What happens now?

Posted by IamNemo 9 years, 6 months ago to The Gulch: General
71 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Now that the final chapter is out and after everyone has seen it numerous times then what?
Where do YOU go from here?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by barwick11 9 years, 6 months ago
    Join the 10th amendment center? Get one single state to stand up to the Federal Governemnt and just say NO!

    Honestly, all it will take to make a serious change in this nation is for one libertarian-leaning state to stand up to the Federal Government and say "listen guys... you see this Constituiton? It's our agreement, and you've broken it. We are not going to pay for anything that is not explicitly authorized by this Constitution, and any laws that are outside ths scope of this document are null and void within our state. We'll pay for the national defense, we'll pay for the courts, etc..."

    One State does that, and the rest will follow suit. We'll have a return to our 50 little political laboratories with one moderately sized federal government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 6 months ago
      I wish you were correct. But the Fed gov't has each of the 50 so dependent on subsidies that none will willingly wean themselves from the fed gov't teat.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by barwick11 9 years, 6 months ago
        The federal government doesn't get that money from themselves. They get it from the citizens of that state.

        A state could easily pass a law that would still be within the bounds of the 16th amendment. It would simply state that all tax revenue from the citizens of that state will be calculated per the Federal Government law. It will then be sent directly to the capital of that State, where the percentage of the money that is going to pay for Constitutional Federal Government budget items will be immediately forwarded to the IRS. The percentage that is slated for Federal budget items that are not allowed by the Constitution will immediately be sent back to the citizens of that State.
        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 9 years, 6 months ago
          I don't think that you're correct. And even if so, good luck in ever getting something like that enacted. If it were possible, I'm sure that those states that are tax contributors would have done so already.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by WBD 9 years, 6 months ago
    Keep spreading the word. The DVD will be out in the new year and I'll be buying the complete set for my daughter. We had no showings around here so it's all about giving the discs to others who have the capacity to "get it".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 6 months ago
      I due for at least 3 DVD's, myself and 2 gifts. I'm set to see the movie tomorrow or Tuesday depending if I want to see it alone or with my son.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by starznbarz 9 years, 6 months ago
        Take your son, give him a pad & pencil to write down any questions he might have. III is good.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 6 months ago
          My son has read Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, Ominus Parallels, The Law, and is currently reading We The Living. He, at 19, is an annoying staunch libertarian. The only reason I couldn't take him is because he's in college and there will likely be a timing conflict between us.
          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 9 years, 6 months ago
            most libertarians are "annoying." Comes from wanting to know the "truth."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 6 months ago
              At one point I thought I was Libertarian.Conservative suits my views far better. There are rules/restriction necessary in a society that restrict the individuals freedom. The key word is society. I could care less what a person does to and for him/herself (except my kids) but in a society their dumb-ass actions and behaviors can pose a direct threat to the safety of my family and myself.

              As stated here before I'm a Constitutional Conservative American before just about anything else.
              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 9 years, 6 months ago
                I'm a constitutional libertarian myself. Constitution first and whatever isn't specified there, libertarian (which I think is really Constitutionalism).

                I don't believe in social conservatism. I think all thinkers need to derive their own social limits for themselves. So long as they don't affect me, I let them do what they will.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 6 months ago
                  "So long as they don't affect me, I let them do what they will."

                  Unfortunately thats the rub with me. There are far too many gray-morality anything goes people who would easily allow their pleasure to take a life or main someone. In a society some constraints must be set to prevent those folks from invading my space and that of my family, even when in public.
                  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 9 years, 6 months ago
                    The "constraints" that you speak of do not cause those behaviors to cease, merely to punish those who get caught and convicted of same. Did a law against murder prohibit OJ from killing 2 people? No. And the legal system (what you are relying on) didn't even punish him for the deed.

