"Globalist" is used in contradictory ways. It can mean a globally free economy or global centralized control.

^^
All interesting thoughts.

"A globalist is identified by what they do to restrict the free market. "
I think I just do not like the word globalist. It just sounds like a word for people to introduce restrictions to the free market to protect their olive trees (by Thomas Freedman's definition) from the fact that technology easily moves people, goods, and services over geographic barriers. Maybe that's not what it means, but it's a confusing word. It's easier to talk directly about policies that restrict or don't restrict markets.

The early religious colonies were not the American revolution, which followed a couple of centuries later based on the ideas of the Enlightenment, not 1500s and 1600s religion.

Attila and the Witch Doctor is an Atlas Shrugged theme Ayn Rand elaborated on in For the New Intellectual, covering the intellectual history of the West. I don't recall her focusing on early American religious colonies, which included both aspects of the mystics.

There are some crusading emotional conservatives who mindlessly 'downvote' posts out of their own personal hostility and feuding. They go after particular people regardless of content. They cannot and do not attempt to engage in rational discussion and don't belong on an Ayn Rand forum at all, which they exploit as a place to proselytize anti-Ayn Rand agendas and personal hatred. They have little or no understanding of and interest in Ayn Rand's ideas, confusing whatever they brought with them with Ayn Rand when the were attracted to some aspect of Atlas Shrugged without regard for what made it possible. That such behavior is tolerated is more fundamental than forum mechanisms for 'voting'.

Production requiring intelligence, not "brawn", is not new. Saying 'things change' is not an identification or explanation of what you think the computer industry will do to change the nature of families.

"Interesting. I imagined, maybe naively, that more primitive societies were more socialistic. I thought primitive societies subsisted, with limited production, and religious leaders urged people to share the finite wealth somewhat equally. I imagined this being true in hunter-gatherer societies and in agricultural societies.

Although Marxism doesn't appear until industrialization, so those earlier societies either weren't collectivist or were so collectivist they had no need for a collectivist revolutionary struggle. This is a basic area of anthropology that I don't know about."

One thing to keep in mind is that most earlier societies were monarchies - not egalitarian societies. (The Magna Carta and reform in British society didn't start until the 1200's and it took several more centuries to really take hold.) That plays a large part. To a certain degree one may associate monarchies with socialism insofar as there was significant stratification in society, but it wasn't based on precisely the same social theory. I can see how one would call them socialist societies even though it is an imprecise term according to the way we use socialism today which implies an elected leadership.

I think your observation about the appearance of Marxism and industrialization deserves significant attention. I do not believe it is coincidence.

"Who are they? It just sounds like an epithet even more so after that explanation."

Do you deny any of the rationale I gave which is used to limit the actions of the free market? A globalist is identified by what they do to restrict the free market. Whether you like the portrayal is irrelevant.

"It’s what I took from the story. I also may have heard this view from my UU church. It’s also a recurrent theme in Star Trek, esp the original series. I actually thought mainstream Christians interpreted the story this way."

See my response to Lucky below. While I love Star Trek myself (and have been enjoying The Orville, I would never pretend to the notion that most Hollywood writers are anything but antagonistic toward religion in general. I think it would be a gross error and disservice to assume that their portrayals of religious values are accurate without some confirmation from a respective religious authority.

I think probably one of the most accurate scenes regarding religion in Sci-Fi was on an episode of Babylon 5 where there was a "culture week" and everyone went around investigating all the alien religions from Mimbari to Centauri, etc. When they got to the Earth one, there was a room with a huge line and the alien cultures were introduced one by one to representatives of a wide range of sects - illustrating the vast collection of ideals held by the peoples of Earth.

I have argued against allowing down votes altogether.

Yes, that is an explanation of the false dichotomy. It was not about the British colonies in America. In fact, for all of their errors, they alone actually did not fall into either side but held an integrated view. Again, we are speaking of a large body of people; and everyone left and right claims the American Revolution for themselves. So, we read ourselves in. But just taking John Adams as drawn by David McCullough, following Newton and the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment was one period when the "average thinker" expected logic and experience to support each other.

That said, though, yes, here and now - and in Atlas Shrugged - both nominal conservative and liberals take one side or the other, usually inconsistently.

Thanks for link. This is the para of Galt's speech defining both kinds of death teachers (I called it tyranny). I argued that the collectivism was based on the first kind:

As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelation, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind.

“ If anything, the only reason socialism can exist is due to technology - not in spite of it.”
Interesting. I imagined, maybe naively, that more primitive societies were more socialistic. I thought primitive societies subsisted, with limited production, and religious leaders urged people to share the finite wealth somewhat equally. I imagined this being true in hunter-gatherer societies and in agricultural societies.

