Excellent point. If we were perfect we would not need laws to punish violation of rights. But people are not perfect, so we do need laws. Too many people fail to recognize human fallibility. It makes me think of a libertarian friend who is so infatuated with her own liberty that she wants to do away with all police and military. As if her liberty would be able to withstand outsider evildoers without laws and the ability to enforce them.

Oddly enough that the same argument disqualifying utopian socialism and communism.

I had a lengthly conversation with Bulgarian transplant who worked for me when I took him to Las Vegas for a trade show. He thought Socialism was superior in every sense until I explained/pointed out what you stated.

Born to be wi-i-ild!

Marsha -

There have been a ton of Gulch conversations about the observation that the most crucial failure point in capitalist/republic-ist (as opposed to Republican) philosophy was that liberals became the majority, and default, philosophy in education. Socialists took a very effective long view - and it worked. We now have several generations of people who simply 'accept' socialist doctrine as being natively true - they do not even think about it...it seems to be like breathing to them.

Unlike you, I am not involved in education, but if a functional philosophy (socialism has shown itself to be dysfunctional wherever it has been tried) is going to take back over the USA, then we need to keep it in the schools - We must not make this mistake again.

I would be interested in your view on this as an educator.

Jan

I thought that might get your attention. Lol

You too..but you have the signature quote "We have to NOT forget the educational institutions this time. Big lacuna there." Since I'm deeply involved in education..precisely because of the problems with the institutions...I was wondering where that was from.

And we both can agree on that. :)

Go, Dino!

Actually, we would just point our friendly neighborhood allosaur at the perp...RARW! (gulp)

Jan

Not only do I agree to disagree; I also respect. I appreciate your poking at my statements, Ed: neither of us needs to convince the other in order for the quality of thought to be improved.

Jan

There was no quote in my response to your message, Marsha (thanks), just my opinion as refined by interactions here in the Gulch.

I am pleased to make your acquaintance.

Jan

I respectfully disagree and we will need to agree to disagree on this subject. :)

Ed -

I know lots of people who consciously 'have' (state support for, genuinely espouse) a 'good work ethic'. But their actual work habits can be summed up in a single word: Facebook.

Even IF everyone consciously supported Objectivist values you will not exclude fallibility and self-deception. And I fear that persuasive and reasoned arguments in that direction create the image of a world that cannot exist, and exclude the conceptualization of a rational society that has to deal with such problems.

Jan

As I see it, the reason mankind is not ready for an Objectivist society is maturity. At present, humanity is too immature to have a rational government with minimal or even or an anarchical structure.

Hah, sorry for the long name; you're welcome to call me Marsha. I agree with you entirely! That's why I'm working hard to try to make the USA more like the Gulch.

p.s. where is your quote from?

Jan,
If you look back on my comment and note that I stated "IF everyone in a society had Objectivist values", not that they DO have those values nor is that possible. That is the reason that some sort of limited, constitutional government in necessary, which I did not state. My comment was only intended to address the IF part of the question. And I stand on my comment that if and only IF everyone in a society had Objectivist values there would be no need for laws of any kind... :)

Respectfully,
Ed

I agree with marsh (May I call you that? I do not want to seem familiar, but your name is rather long.). I think that the clue we have been handed is that we 'learn' from our errors, improve on the Constitution, and accept that we will always be a society that is philosophically mixed. As long as the governing structure* of the society strongly protects freedom, we are not threatened by having a mixed bag of personal preferences around us.

As you can see, my inclination is to make the USA into the Gulch.

Jan
*We have to NOT forget the educational institutions this time. Big lacuna there.

My experience, observation, and research are entirely counter to that, edweaver. For starters, about 2% of the population are psychopaths/sociopaths. Any system that governs a large population has to take that statistic into consideration. Secondly, people can consciously choose a set of values but not be able to live up to them: crimes of passion, theft, malingering, and many forms of self-deception are in this category. (How many people do you know who are supporting their spouses who are going to be great artists or writers any day now?) Thirdly - and perhaps most crucially - you cannot prevent people from changing their minds, or from having children who choose to be socialists (in spite of their environment).

I feel strongly (as you have probably guessed) that any attempt at an Objectivist society that does not take human fallibility , changeability and genuine human deviants into account is not facing reality.

Jan

A bit more precisely: lack of the *initiation* of force; force for self-defense, individual or group, is needed and moral.

There will never be a society in which all or even most members agree on philosophy and values; at most, you can have one in which the dominate *main* ideas and values are reason, individualism, and freedom.

Even reasonable men disagree (look at all the arguing Objectivists do!). Moreover, when it comes to property and life actions, there is a lot at stake and people have difficulty being objective. Consequently, there will always be a need for a open, regularized means of resolving disagreements, i.e. law, courts, and enforcement.

But, to answer AJA's initial question: independence does not mean asocial; it means using one's own judgment about how to live and supporting oneself existentially. In fact, a large, large number of values which fulfill human needs and allow us to flourish come from social interaction.

So it is in the individual's interest to discover and live by principles and laws which encourage peaceful and productive human interaction.

History shows us that the discovery of philosophy, laws, and the way to organize and implement law so as to protect individual rights were crucial to developing the best, freest societies, such as the early U.S. (well, freest if you were not a slave...but that was a deep, unfortunate contradiction accepted for survival reasons which ended up costing a gigantic amount in human lives).

I think the society of the Gulch would build on the discoveries of those before them, correct the flaws of the Constitution, etc. to allow for the society to grow and flourish. In AS, a knowledgeable, respected judge is an important part of the Gulch.

Obviously Rand didn't include all of the possible ramifications of an objectivist society in her books. There simply wasn't enough room.
Consider the following scenario; The collectivist government discovers the existence of the Gulch and prepares a military invasion to conquer and enslave its citizens. How would the members of the Gulch react and what sort of response would they prepare that was consistent with objectivism?

Shared values and lack of force is the key to a successful Gulch much like they are the keys to building a solid marriage.

With modern technology this doesn't need to be either/or. It can be both.

to your pirate analogy-hmmm, it depends on where the "pirate" gets their wealth to build from-not the quality of the product they offer
Hitler stole priceless art. should one pay HIM to own it ?

"love shack full of sexual deviants.." I'm trying to wrap my head around that one, overman lol

excellent point. many of these arguments are better suited to a libertarian discussion of anarcho-capitalism. Objectivists support a proper government. It is limited, enforces property rights and acknowledges natural rights.

You just had to tempt the dino who was already entertaining crazy thoughts. (Look out. I'm known for having a wild imagination).
A serial killer kills a Gulcher. Gulchers form a circle around the killer and pick up stones.
A preacher who has come into the Gulch to spread the Word says, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."
One Gulcher says, "Well, at least I never killed anyone up until now" and casts the first stone.
All the Gulchers kill the serial killer who would definitely kill again.
The preacher rips his garments.
One killer Gulcher advises the distraught preacher of a good tailor in the Gulch.
My, my, my!
Say, would you believe allosaur is a Christian?