                    No, laws and the legal system do nothing to prohibit behavior. Only self control can do so. And self control is a function of a moral foundation, which in my opinion is being undermined by all the laws. We are training people that if there isn't a specific law prohibiting something, then it must be OK. Look at the drive to enact prohibitions of texting while driving. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand that being distracted by trying to look at a small screen and touch type on a keyboard that is 1"x2" is dangerous. There already are laws regarding reckless driving. Do we need a specific law regarding a specific type of distraction? I say NO. All this does is give a defense lawyer loopholes to get their client off. For example, if the person is using their smart phone to look at a web-page and not technically texting, they might well beat the particulars of a no texting while driving law.

                    I would ask you to rethink your position. If you reason it out, I think you may come to a different conclusion.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 6 months ago
                      True, laws and punishment cannot replace self-control and self-restraint to prevent crime. But laws and punishment are the only tools a society has to direct the conduct of the masses to discourage criminal behavior. Of course a libertarian would play the what is"criminal behavior" card and "by what right does one person or group of people have determining what is right and wrong for anyone else and should be considered a crime." This is a major issue with libertarianism to me.

                      The US was founded for a moral people, a people who would police their own behavior which takes away the necessity for laws and punishment. Moral relativism has all but erased "self-policing" today.

                      "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

                      George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

                      Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 6 months ago
                        Hey!
                        "Of course a libertarian would play the what is"criminal behavior" card and "by what right does one person or group of people have determining what is right and wrong for anyone else and should be considered a crime."
                        not necessarily! I, for example, wouldn't do anything of the kind. Criminal behavior is behavior which has been defined by some group that is willing to punish it as criminal. To your second point, there is no such thing as a group decision, unless all members of the group agree, and after that, the definition is the same. A crime is what whoever with the power to punish it, says.
                        Once you and your family enter a public space, things change. People ARE going to invade "your" space - ever go to the beach, or to a baseball game, or to the mall?
                        And I am squarely in Robbie's corner here. Is it the law against murder which prevents you from murdering? No, it's your own morality. Does the law prevent other people from murdering each other? No! The one thing which does help to PREVENT crime is armed citizens - criminals themselves say that.
                        Finally, please look at the structure of laws. They are not designed to _prevent_ certain behaviors, they are written to _punish_ those behaviors when they happen. That's why the Supreme Court has found that, when you call 911, the police do not have to come. If we want to prevent crime, we are on our own.
                        [If this post looks wierd, it's because it's pushed soso far over to the right that I can't read what I've written!]
                        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 9 years, 6 months ago
                        I agree wholeheartedly with the last 4 paragraphs. As for the first, I like the philosophy that your freedom ends at the end of my nose. I don't care to legislate morality, rather, I think it is only effectively handled via a shared ethical construct. Unfortunately, that has been being dismantled for the past hundred years or so.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 6 months ago
                          As long as your nose doesn't leave your house/yard when your spaced on booze or drugs or got some wild hair to vent I am all good with that.

                          I'd compromise and say we strip away all laws but one - death. You drive drunk or stoned and kill someone you die. You assault someone or take their life for any unjustified reason, you die. Don't pay your bills, you die. Drive too fast, you die. Trespass, you die. Lie in a way which causes harm/discomfort to someone else, you die. Anything that violates the sovereignty limited to the end of my nose is ground for death.

                          Absurd, no? We need laws to restrict behavior in a society. The only question is how many laws. This is what the left has been working on for decades. Creating gray in every conceivable situation removes right and wrong and creates moral relativism. Moral relativism requires many very specific laws and arbitration to navigate them.

                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 6 months ago
                            Death for driving too fast? Would the car be programmed to initiate the punishment of it's driver being a lead foot. "You have broken the law, driver. The speed limit is 55 and you are going 56. Death to you!" BOOOOM!!!
                            Death for causing discomfort to someone else... wtf??
                            Robbie.... have you lost your mind? Maybe you should add... Talk nonsense... you die!
                            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 9 years, 6 months ago
                            Your flaw is in thinking that laws restrict behavior. They do not. At best, they reinforce internally derived views on acceptable behavior and, like I said, punish those who violate them, get caught, and get convicted. Punishment of others has proven to be a very poor motivator.