Although Marxism doesn't appear until industrialization, so those earlier societies either weren't collectivist or were so collectivist they had no need for a collectivist revolutionary struggle. This is a basic area of anthropology that I don't know about.

“Everything the globalists do...”
Who are they? It just sounds like an epithet even more so after that explanation.

“One can't argue on the one hand that machines are going to provide for every need of a human being without also arguing that in so doing they will necessarily have to determine on behalf of the human being what he/she wants.”
I suppose so. The whole argument I was quoting (i.e. technology necessitates socialism) is flawed, so whatever flows from it doesn’t makes sense to me.

CG:“In the [Biblical creation myth], we chose a life of toil but with knowledge."

“That's an interesting viewpoint, but certainly not one I share. I am curious just who you think proposes such a notion because it is not in concordance with any of the major religions (or atheism) I am familiar with.”

It’s what I took from the story. I also may have heard this view from my UU church. It’s also a recurrent theme in Star Trek, esp the original series. I actually thought mainstream Christians interpreted the story this way.

Well, to take the last point first, children are "raised" by electronic surrogates, with long hours every day online, texting, swiping, viewing, listening.

One of the root benefits of industrialism that really blossomed in the information age was the fact that it takes brains, not brawn, to bring home the bacon. You do not need a man in the home.

In a primitive village, everyone is controlled, the children no less than the adults. Kids do not just run free, forming gangs as they do and long have in cities.

You are misremembering it. If you can find it, please quote chapter and verse.
I found Galt's Speech online here:
https://amberandchaos.net/?page_id=73

It is difficult to generalize well about human history. In today's world, it is not clear that modern "primitives" live as did everyone's ancestors two ice ages ago.

It does seem that at every increase in productivity, some people claimed that we have plenty now and can afford to share freely. In other words, they can take whatever they regard as your "extra."

But sharing is generally about social status. It is why we have brand names for property. I wonder how it would be accepted if patents and copyrights were controlled by the govenment so that ownership is secret, though immense wealth were still possible.

If one is going to bring up the Judeo-Christian religion and its teachings, one should endeavor not to cut corners and to portray such as accurately as possible. One may certainly choose not to participate or believe, but they should not make such a choice based on inaccurate information.

According to the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament (which both Jews and Christians acknowledge as authoritative history), Adam and Eve were forbidden from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That last part is significant. They were warned specifically that the choice to eat came with a severe consequence: that if they did eat they would die - they would be separated from God and they would become mortal.

The serpent (the Devil) beguiled/deceived Eve into eating the fruit. Then she gave to Adam and he ate as well. Then there comes a conversation between God and the pair in which they acknowledge their actions. Several notable things happen here. #1: the serpent is cursed for being an agent of the Devil. #2: the Earth is cursed for Adam's sake so that he must now work for his sustenance rather than simply eating what grew spontaneously in the Garden. #3: Adam and Eve "fall" and become mortal wherein their once-perfect, immortal bodies become mortal and imperfect.

One more thing of interest happens and it has to do with another tree: the Tree of Life. It is guarded from Adam and Eve so that they can not partake and live as immortal beings in fallen/imperfect bodies.

Now there is a tremendous amount of theology present just in this small section comprising only until the end of the Third Chapter of Genesis. I can not do it justice in a simple forum posting - if at all. But taken in context with other beliefs from the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is reasonable to surmise the following:

1. If God is all-knowing, then there would have been no surprise to Him (especially given the presence of temptation) that His command would be disobeyed despite His clear warnings as to the consequences. Thus the Fall (as it is known) was a completely predicted event.
2. Note that the "punishments" inflicted on Adam were already known to him (Adam): they had been predefined in God's warning. That they were allowed to occur demonstrates a commitment by God to the principle of Justice: cause and effect.
3. There was a mechanism - also predefined - by which the consequences of Adam and Eve's actions could be compensated for shows again the foresight and also the mercy of God. The culmination of Judeo-Christian teaching being the necessity for a Savior to compensate for Adam and Eve's actions. (The difference being that the Jews believe that Savior has yet to manifest while Christians assert that Jesus Christ was the promised manifestation.)
4. That after Adam and Eve gained the knowledge which allowed them to be like God, that knowledge was not revoked. Indeed, God enabled them to further expand their knowledge by allowing them to continue to exist in a state perfectly suited for their investigation into the realm of good and evil - a realm which would be temporary but fully available to the presence of both good and evil influences. Furthermore, through their separation from God, their experience became that much more effective and dependent upon their own choices and experiences by not imposing the presence of a perpetual "Big Brother".
5. That the possibility for immortality will not be through the mechanism of the fruit of the Tree of Life for those who are mortal and imperfect. Thus arises the notion of resurrection in Judeo-Christian teachings.

Given this brief study, I re-iterate my claim above: that the notion of some religious tradition entailing "life without knowledge" is not in any actuality part of either the Judeo-Christian tradition nor is it a part of any other major religion (and I include atheism) I am conversant with. Those who attempt to teach or otherwise attribute such ignorance as the hallmark of at a minimum the Judeo-Christian ethos are themselves wholly ignorant (at best) of the first three chapters of Judeo-Christian literature and fundamental doctrine. (I note that this ignorance certainly may extend even to purported clergy of the various Judeo-Christian sects - as the very presence of those sects is in large measure due to various erroneous interpretations of scripture.)

Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. They disobeyed so were expelled from Eden and now had to work. immortality was lost, life was to be full of pain.

"A settlement that employed socialism barely subsisted, in your example, did not prosper. Freer people prospered amazingly well."

I think you are assuming that a hunter-gatherer type of subsistence living could exist using socialism. My point about the colonial efforts was that it could not. Socialism is self-destructive at its most fundamental level. If anything, the only reason socialism can exist is due to technology - not in spite of it.

"This just sounds like an epithet..."

Think about it. The capitalist movement seeks to make more products and services available to more customers with lower barriers to entry. Everything the globalists do is to limit production of goods and services, limit the customer base, or throw up barriers to entry for entrepreneurs in the form of taxes and regulations. That is what all this climate change brouhaha is about. It is why the Europeans (and other globalists) are trying to push birth control on Africans. It is why they throw up barriers to Africans building their own factories (for a prime example see the manufacture of chocolate).

"I think the prosperity makes it easier for people who so desire to give to humanitarian causes."

I completely agree. What I was pointing out was that people choose not to give not because they do not have, but because they do not want to give. What is also very interesting is that a socialist society necessarily devolves into a stratified society of "haves" and "have-nots" where the "haves" choose not to give. A simple comparison of the common European vs the common American confirms this: Americans personally give far more to charitable causes.

"They are not saying this. They’re saying that machines are getting better..."

One can't argue on the one hand that machines are going to provide for every need of a human being without also arguing that in so doing they will necessarily have to determine on behalf of the human being what he/she wants. That is the flaw in the argument.

"They say as this trend continues, there will be very few jobs, but lots of production."

And yet when one examines what has actually happened, what we find is that this is both a gross simplification AND a gross distortion of the truth. The automation of things comes with a cost: we automate so as to lower costs but the cost of automation must be equal to or lower than the costs of human operation. The most obvious current example of this is with the automation of fast food restaurants in cities with a very high minimum wage. That cities with a low minimum wage still employ humans illustrates perfectly the trade-off which occurs and the investment needed before human jobs are actually replaced.

The other major distortion which comes is that the number of jobs has actually increased with greater technology - it has just shifted to employment which requires more education. The total number of jobs has grown and jobs in computer science and similar disciplines outpaces supply - even while low-skill jobs are taking a beating. I believe this is what you are alluding to in your disagreement to the third-party argument and I concur with your assessment.

"In our mythology, our creator offered us a life of no work. The only requirement is we remain children, without knowledge of good and evil. We couldn’t resist the knowledge. In the myth, we chose a life of toil but with knowledge."

That's an interesting viewpoint, but certainly not one I share. I am curious just who you think proposes such a notion because it is not in concordance with any of the major religions (or atheism) I am familiar with.

This mindless down-voting does the Gulch no favors.
Technically it would be possible to identify the voters along with the post, that would reduce it, but would introduce other problems.

The colonists brought with them from the old world the twin tyrannies as described in Galt's (not Francisco's) speech, mystics of spirit and mystics of muscle.

CG: “I imagine hunter-gatherer tribes using socialism because they barely subsist and it feels right to our ancient human sensibilities to share with our tribe."
blar: “I would actually cite early examples of colonialization of the United States to directly refute this.”
I think we may be misunderstanding because your example supports what I’m saying. A settlement that employed socialism barely subsisted, in your example, did not prosper. Freer people prospered amazingly well.

Bar:”That is the globalist movement “
CG: This just sounds like an epithet to indicate dissatisfaction with the fact that it’s easy to transport people, goods, and services around the globe.

Bar: “They like technology because of the perks but if you look at it critically, their efforts at all the global warming nonsense are to control exactly whom has access to all this wonderful technology. “
There are always people trying to exert control over others. In the modern world, people are freer from controls than in the past. We are far from utopia. US is in some ways a beacon of freedom and is still far from perfect. People always use crisis to grab power. Global warming is serious, but it’s nowhere near the magnitude of WWII. And we don’t see internment camps, price freezes, and 80%+ marginal tax rates. My point is things could be much much worse now.

