A bit of concern about recent discussions on the Gulch.

Posted by $ AJAshinoff 12 years, 7 months ago to The Gulch: General
73 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

As a Conservative who appreciates and frequents this site I often look at the postings and wonder where they apply to Objectivism. I post my fair share of politically charged items here for discussion. But when I do there is a firm Conservative reason that applies to each article which offers the possibility for me to present my belief that Conservatism and Objectivism are very nearly one in the same.

I've noticed that recent postings on the Gulch have been related to world events that have somewhat blurred the focus of the objectivist discussion, in my opinion this is a travesty. I've resolved the matter by concluding that "world events" or even "national events" really can't be properly discussed as objectivist topics because Objectivism relates to the individual and the individuals pursuit of his/her own satisfaction in his/her own life. Rightly so, in Objectivism the individual is paramount and individuals pursuing their own interests are the only way a truly prosperous and free society can emerge. FYI, this in my life-philosophy is American Conservatism, nothing less.

I can see where local and national topics can be directly relevant to Objectivists. Global politics can only be pointed to as a harbinger of what could be if we, the American people, allow our nation to slip into the same decrepit mire that has enslaved so many nations over the centuries. But neither subject, national or global, has any direct (immediate) impact on ones day-to-day personal pursuits so how does it apply? Why should it be discussed on the Gulch?

For my own edification, I've rationalized that the United States of America, or any country or state for that matter, are in themselves pseudo-entities in a global/national society. The foundation of this thought stems from the understanding that the foundation of any society, be it a village or a town, a city or a county, or a state or a country, is nothing more than a collection of relatively like minded people who have agreed (or been born into) a set of laws they willfully agree to abide by. In doing so, their individual satisfaction and prosperity are now tied to the environment in which they live. In such societies, and all societies are all like this, the collectivist decisions of the group can destroy individual freedoms if the body of individuals not careful.

Our Founding Fathers were "that careful" in establishing the charter for this Nation. Objectively, should we not be focusing our efforts introducing discussion topics that ALWAYS cultivate the Objectivist viewpoint to those who visit this site? Is not the only way to restore this country by appealing to the profound truths that Objectivism offers to the individual? Will not the addition of millions of THINKING human beings in American society negate and even reverse the active munching of our liberties by the moochers cultivated by the Great Orifice and his miniOns?

Galt's Gulch is far more significant than any current events website - there are literally millions of them where people can flame all they like. Objectivism, regardless of the topic being posted, should ultimately be the core of any discussion in any thread on the Gulch. After all, Objectivism is the reason why all of us came to this website (even the freedom hating trolls, those desiring to proselytize, or those, like me, hoping to find an audience for his/her novels).

My 2 bits.


All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you ever think or speak without quoting your lord and savior Ayn and her I want it all to be mine philosophy?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by rlewellen 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is a purely every man for himself philosophy for promoting globalism and sacrificing your neighbors if they do not take the oath and support you in their goals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yep, big red flag for me as well. Do you think we will have to fight it out in the street if our rights are only natural? There is only one right in Objectivism it is property all others are only natural and Ayn thought the constitution was better as originally written she did not say as originally approved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    to your last point, that's your decision. But in the same vein, do you feel the need to be super careful around those who say you might offend them because you said something a group would say "that's racist!" You examine the instance and find it illogical. so, you re going to have to discern me as a person, not the "profanity" I may say. cuz that's controlling. I'll offend you at every turn first and foremost because I do not believe. That aside, I do not try to incite or censor-except in the name of outrageous-like raping children for example, as argument. I am energized by our discussions. We disagree! But we also respect each other's positions! we just don't follow each other's rules all the time. I ask for reason, logic and evidence to back up opinion. that's it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Point agreed and point given. I'm a conservative who finds AS empowering. The obectivist ideals it dealt with confirmed them as values worth aspiring for and established my conservative political views as valid in the world we live in.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "You see that Objectivists want to "ban" anything non-objectivist on this site as well. Why? "

    This is one reason I choose not to post in many threads. Some see no issue with utilizing names from religion, while rejecting the values behind religion. I see no problem with a person who understands a study rejecting it's application in their lives, that's proper. But to reject it, to say it means nothing and has no value, but to call upon the namesake as profanity while at the same time telling another person who sees value in it that they can't even mention it - I find that inconsistent at best.

    We all have those areas in our lives where we allow inconsistencies. Some are big things and some are small unimportant things. Where I draw a line is in my interactions with others. I would never tell an atheist that in order to be accepted, as my friend they must accept my religion, why should I be forced to surrender my religion to be their friend. Or to even post on the same board?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And I think that perhaps you are mixing up the current left with liberals. They have moved to the progressive side where social issues are merely a means to effect change. It is not from a perspective of liberty, but rather from one of breaking down the social framework so as to be able to re-create it in the form of their choosing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Breitbart used to be there. And there are some more of us around doing our own part. I'm guessing that most down that way view things as too far gone to matter. I know I felt that way back in the 80's, and it has only gotten worse.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We've had that discussion before. While I support intellectual property rights, it must acknowledge independent development of the same idea. Yes, that's hard to figure out how to do, but just being hard isn't an excuse not to figure out how to do it.
    We've had the discussion about Von Mises as well. The comment that people misinterpret is that in a situation where an individual could have universal knowledge and foresight of all ramifications of decisions, then central planning would be more efficient. Since that is impossible (except for the entity that we disagree exists), then a capitalistic free market is the next most efficient system. That system depends on private property rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    we'll I'm sure not seeing them at my side in the streets of Phoenix counter-protesting the illegals and useful idiOts who walk down the streets calling me a racist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    check out CATO's policies on intellectual property, which is a property right. Look at Von Mises and even WSJ's position and Forbes is all over the map too.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 7 months ago
    Not sure what your point is. This isn't an Objectivist site, it is one to support the movies. Since many people who support the movies, and the book on which they are based, have Objectivist leanings, most discussions tend to be in that vein, but not exclusively.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 12 years, 7 months ago
    I understand and appreciate the concern some have with regard to news posts detracting from the overall goals of the web site. Nonetheless, there are many of us who have been looking for modern parallels to AS and are simply checking boxes to mark the inevitable destruction of the world of the looters. It is a means of acknowledging the reality we are in, and in some respects, giving us something to laugh about in an era where our beliefs are not shared by many.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why would you say that? I don't know about the L party, but those of us who are constitutional libertarians fully support private property rights. Heck, I think even most anarchists support private property rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Objectivism is philosophy. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and party.
    Maph, Modern Libertarianism does not want to protect property rights to any great degree. The protection of property rights is critical to objectivism explanation of politics, economics and law.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with the notion that Objectivism is not Conservatism. They are similar in many ways, though. I've seen Objectivists poopoo Libertarianism and that has confused me, because Libertarianism seems closer.

    The best (I should know) is being a non-political Objectivist. It is very easy to bomb the right and the left if you just stick with the facts. Modern American Conservatism is too close to statism and the religious right for me. Statism in an environment of declining personal liberty is a recipe for disaster, literally for death.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ShruginArgentina 12 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you have the ranking for "The Atlasphere?"

    That's the only other Ayn Rand site I've joined but I hardly ever go there...

    I find this site far more enjoyable ;-).

    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo