I'm Not Ready for the Gulch
Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
Through much of AS, Dagny opposes the destroyer. She isn't ready to give up on American society yet. It makes sense because she built a segment of American society. She's pained to see it looted away and then decay in mismanagement by the looters.
It doesn't seem believable to me how quickly some of the producers seem to give up in the face of gov't meddling. You'd think they'd use the same acumen with which they deal with investors, customers, employees, and vendors, to explain to the politicians and the people they supposedly represent that their policies were tantamount to looting.
Eventually all the main characters give up on society in favor of the Gulch. It almost reads like the flood myth which crops up all around the world: People become decadent. The world is destroyed except for a few righteous people. This paves the way for a new and better world.
Some of the flood myth stories are probably related, but I also suspect that humans are adapted to be drawn to stories of an apocalypse cleansing away the evils of the world.
I am where Dagny is in the middle of the book (except I'm not a business genius), not even close to ready to give up. Like so many important causes, people tend to promote it by saying things are going to the devil. You don't hear arguments like “Domestic violence is way down thanks to the hard work of many people. Until it's zero, though, we still need help reducing it further.” Instead they tend to find some statistics that make it feel like domestic violence is an epidemic.
Liberty is more fundamental than something like domestic violence, but it plays out the same way. If you say things are good and need to get better, people see that as denying the issue.
The Gulch website members are like the Gulch members in the book. At one point they were focused on making things happen in the world-- selling management or investors on risky projects with huge potential, getting people on the same page, serving clients, building their “brand” as it were. They're tired of fighting to make projects work and fighting politics at the same time. Website members are probably still out there making stuff happen, but they long for a Gulch where they can do it without all the baloney.
“Why don't people talk about all the cool stuff they're working on instead of how bad the legal / regulatory environment is?” I wonder. The answer is obvious: This website is called the “Gulch”, not “Producers saving the looters' world.”
I love the idea of a Gulch. I love Seasteads and startup incubators on ships. There is loads of science fiction about people moving to space and breaking away as the US did. I love Thomas Jefferson's hope that America would have people in different places experimenting with vastly different rule systems. If the destroyer came for my wife (her business is succeeding at the moment) and our family, however, there's is NO WAY we'd go to the Gulch. We would never leave all our friends and family and everything we've built here. Escaping on plane out of Truax and watching the Capitol dome and surrounding Isthmus go dark like Dagny is a nightmare, not something I could see anything good in.
I plan to stop using this website in a few days. People here think I'm at best a Pollyanna and at worst someone whose tiny lobbying efforts (e.g. keeping HSAs allowed under PPACA) paradoxically help the looters by postponing the apocalypse. This is a pivotal time, an automation revolution I think, and we need all producers making defending liberty a primary avocation. I'm far from quitting. The Gulch is not for me.
It doesn't seem believable to me how quickly some of the producers seem to give up in the face of gov't meddling. You'd think they'd use the same acumen with which they deal with investors, customers, employees, and vendors, to explain to the politicians and the people they supposedly represent that their policies were tantamount to looting.
Eventually all the main characters give up on society in favor of the Gulch. It almost reads like the flood myth which crops up all around the world: People become decadent. The world is destroyed except for a few righteous people. This paves the way for a new and better world.
Some of the flood myth stories are probably related, but I also suspect that humans are adapted to be drawn to stories of an apocalypse cleansing away the evils of the world.
I am where Dagny is in the middle of the book (except I'm not a business genius), not even close to ready to give up. Like so many important causes, people tend to promote it by saying things are going to the devil. You don't hear arguments like “Domestic violence is way down thanks to the hard work of many people. Until it's zero, though, we still need help reducing it further.” Instead they tend to find some statistics that make it feel like domestic violence is an epidemic.
Liberty is more fundamental than something like domestic violence, but it plays out the same way. If you say things are good and need to get better, people see that as denying the issue.
The Gulch website members are like the Gulch members in the book. At one point they were focused on making things happen in the world-- selling management or investors on risky projects with huge potential, getting people on the same page, serving clients, building their “brand” as it were. They're tired of fighting to make projects work and fighting politics at the same time. Website members are probably still out there making stuff happen, but they long for a Gulch where they can do it without all the baloney.
“Why don't people talk about all the cool stuff they're working on instead of how bad the legal / regulatory environment is?” I wonder. The answer is obvious: This website is called the “Gulch”, not “Producers saving the looters' world.”
I love the idea of a Gulch. I love Seasteads and startup incubators on ships. There is loads of science fiction about people moving to space and breaking away as the US did. I love Thomas Jefferson's hope that America would have people in different places experimenting with vastly different rule systems. If the destroyer came for my wife (her business is succeeding at the moment) and our family, however, there's is NO WAY we'd go to the Gulch. We would never leave all our friends and family and everything we've built here. Escaping on plane out of Truax and watching the Capitol dome and surrounding Isthmus go dark like Dagny is a nightmare, not something I could see anything good in.