Bar: “ If one is scraping by, one has nothing to impart to anyone else and whatever wealth one may have earned represents a large proportion of their time and resources.  “
This is a good point. It’s what I was getting at about return on equity due to automation being an argument (which I disagree with) for socialism.

Bar: “ We don't give because of personal choice and priorities - not because we don't have anything to give. “
I didn’t understand this. Are you saying “when we don’t give,” or that people are less generous despite prosperity? I think the prosperity makes it easier for people who so desire to give to humanitarian causes.

Bar: “ two major ideals which I find disturbing. The first is that machines can determine what is best for the individual.  “
They are not saying this. They’re saying that machines are getting better, making more money for people who own the means of production and eliminating jobs for people who sell their labor. They say as this trend continues, there will be very few jobs, but lots of production. They say the answer is to give some wealth the poor since selling labor is no longer viable. I disagree with their argument.

Bar:”The second is that somehow work is not necessary for the human condition. Those who do not learn the value of work develop the same kind of self-entitled mentality that is currently destroying society.”
I know. If you told people in an agricultural society that one day technology would allow a tiny fraction of society to work 50 hours a week and provide so much food people eat whatever food they want year-round and most people get a little fat, they would worry, “what will everyone else do if we can provide for everyone by 10% of the people working.” They wouldn’t be able to dream of the industrial revolution and the information revolution… with the poorest people getting cheap cures for diseases that would have produced a slow death… with the average citizen travelling anywhere in the word in a matter of a day, and being able to travel without regard to his tribe, accent, sex, or other physical attributes.

“Work is not a disease, it is the cure."
In our mythology, our creator offered us a life of no work. The only requirement is we remain children, without knowledge of good and evil. We couldn’t resist the knowledge. In the myth, we chose a life of toil but with knowledge.

I don't remember Atlas Shrugged discussing the early north American religious colonies in particular.

As explained in Atlas Shrugged, the collectivism of those colonies was centered on the other kind of tyranny. Was it in Francisco's first speech?

The early American religious colonies were before the Enlightenment, not examples of it somehow causing socialism.

"I think Enlightenment leads to plenty and to individual rights. I imagine hunter-gatherer tribes using socialism because they barely subsist and it feels right to our ancient human sensibilities to share with our tribe."

I would actually cite early examples of colonialization of the United States to directly refute this. Jamestown nearly died out and was almost abandoned entirely because of their early charter conditions - which ensconced socialism. The only reason they survived was because they finally abandoned it and moved toward private industry. Same with several of the Massachusetts Bay Company excursions (which brought us the current incarnation of Thanksgiving). The one place where socialism was used in the Old World was feudalism where the lords owned and controlled everything and the peasants worked for them. And that is the model much of the self-appointed European elites seem to want to gravitate back to. That is the globalist movement. They like technology because of the perks but if you look at it critically, their efforts at all the global warming nonsense are to control exactly whom has access to all this wonderful technology. It isn't worth much if you don't have the power/energy to run it...

"Agriculture, industry, and now automation/IT drastically increase production and allow people to produce more, making it harder to sell the idea that good people must share because means of production are finite."

I agree with the first half but not the second. I would actually argue that one can not give away what one does not already have. If one is scraping by, one has nothing to impart to anyone else and whatever wealth one may have earned represents a large proportion of their time and resources. With the advances in technology, we have more leisure time than ever precisely because we can spend fewer hours providing for our needs and the rest goes toward wants. We have more affluence than at any other time in history. We have so much more opportunity to give because there is so much more excess. We don't give because of personal choice and priorities - not because we don't have anything to give.

"I frequently hear the argument that automation/IT increases return on investment and decreases the price of human labor and if the trend continues the only choice will be a system of handouts to pay for everyone to live a comfortable life while machines do all the work."

It's an interesting theory, but it assumes two major ideals which I find disturbing. The first is that machines can determine what is best for the individual. This is necessarily assumed under such a model and it is a fatally flawed for the same reason that socialism/communism/feudalism/big government is flawed - it undermines the notion of personal responsibility. The second is that somehow work is not necessary for the human condition. Those who do not learn the value of work develop the same kind of self-entitled mentality that is currently destroying society. The theory of machines doing everything for us (humans) proposes that somehow we can avoid self-entitlement by living an entitled life. Work is not a disease, it is the cure.

Individualism versus collectivism is a moral issue. It is not created or caused by technology.