                            And if you look at the actual results of the proliferation of laws, I think that you'll find that fewer people follow the laws. Laws are not the answer - morality is. And the proliferation of laws undermines basic morality.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 6 months ago
                              Poor choice of words on my part, I shouldn't have said that law restricts behavior as much as it influences behavior based on consequences to the individual for transgression.

                              How do you teach morality to a people who think its an abstract idea, a myth, and an antediluvian concept? The only thing left with an amoral people is to create more an more precise laws, which is the plan of the left and the tool used to deconstruct individualism and individual responsibility, and to topple a once free nation.
                              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 9 years, 6 months ago
                                You are unaware of many laws that you follow merely because you have an ethical foundation. I dare say that you will or will not text on a smartphone regardless of whether there is a law against it (as will most people).

                                I vehemently disagree with your second para. As I've said, it is my contention that more laws merely lead to more moral decay.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 6 months ago
                Have you taken the Nolan test? [AKA the 5-minute political...something something test...] You can probably find it on the Libertarian Party website - I find it useful in separating the sheep from the goats, but not very useful after that.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 6 months ago
                  I took the Nolan Test and another similar one whose name escapes me. On both I'm deeply in the Libertarian area. These are both wrong. I know myself well enough to understand that I am a Conservative and why I cannot call myself anything else. Thats said, I do not see Conservatism, the Constitutional flavor, as that much different than Objectivism and less reckless than its cousin Libertarianism.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 6 months ago
                    hmmm. You're starting to tread on muddy ground, here - the right-wing Libertarians, the left-wing Libertarians, the small-l Libertarians, the right-to-life Libertarians.....
                    But in general, the different between Libertarians and both Conservatives and Liberals is the absolute prohibition by Libertarians against the initiation of force by anyone, for any reason. So, both Liberals and Conservatives tend to think that, when appropriate, it is acceptable for force people to do what is "right" or to obey a law.
                    I used to describe Libertarians as being Conservative on fiscal issues and Liberal on social issues, but I don't think that's as true now as it was; the line between Conservative and Liberals is getting blurrier.
                    I'm interested that you use "reckless" to describe Libertarianism. How so? and what is a Constitutional Conservative? interesting....
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 6 months ago
    Take all your friends to see the movie. Give all 3 DVD's (I assume the three-pack will be made available) as gifts for others. Discuss the films' message with them. Write favorable reviews to every venue available. Compare the fictional story to our real-world situation, see the "ominous parallels". Don't get caught up in the schism between ARI and TAS. Let truth and reason be your guide. And do it for your own sake, not to be a martyr for a cause. Live as though you were already living in a free society. Live by your own rational principles, not as just a "follower" of Rand's. Yes, she has stated a rational ethics better than anyone before; but do your own thinking. The truth is the same for all. Speak up for it without "looking too good nor talking too wise". Be happy. Live long and prosper.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 6 months ago
      As pitiful as it sounds, I have no friends. The three are for family gifts and there will be another one for myself.