I plan to stop using this website in a few days. People here think I'm at best a Pollyanna and at worst someone whose tiny lobbying efforts (e.g. keeping HSAs allowed under PPACA) paradoxically help the looters by postponing the apocalypse. This is a pivotal time, an automation revolution I think, and we need all producers making defending liberty a primary avocation. I'm far from quitting. The Gulch is not for me.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
I assume that by the statement above you consider yourself someone with "critical reasoning skills." Sadly you seem to have very little.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
With a name like Bambi I would have expected a woman, but apparently all I can find is a woman hater. Sad, truly sad.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
I wished that everyone would write a reference as to whom they are responding to. I was not able to find the writer to whom your message was addressed.
Having said that, I second your suggestion that any law considered for passage must include the following as you suggest. "....any law passed by congress, or action made by the president or his officers, must explicitly detail, in writing, the article and section in the Constitution that explicitly gives them the authority to make that law or take that action" I would add one more thing, that is that any law must apply to everyone including all members of Congress.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Hope you stop in occasionally.
I like dogs. Really. I like dogs more than most people. Dogs tend to be more honest. But dogs have their limitations.
I would not advocate that my dog should vote.
It's the same with women.
Oh, now I'll be labeled a "dog hater" by people who lack critical reasoning skills.
On the rest of it, read his book, it's a theory, if you find errors, he'll look into them and correct them, I've talked back and forth with him and some of my points are in his 8th edition (the one on the site now).
Here's a clue.
I am not merely looking for Galt's Gulch.
I am looking for Ragnar Danneskjöld's ship.
If that ship truly sailed the ocean blue, I would sign on in a heartbeat. Even if it meant serving as a deckhand. (Though I might actually qualify as a pharmacist's mate.)
CircuitGuy, you will understand, I'm sure, upon sober reflection, why the Fabians often stopped people from giving money to beggars, by shouting, "Don't delay the revolution." For nothing short of a revolution will serve.
Your piece certainly gives us food for thought. Please allow me to elaborate.
I believe that you may have a slight misunderstanding of parts of Ayn Rand's plot in Atlas Shrugged. It's not that the producers are giving up because of the obstructionist and thieving government, but that they have chosen to rebuild their own world. The didn't come to this conclusion as a result of a quick decision, but after having suffered the theft of their labors for many years.
From the description of the conditions of the country it is evident that these conditions have been around for some time.
The producers have decided that they are the ones that make the world function and have further decided to teach the government a lesson in economics. That lesson is, nothing will grow without the producers. In every society there are a small number of brilliant risk takers without whom we would still be living in the dark ages. These producers have just taken the final step in teaching that lesson.
Producers can live with a limited labor supply by scaling down their needs, but labor cannot live without the producers. However it is obvious that government will always have the power to destroy, but little power to build. Government produces nothing that is not paid for by the public and the public can't pay taxes without a functioning economy.
We are now living in a society that is governed by big spenders who haven;t a clue as to how an economy functions.
Take taxes and government spending for example. In the early 1900's the federal budget ranged in the low billions. The population in 1900 was slightly over 76 million. Now our population is slightly over 330 million. Theoretically the budget should be 4.5 times as much plus adjustment for inflation. Yet the spending for 2012 was over 3.5 Trillion, over 40 times that of the 1900's. Even if you adjust for inflation the spending by the federal government can only be described as insane.
As long as we have “big government” the politicians will continue to spend in order to buy votes. The only source for that money are the workers who wouldn't have money without the producers. A better description for theft doesn't exist. Do you really wonder why producers decided to leave the economy?
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Finding a place in which I can participate in the sharing of the concepts and ideals of Objectivism as well as Libertarianism has provided me an anchor in sanity as well as a wealth of experiences and similar viewpoints from which to draw sustenance while being starved and leeched in my everyday life. While to some that may sound like escapism, in my mind it's a place and way that provides me a bracing for the storm we all face.
While defending liberty is something I applaud and support in any individual or group, continuing to pour my hope and energy into the gaping maw of today's takers, manipulators, social engineers, power mongers, and professional politicians is exactly analogous to several lost years of my life spent in the fruitless effort to support and attempt to provide positive, warm-fuzzies to an addict brother in order to demonstrate the benefits of change. It only wound up in costing me extremes of financial and psychic costs, while only delaying the rock bottom all addicts have to reach in order to search for their own paths out of their self imposed slow motion suicide.
It seems that many think of Gulchers as giving up on society or trying to teach a lesson to society, I see it as simply the recognition of any conscious, rational being's primary requirement of self and family preservation. I don't wish ill towards any human, when I see that he's heading down a path towards self destruction, I absolutely refuse to accompany him or provide him a flashlight so he doesn't trip before the final fall.
Heavy thoughts for a gloomy day.
There is no requirement that one join a "gulch," only that one understand his own individual rights that exist as a consequence of his mind.
The situations presented in the book are necessarily less complex than those we continually face, but the underlying principles of morality are the same: Am I to sacrifice my mind and the products of my mind for others? The question is not simple, because it relates to every single action and thought that anyone has.
Foolish attempts (the failed Minerva project, for example) have been made to establish physical gulches. There was a boat that sank, too. Sank on launch, in the Hudson.
The Gulch is, if anywhere, in your own mind.
Not a single person among the strikers quit his (or her) profession. They decided not to put the rewards of their hard work in the hands of those that didn't earn it.
10 points for that one.
Load more comments...