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 4.
based on his response, I'd guess either "unemployed", or "plant".
Because he's not confident in his own reasoning ability, he needs women as "straw-men" to denigrate so that he feels his unconsciously perceived lack of reasoning ability is adequate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLvX-erAB...
Had no *man* voted for Obama, he wouldn't have gotten elected. Had no black person voted for Obama, he wouldn't have gotten elected. Had no *white* person voted for Obama, he wouldn't have gotten elected.
"Gomez, take those out of his mouth..."
Even though BambiB seems to have an affection for dogs which is a pale shadow of my regard for dogs, we are not, in fact, the same person, nor do we even know each other.
I just want this to be clear.
Like Hiraghm and "Reefer Madness"!
;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azf320JDd...
He picked them up and rolled them back."
I'd call the former line "the general case" and the latter "the specific case".
No doubt, women CAN have a positive influence on society. But they shouldn't vote. They don't have a freaking clue what they're doing when they vote.
Clearly those (the majority) who vote to spend money we don't have, who vote to expand the government, who have put us $17 trillion in debt facing $211 trillion in unfunded mandates over the next 50 years are the enemy.
If someone came around to your house with a gun and demanded you hand over your earnings for their benefit… enemy, or not?
Well, guess what? Women are sending government agents around to people's houses (with the threat of guns) to steal their money for programs that benefit primarily women.
It would be nice if the women who all voted for Obama had a tattoo on their foreheads saying "stupid" for easy identification. We could just stop feeding them.
Ann Coulter? Did I hear you say "Ann Coulter"?
I got your Ann Coulter right here!
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter...
==> "Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry — love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn't taken seriously either."
(On Abu Graib and women in the military)
==> "I think the other point that no one is making about the abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation. I mean, this is lesson, you know, number 1,000,047 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious."
==> "I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."
==> "Conservatives have a problem with women. For that matter, all men do."
==> "There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats."
**** And then it gets fun! ****
==> "Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back."
==> "That was the theme of the Million Mom March: I don't need a brain — I've got a womb."
==> "It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"
==> "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
==> "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in '64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."
==> "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."
Oh wait! …women don't understand money, are voting too stupidly to be trusted with the vote? The Demoncratic party is the "party of women"? Where have I heard THAT before?
Oh yeah. I said it. Right before a bunch of cornballs started calling me a "woman hater".
So come on, dimwits… is Ann Coulter a "woman hater" too? Or is she just telling the truth?
Even if I grant that all the three women you've listed had exceptional reasoning skills, that does not explain the 35 million women who voted for Obama… twice.
Try dropping your preconceptions (you probably can't) and impartially analyzing what has happened and why since women began getting the vote in 1870. We're $17 trillion in debt, face $211 trillion in unfunded mandates over the next 50 years and are currently borrowing about 25 cents of every Federal dollar spent. That's what the women's vote has done.
That was not the lot of women in the medieval age, which would have been about 1500 to 500 years ago.
As for the era from the inception of the nation until approximately WWII, I'd say the traditional roles men and women fulfilled did the country a lot more good than do the roles they play at now.
Load more comments...