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 5.
She appears to have issues where men are concerned.
On election night, while singing the praises of the vile Geraldine Ferraro, she condemned anyone who criticized her for dragging her special needs child on the campaign trail with her as being "Neanderthals" who need "to be dragged into the 21st century".
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/29010/pal...
On her reality show, she was out hunting. One of her self-proclamations was that she was this great outdoorsman. An elk stood in plain sight a hundred yards or so out, silhouetted on the skyline. She asked her father every step of the way what to do. When she missed the elk, and it stood there looking at her like, "wtf, how could you miss me?" she actually asked her dad if she should shoot again.
I've noticed other incidents where men managed to fluster her, particularly where feminist issues are concerned. Contrast her behavior with, say, Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter in similar situations, and one begins to notice it.
Oh, side note; I'd like to squelch the use of the term "Neanderthal". The stereotype doesn't fit what we know about the species, and there's a strong possibility that it is the actions of humans that caused their extinction. I think it's hypocritical for people who would be aghast at open, derisive characterizations of people based upon race, sex or ethnicity, to throw the word "Neanderthal" around.
Pfaugh! Nonsense.
I would love love to see your reasoning of why you think women are responsible for the debt. And even if they were, how does that justify your disparagement of women and wanting to take their right to vote. citizens, whether male of female are equal in the eyes of the law and no reasoning on anyone's part can deny that right.
I will agree that women tend to vote more on emotion, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Well, you could have fooled me and from what I've read, many others about whether you hate women or not. true, hate is a strong word, how about disrespect, because everything you say about women and their reasoning power can also be said about many men. I would have to include you in that group. No insult intended, but you are the one claiming that women have no reasoning power. Does the name Margaret Thatcher ring a bell? I of course am not afraid of women so I'll include Sarah Palin in the group of women that can reason. I would love to read examples of women that you feel can't reason, Nancy Pelosi doesn't count. If they were all like her, i would agree with you.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
As long as money madness keeps impairing trade, civilization will fail to achieve full prosperity.
The #1 problem is that making any "thing" (a subset of the set) into an abstraction for value of the whole set, breeds a mathematical paradox.
That has been the problem with precious metal coin throughout history. The supply of bullion can never keep up with the demand. Trade gets choked, and the civilization eventually falls.
When people figure out that constraining their trade to the supply of money is foolish, then, we may see unleashed prosperity.
Women have been working to destroy America since at least 1870. See http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ivers...
Maybe some dogs or 12-year-olds ARE smart enough to vote. Does that mean we should let them all vote?
"I think of a man and take away reason and accountability".
In many ways, women are like children. They don't think ahead, they don't accept responsibility for their votes, they do what they "feel" is right - not what they "think" is right (if they think at all).
Do you let your (hypothetical) 12-year-old vote? Society doesn't. Is that because society "hates" your 12-year-old? Or because 12-year-olds lack the fundamental ability to make informed decisions?
Maybe I'm being too tough on dogs. It's hard to conceive that dogs would have a WORSE voting record than women. And when it comes to pressuring for social welfare programs and pushing for trillions of dollars in debt to fund them, it's hard to imagine dogs being so stupid.
Currently, world supply of gold bullion is 5.6 billion ounces, versus 7 billion population. That computes to less than one ounce per capita ($16 if coined in harmony with the Coinage Act of 1792). Far too little to function as a medium of exchange.
As for usury, that has been denounced for "only" 3500 years, proscribed by all religions as an abomination, and mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system due to the exponential equation used for compound interest. In short, usury was and is a scam to legally steal.
Now, if AR had John Galt and company come up with solutions that did not include usury and hard money, THAT would have catapulted Atlas Shrugged into the Stratosphere.
Load more comments...