      Good advice though.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by coaldigger 9 years, 6 months ago
        I love it! I don't have any friends either. There are a few people that tolerate me but they keep a wary eye out for the crazy old coot. I don't argue with them nor do I try to persuade them to my point of view. Yet, when they ask for my opinion, they are offended by how "heartless" I am. Most of all they resent the fact that I am happy with my own life and beliefs. Having been an only child I learned long ago to entertain myself and rely on my own opinions. Even my wife of 51 years gets angry that I am just as satisfied being alone as with being with others and that I have a position that I consider to be correct on most everything and it rarely co-insides with "conventional wisdom".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jerry1228 9 years, 6 months ago
    "where do you go from here" is the question and are you referring to a single individual or the country. if a single individual you go any place you chose to go. if the reference is the country down the tubes. there are many people who have seen the AS movies in there entirety but not as many that have seen star wars or Rambo. there are many more who have read AS but with all of the education presented to us by AR only a very small fraction of humanity truly comprehends what she has put forth. the real fact of our reality is that the wheels of destruction were set in motion over 100 years ago as she has so eloquently observed and wrote about and the only thing that is going to stop it is a complete collapse of not only this country but the entire world. it will be a complete collapse of the world economy. we have a situation that is unnerving economically. suppose the government told all of the large companies that supposedly have 2 trillion buck off shore they could bring the money back and only pay 1 percent in taxes, what then so the money is here but these companies wouldn't have a need to hire people anyway. if they needed people now they have the funds to pay the new workers but they do not have the need to hire them so why even give up 1 percent.
    the stark reality is that our population is growing and so is the welfare system but not the job market. that is the final chapter!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by helmsman5 9 years, 6 months ago
      Am concerned as you, but not a prepper yet. Agree arrows point to total collapse. Suspect stock mkt first. Food and water will be the worst. theater was half full, giving me hope. Regards
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mjhoward1955 9 years, 6 months ago
    Here's what my wife and I are planning: We already own the first two DVDs. We will buy the third and watch it. Then we will donate all three to our local library. That way, they will be in general distribution for all to learn from. Beats the heck out of most of the movies people check out. Might even get them to read the book.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Snezzy 9 years, 6 months ago
      Before donating look to see if the library has any of Rand's novels on the shelf. Not just in the catalog, but right there on the shelf. It wouldn't do for your excellent donation to the library to be stolen by a self-appointed censor.

      If the library has no Rand books, consider holding your own private screenings of the videos instead. Invite your friends. The price of admission? Each guest must bring ANOTHER friend. Guests who lack friends should bring popcorn instead.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DaveM49 9 years, 6 months ago
    Live what we say.

    I suppose it would be redundant, but it could be interesting to have an authorized writer continue the "Atlas Shrugged" story. What happens when the motor of the world is restarted? Do people learn? Or do they attempt to continue their former ways? My guess would be a mixture of both.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Snezzy 9 years, 6 months ago
      Having heard Ayn Rand comment, in vitriol, to someone who was planning a similar project (a film of Anthem) I can state authoritatively that no such work is appropriate.

      If someone wants to write follow-on work, let it be in an original setting with original characters, not with attempts to re-use Rand's characters.

      If one has any doubt about this issue, ask the Ayn Rand Institute.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DaveM49 9 years, 6 months ago
        You make an excellent point. Possibly a story involving a "man on the street" who learns from the strike? There would be a solid danger of it turning into something like the "Left Behind" books, but...I can see the tale of a looter who learns the error of his ways--and the results thereof.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Snezzy 9 years, 6 months ago
          Write a novel that mentions Atlas. But try to keep it suspenseful and exciting. Maybe like this? ...

          Character 1: "It was like listening to Galt's speech."
          Character 2: "You read Atlas Shrugged? Wow! Some great ideas there, don't you think?"
          Ch 1: "No, you don't understand. I was so bored. I didn't make it past two pages of that speech. If there were any great ideas, I didn't see them."
          Ch 2: "You certainly didn't. Listen, you take it easy. Stay right here, and I'll come back when I think it's time for us to talk again. Don't forget to eat while you wait."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Maree 9 years, 6 months ago
      I agree with Snezzy, but buy Khalling's Pendulum of Justice. The story does not continue but the message does. And its a terrifically good read.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 6 months ago
    Where? Continuing on to where I've been going my entire life. Doing everything I, as an individual can do to educate and open eyes of those I interact with. At my stage in life, it's not as many as earlier in life. The movie has just added another arrow to the quiver.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 9 years, 6 months ago
    I have not seen it yet as I am in the land between theaters showing it. I have been tied up at work and have not had the time to go to Albuquerque (4 hours) or Lubbock (1.5 hours). I hope to get time this weekend but the DVD is definitely in my purview as I already have I and II, so III is going to be there right with them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jerry1228 9 years, 6 months ago
    what is it that many of you refuse to understand and accept. the people who are running the government are products of the lack of education that exists in the country so where do you THINK the miracle workers are going to come from. I strongly suggest that you read the "romantic manifesto" as well as the other papers AR has written and get to understand that there is where she was able to write AS.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo