18

I'm Not Ready for the Gulch

Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
186 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 6.
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You write interesting commentary, but I question your obvious dislike for women as voters. Are we living in the medieval age where women should stay in the kitchen barefoot and stay pregnant? Is there no enlightenment in your soul?

    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
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: barwick11,

    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
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrbeggs 11 years, 5 months ago
    I will miss your contributions CG. I am one who has benefited from the debate within this diverse group. I have expanded my reading to include more philosophy based on suggestions. I am better at discussing my own opinions and constructing logical arguments. I thought the Gulch was a perfect place for you.

    Hope you stop in occasionally.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, you don't understand.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Stress points in materials are the weakest points.

    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).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 11 years, 5 months ago
    I am probably more militant than most. I know: I hardly ever post here. So how is anyone supposed to know just how militant I am?

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 11 years, 5 months ago
    As a former producer, (retired) I can tell you how it was with me. I felt as if I was giving the country a gift. A gift of product, a gift of employment. But it felt as if I was being vilified even though they were happy to take my gifts and use them. What happens when you give a gift to someone who loves the gift but hates the giver? Either find better recipients or quit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years, 5 months ago
    Re: Circuit Guy,

    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
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Matcha 11 years, 5 months ago
    I think if you don't have a problem with the type of government the US is becoming then you should do what you feel is right for you. Sometimes I wish we could just split the country down the middle and people like me could pick the most freedom loving self sufficient side. As for myself I wake up happy every day until I hear the news and hear what the rascals in Washington are up to and a darkness settles on my soul. I also am married to a PhD in Economics and know that our monetary system cannot survive. As a family we have decided there is no place here for us. That's ok. The principals our country was founded on don't belong to a country they are a philosophy for living. My husband and I worked for every dime we have and to the people who want what we earned they can go to hell. America doesn't have enough people who believe as I do so I will simply go to a country that fits more closely to my philosophy. Maybe I will not settle in one place. We no longer have enough people who believe as I do to win elections. The handwriting is on the wall and I am voting with my feet. Elections give us choices between the least bad candidate. No one cares about the Constitution and every government institution seems messed up. We have spent over a year looking at other countries. We are 3 generations leaving. One adult and one child have left already. I am next to go. Will it be hard and uncertain? Oh yes, but somehow I am very excited about life again. Sometimes I look at my old house and barn I have spent so many years remodeling and my 40 acres of land and feel a tug. Then I think about knowing how this will end and I refuse to be a fool. Everything is temporary and I want to wake up excited about life. Good luck.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 5 months ago
    I don't so much see Gulchers in AS or in our present reality, as having given up on anything other than their own mis-perceptions of the reality they face, and thence accepting and celebrating their transformation to their true Objectivist natures. Those that don't accept the real need and utility of a physical or psychological Gulch remind me of having to give up on a favorite pair of Levi's because each time I put them on, another seam gives up or a rip occurs in an embarrassing location. The comfort of what was, is a siren's song that seems to only obfuscate the mind's ability to see and analyze the current reality. And much like Brer Rabbit's fight, against all logic, with the Tar Baby, wanting to believe that continuing to produce for the benefit and insatiable appetite of the takers, while also trying to prove to them that their viewpoint is wrong just gets you more stuck.

    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.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That video on the website you linked is ridiculous. Why would the "crack" form under the land if it had an easier path to where there was already water? And once it burst out in one area, why wouldn't all of the water start pushing rapidly towards that one place instead of continuing to go up? And how did that water get down there in the first place? Heavy solid objects always sink towards the bottom eventually, because the smaller objects can squeeze around it. Unless "God" created the earth with this layer of water already underneath the crust, the water would never have naturally been surrounded completely with land. I'm sorry maybe you can explain it better but that made very little sense.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That sounds like a good idea. I am of the age where I could do a seastead or micronation, but the space habitat is a little more than I could stand. I sort of have done that already though. I am retired military and visited quite a few different countries, always scoping out locals and questioning them incessantly about life and other things there. Honduras sounded promising for free city but that went down the drain. I tend to think more towards individual independence and liberty instead of gatherings of people. If there are people already there then fine, if not, OK, then I am on my own, it would not be the first time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If they create a seastead, a micronation in some remote place no one cares about, or a space habit that I can get to safety and easily, I certainly would go there for vacation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 11 years, 5 months ago
    Those who read Atlas Shrugged should avoid taking it as a literal formula. It is a work of fiction, with the theme of "The role of the mind in man's existence." Rand said that she did not intend it to be prophetic (although we may joke, "Now, in NON-fiction!") but instead to be preventive.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    John Galt didn't convince them to quit. He explained how the world really is, what the looters were really after, and the consequences of the producers own actions.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 11 years, 5 months ago
    Hello CG, I agree with most of what you said. However, like you I am still here, contributing to the addiction that our governmental masters have to the almighty dollar. They are truly elitists that try to regulate the masses by telling them what type of light bulb they can buy or how big of a soda they can buy or what type of toilet they can put in their house or (last one) what type of health insurance they are required to buy. However, I am also planning on setting up my own Gulch, not sure where or when, but I will know when I reach that point. It could be here in the US or somewhere else, it will probably be in a different time and place from where I am now. This group allows me to interact with like minded individuals, look at their ideas, share my ideas, discuss the differences or sameness of those ideas and progress to a new or enhanced viewpoint. You can take your ball and go home or you can stay and enhance our interactions and make us all better for your input. Either way, good luck to you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I couldn't agree more with your line: "We are out in the world and visit the Gulch for rest and fresh air."
    10 points for that one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If the family gets all on the same page, the disadvantage turns to advantage. Calling gov't largess a "system" is technically correct but IMHO needlessly aggrandizes a bunch of rent seekers running around in a semi-organized fashion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by John_Emerson 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But the majority of us haven't given up on fixing the U.S. "The Gulch," our little collective, is just an on-line meeting place for those who see the threat posed by collectivism and want to do something about it. A few seem to think that withdrawal is the answer. Stop feeding the beast that's trying to eat you: let the U.S. die and build something better in its place. Many more think that we can still effect political change peacefully. The fiasco that is the PPAC act was a gift. It has been a wake-up call for many "go-along-to-get-along" types. It's hitting them in the pocketbook, making them realize that maybe overarching collectivism isn't such a good thing. "TANSTAAFL" - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch: somebody pays. This "free lunch" is costing a lot of people who formerly believed what happened in Washington didn't affect them. I honestly think it will help us get back to the more rational governance we need. Atlas Shrugged: the book and the movies - and even this forum - are all useful in turning us away from collectivism and toward that more rational governance. Remember, Ayn Rand never said the world of Atlas Shrugged would necessarily come to pass. She wrote it as a warning, not a prophesy. It was her hope, and is still mine, that we'd wake enough people to the danger before it's too late to turn back.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well said, RMP... if I may go one further, being a producer means NOT giving up (or giving in)... Even the strikers didn't give up; they struck to the gulch to keep the looters and moochers from taking their most valuable commodity - their minds - and then made, through hard work and dedication, a viable society in the gulch. I am pretty sure it wasn't easy... learning to profitably and professionally do things like crop management, retail sales, etc., is not as easy as one would think, and I am sure the CEO of the novel's equivalent of Packard worked his butt off learning to become the absolute best retail grocer on the planet... in the Gulch.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo