't "time to shoot the bastards" that it looks to me like we lost the means and most importantly the will for such measures long ago. And we likely missed the window where that would have made much difference as well. However, in the face of a lawless and evil government resistance and even violent resistance seems quite rational.

So what else? Shrugging and just surviving in what happiness can be found with a few like minded people but with much our productive capacity not on offer and not making the world over as wondrously as it could? Being sort of hunkered down and staying smaller than we really are in protest?

Or perhaps swallowing our ideals and anger and just soldiering own thinking that if only that next invention gets done and out there and integrated that perhaps all these persons, ideologies and forces in the way will not ultimately matter?

Or perhaps it is time to build a real Gulch. A country of our own based on sound ethics and politics growing out of those ethics. I am reading with interest about artificial island creation, some as big as Manhattan. An objectivist city-state or eventual chain of them in international waters may be the only way to a fully alive and rational world that we have left.

Thoughts?


All Comments

  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Some states also have mandatory secession clauses written into their State Constitutions. Montana, for example automatically secedes if the Federal Government denies an individual right to bear firearms as per the Second Amendment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ katrinam41 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    blarman, I agree that one way to save this whole thing is to let if go and then rebuild. If we can populate a Galt's Gulch here in the USA, even a small one of several towns clustered together out in the boonies somewhere, we would have at least a tiny nucleus to build on and like minds to keep us on a rational course. I often read the Constitution, trying to see exactly where those changes noted at the end of A.S. would have to be made, and so far my biggest concern is the amendments added year after year, ever narrowing the definition of who has the right to do what. Each "granting of rights" to another named group has weakened this document to the point where you have to be named in an amendment to be protected by the courts. I would remove many of the newest amendments and add just two--the protection of the free market and term limits for all elected officials. Of course, there are many more changes to be made in other areas, like the tottering weight of useless, contradictory laws--local, state and federal--but that would take much more time and space than I want to use right this second... :D
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m1tmc 9 years, 10 months ago
    Such an island or enclave would require defending, so why not band together and make a stand when the time comes. These guys aren't going down alone and will likely not let anyone escape in obvious defiance of their idiocy, but if escape appears possible, best get it done. I'm staying and prepping to re-establish liberty with like-minded folks when it all crashes. Either way, it will take time, and getting ready for anything has become a hobby.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 10 months ago
    Islands are awfully small and artificial islands are even smaller. With that limit, they still go to sea without a resource base or manufacturing base, or readily usable power base. They are essentially, huge cruise ships. Ships at sea require a Captain and a hierarchal power structure in order to operate and stay safe, not suitable to representative type of government or elections. I don't see that as a realistic goal for Objectivist.

    Remember that even the Enlightenment took centuries to develop to a point that a country could be founded on such ideas. It's true that we face a multi-lifetime struggle, but our place in that struggle is possibly the most important - to continue our efforts to demonstrate the gains of such a philosophy and to spread the word, in real world terms and real world application.

    Many imagine that at the founding, we were actually closer to an Objectivist country - but they forget that the vast majority of the population weren't thinkers, they were doers and achievers willing to let others run their government and make the policy decisions that incrementally led us to where we're at today. Until more of the population is educated to the gains possible in individualism and the works of the rational mind, we're only puffing into the wind.

    But there are small efforts that are in work - see the Free State Project.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The friendly divorce was attempted 150 years ago. Didn't turn out too friendly. In fact, I've rarely seen a friendly divorce.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hence the need for nuclear weapons. Plain and simple. Those who have them are safe; those who don't are not safe (Ukraine, for example).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There's too much debt to make for a friendly divorce. Those whose policies created it won't take it all, and the rest of us won't want any of it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have seen this suggested before but don't believe there is a chance in hell for a friendly divorce. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsudell 9 years, 10 months ago
    We need to divide the country. Let those who want Communism take the east half, and those who want the Constitution & Capitalism take the west half. If we don't do something soon, we'll all go down. Let's get a nice, friendly divorce.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Moreover, with regard to the area in the Caribbean I mentioned, I am not particularly worried about the Honduran or Cayman Island governments coming after me. Compared to most, they are among the least powerful and most laissez faire anyway. Honduras had a president who wanted to become a dictator, and their legislature successfully impeached (and exiled) him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That law technically only applies to economics, but your point is taken. Other legal aspects apply to only 10-12 miles, as I remember. I did learn this a month or two ago.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why. Get the hell out is always an option. I don't want to be here when this economy and/or government falls. Very very low possibility of survival much less of a society that in rational coming out of that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The relevant law says (simplifying to essential) that you cannot be independent from the laws of an existing nation unless you are about 200 miles out and the body you are sitting on is fixed in position.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I described a loose minimum much more briefly than a fuller exposition. This is not a complete anarchy allowing people to initiate force against others. Who would want to live there?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Another theoretical possibility is to effectively buy control of some small poor country and build up from there. It depends on the country and how copacetic the natives are or are not. Or perhaps you could buy one of the harsher and relatively unused major chunks of an existing country. It would take more advanced tech to make a go of it there but likely lower cost than building your land itself up from scratch. Any yes you wouldn't have an empty buffer area around you. One thing I like about that buffer besides natural protection zone is sea based space launch possibilities. Not to mention of course room to grow.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes. All it would take is one or two tech billionaires to get committed to it. Which is not that impossible. Look what they are doing in private space ventures for instance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The word is accurately descriptive when talking to people, especially when not all of the are objectivist. And this is nit-picking crap having nothing to do with the main point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, the longer I think about it, the better swett SD
    sounds! I still wish that a really rich person would
    buy an island and let me stand guard from midnight
    to 6am every other day. stargeezer and I could
    swap out. pretty good lookin' place;; they have a pool
    hall and a high school of some note!!! -- j

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnmahler 9 years, 10 months ago
    I think a seastead would be a perfect colony on the open sea beyond the nutty landlubbers and their oil wars and dictatorial central governments. I also have great and workable harvesting technology for harvesting the mineral wealth on the ocean floors as well as geothermal technology which could allow a Holland type colony to survive and thrive. Please see "Thrive the Movie". http://www.thrivemovement.com/
    Foster & Kimberly probably don't realize it, but they are really Gulchers in their hearts.
    John Mahler
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This reminds me of Rand Paul's 'free enterprise zones'. I think that this may be a viable approach (as is the New Hampshire Libertarian movement). If we can make small enclaves that 'tilt' a bit more towards free enterprise, perhaps we can show profit by example and slowly acquire a larger following of folks who are not interested in politics but who want to feed their families and put their kids through college.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sure; the barrier was a brilliant literary construct in AS, and they _needed_ to remain hidden until the demise of their looter government when they could rebuild on different principles.

    In today's visual information age, that kind of secrecy is near impossible for a large group of people with extended families. Organization and planning would have to shift to a secure form of communication. There are also numerous other major hurdles in logistics that would be very hard to keep secure with today's monitoring technology.

    Tying together the scattered enclaves of rational thought via The Gulch and other media may be our best hope for this land. We may wind up concentrating geographically, as we are able, and reinforce our local culture. In doing so, we also strengthen the resolve of our philosophy. Meanwhile, we are here.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo