Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by Mamaemma 7 years, 11 months ago
    Rich, I think there are some things that people in the Gulch could not compromise on. A moocher or looter would not be welcome in the Gulch. On the other hand, I think a religious person for example would be able to live in the Gulch if their religion was a private thing and they did not proselytize.
    You see, I don't see the Gulch, even in the book, as a place for only pure Objectivists.
    Even a relationship between only 2 people involves some minor compromises.
    At the same time, it would not be possible for a religious person, for example, to insist that the other members of the Gulch accept their religious beliefs. He would have to accept that the Objectivists in the Gulch would disagree.
    Edit: clarity
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 11 months ago
      Mama; a person that was irrational enough to base the decisions of their life on superstition or magic or altruism couldn't function with their neighbors in a Gulch. Remember the oath.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Mamaemma 7 years, 11 months ago
        Zen, I've been thinking about what you said. You see, I can't say I am an atheist, but I have never based any life decisions on superstition or religion or magic. I feel that I can take the oath and mean every word. I don't call myself a pure Objectivist because I can't say I am 100% atheist but I am sure that I belong in the Gulch. It's a complicated question. Thanks for responding.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 11 months ago
          Mama; I often think that the problem is the word 'atheist'; like 'selfishness', 'egoist', 'objectivist', etc., has been so attacked and conflated over the years that it's difficult for many to separate the populist negativeness from the rightness on a concept level. I continue to try to explain to non-objectivist and even to some objectivist that we're not 'atheist' in that the word as defined does not really describe the principles of objectivism--Atheism or more plainly, the rejection of belief or faith as a basis of decisions and choices in life, is only one(and relative minor at that) of dozens or more results of deciding to base life decisions and knowledge on rational, logical reason. So I think you're mostly there.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 11 months ago
            Calling oneself an atheist really just means that one has no belief in the existence of a god. The trouble comes from those who have a belief in an atheism, a hypothesis as to why a non-existing being does not exist which results in a lot of wasted time answering religious believers' beliefs. Even those who claim to be atheists get into a quasi-atheism by debating whether they have a belief about the non-existence of god which is weak or strong as though there can be evidence for the non-existence of a nothing. Everyone is born an atheist ahead of years of socializing to come. You do not have to have evidence of no god, you just need to have no evidence of a god to be an atheist. Should evidence become apparent, it would be very easy to become a believer in a god.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 11 months ago
      It's hard for me to imagine a religious person being able to live with the principles of Objectivism, either for themselves or with others. How could go forth and spread the word or being your brother's keeper or a life begins at conception or a hundred other concepts from a religious belief be able to fit with a group of people whom all begin by questioning all their own beliefs compared with their precepts, and subjected to rationally, logical reasoning. That after-all is the major principle of religion--don't question the belief, just have faith. If that person can't or won't use reason in his interactions with the world or me, I'm not sure I have any interest in him other than to defend myself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ HeroWorship 7 years, 11 months ago
        I think you inadvertently nailed the issue - different religions have different beliefs. Some of those beliefs would 100% fit in the gulch, other's wouldn't. For example, most Mormons or Buddhists would fit in the gulch just fine.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 7 years, 11 months ago
          both are mystical. Buddhism is about transcending reality. so, A is not A. Mormons believe in God, they follow a cultish prophet, they have secret hierarchical groups. A is not A. it doesn't mean there isn't overlap.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 11 months ago
            Exactly k.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 7 years, 11 months ago
              my comment went away. anyway, I grew up less than 20 minutes from some buddist college that the beach boys supported. when I went away to college, they had achieved i, thru meditation, the "hopping stage". that meant, that they could meditate themselves up off the floor.. hmmm. I was working the fields that summer I learned that-corn leaves slicing my arms, pollen in my face, wet and cold at 5 am. fuck their hopping stage.
              mormanism. I grew up across the river from Nauvoo. been to the public part of the TEMPLE freaked me the hell out. it was like I was in the the difecta of mysticism
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ HeroWorship 7 years, 11 months ago
            Sure. Essentially.

            The point is that most of the actions that would matter in the Gulch are about respecting individual rights, so most Libertarians would be welcome, even if their epistemology had huge contradictions.

            Also, as an atheist who uses buddhist practices daily, I would argue that Buddhism isn't so much about transcending reality as it is checking your premises about what reality/self is with depth and precision. You can approach it mystically, but I think that is a mistake that the Buddha would counsel against. All the Buddhist religious trappings are cultural heritage (bath water), but the meditative practices are solid (baby).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 11 months ago
          Mormons and probably Buddhists as well couldn't in good faith or wouldn't take the Oath. Sooner or later, their interactions with others would be affected by their faith or beliefs from the supernatural or mysticism. It's unavoidable. Mankind's history and hundreds of millions of murders and massacres throughout that history has taught us that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 11 months ago
            Anyone of personal moral integrity is going to reject an opposing moral philosophy. You can't have one foot on either side of the fence. I respect Objectivists for going all in on one side of the fence, even though I choose the other.

            That being said, I think that there is no reason that a community of Objectivists couldn't do business with a neighboring community of Mormons or Buddhists. I can tell you this much, if you started with three communities - Objectivist, Mormon, and Buddhist - of equal sizes, in a hundred years the Mormons would outnumber the collective populations of both the Objectivists and Buddhist by probably 2x without a single proselyte. ;)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 11 months ago
      I think that the more the gulch is populated by people of diverse philosophies and beliefs, the more its going to change from a gulch to a regular town.

      This is what is happening to America, and I think is responsible in part for the change in culture towards socialism (the hispanics that have come here come from socialist countries and they bring their socialism with them). It used to be that immigrants adopted american ways and language, but now WE adopt their cultures and even language).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
      Great points Mamaemma. Religion, of course, would be an interesting problem. I wonder if some pure Objectivists would want to refuse their entry into the Gulch? I also wonder if in the fictional Gulch if members would have argued over when to return. Allowing a total collapse would have been risky. Restoring civility if there was total anarchy would be difficult. My mind is wandering today.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 11 months ago
        This scorned by libtards old-fashioned Christian for a Constitution, New Testament and gun clinging all-American aging dinosaur (quaint for still being around) is not to worried about there ever being a "fictional Gulch" that may not let me in.
        I'm pretty sure there will never be a real one.
        If there is, I doubt I will live so long.
        I find this place stimulating and I've learned a lot of stuff so far.
        I've been a ""born again" Christian sice the 70s and only learned who Ayn Rand was when I had Netflix send me the AS1 DVD.
        I now have all three DVDs and I've read some Ayn Rand.
        You just gotta know that his cyberspace gulch is gonna attract its share of characters.
        Like me~Allosaurus is Latin for "different lizard." Allosaur is the short form. .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Suzanne43 7 years, 11 months ago
          Good for you, allosaur. Well said. I learned my lesson at Easter that being a Christian in The Gulch is not easy. I admire you for staying in and holding onto your beliefs.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 11 months ago
            Old dino be a stubborn old relic from the past.
            Snarl! Me theropd carnosaur got me free speech!
            Don't care if I AM stuck in this consarn Jurassic Park paddock!
            I may be prehistoric, but I got my PC!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 11 months ago
        A basic understanding and appreciation of creation should never in any way be a problem. Even Ayn understood that at a biological level.

        It's the organization and enforcement of such thoughts by those that are brain only, (no connection to the mind), that go arye.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 11 months ago
          carl; If one believes that there was a creation, one has to believe in the unknowable and can only do so through faith. There is no other route that can support that concept, except the supernatural, superstition, or magic. That can't possibly co-exist with the principle that Existence exists and A=A.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 11 months ago
            Belief in the "unknowable" . . . hmmm. How about the mathematical term "infinity?" Do we really know what that means, or do we simply accept the concept as a convenient means not to run into a mental brick wall? There may be things that exist, but we are incapable of affirming as humans, because of sensory limitations. It is a matter of faith in human ingenuity that given enough time, we can discover and explain anything, but can we really? Is acceptance of the unknowable the act of a rational mind that determines it's a waste of time and resources (agnostic)? There's a difference between faith in the existence of a deity (which believers would say is very knowable), or a determination that something is simply beyond our current ability to understand.

            Sorry - I couldn't resist.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 11 months ago
              DrZ; Interesting reply and I'm glad you couldn't resist. If one can grasp that mathematics is a language of logic and the verbal (spoken/written) is a language of human concepts and further, that in translation between different languages that there exists in each, terms/words that are not directly translatable--then infinity, which is a shorthand representation of unending measurement (+/-) or repetition, and is only meaningful when used within the language of mathematics from which it's derived.
              We encounter similar difficulties when we attempt to describe many scientific theories, discoveries, or facts without the mathematical language utilized by the scientists that developed, found, or proved those things. Attempting to describe Einsteins derivation of theories of Relativity without using and understanding Lorentz transformations as well as the entire realm of mathematics and logic that underlies those transformation equations, is actually not possible in spoken/written language. The same holds for the term infinity.
              It also holds for A=A. To grasp the import of that simple representation, one needs to understand that A is shorthand for identity in reality that is factual and repeatable with eyes open, by any human at any time and any place. We could go on and on with this discussion and innumerable examples. But in doing so, we would begin to encroach upon the genius of Rand--her ability to describe her philosophy with a story and to explain and demonstrate her logic with the verbal.
              But back to your point about the unknowable/knowable. You use the example of "There's a difference between faith in the existence of a deity (which believers would say is very knowable), or a determination that something is simply beyond our current ability to understand". But what you miss in that statement is the definition of deity and the contradiction of "which believers would say is very knowable". Those exact same believers would not be able to describe that deity, where it is, or a cause/effect that's measurable and repeatable, or why it does what it supposedly does, or dozens of other descriptions that might lead other non-believers to identify, find, measure, apply repeatability--and invariably would fall back on the need to accept belief without proof, faith without demonstration, and that their deity is unknowable.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 11 months ago
            Wrong...and I'm laughing...First of all, I use the word or concept of creation rather than cosmos, now they mean the same thing...scientist will admit that "Something" created all that we see because it is so specific...one decimal place off and it doesn't exist...that's where I am coming from...it's not mystical...it's quantum physical...is my motto.
            Do we know how all that we see was created or what created it?..is it watching?...no...but we are not stupid enough to think that it happened alllll by itself. Equally...to think that it always existed is just as bizarre. There is no reason to organize it, create rituals connected with it...but I do think...at least some degree of thought and appreciation for the fact that we are here, that we can create and survive, have some degree of cooperation and mutuality with each other and perhaps have sometime to let the wonder of it all sink in...now that's a direct observation of A=A...and that too...is amazing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 11 months ago
              Post script: I do not "Believe" I have never "Believed" anything or anyone...I simply observe and try to do so, objectively...that's what attracted me to Ayn Rand. But I'm not afraid to investigate or learn about the hard stuff, the controversial stuff, even the mystical stuff because there is at least some value in all things, if only to recognize that which is not. If one piece of value weren't there...it couldn't exist, there would be nothing to hold it together long enough to be noticed...quantum physics can demonstrate that.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by MaxCasey 7 years, 11 months ago
                Someone tried the "value in all things" argument on me yesterday with respect to teachings from the bible. I had to explain that even though the end result of the moral dictates of a witch doctor may be the same as that of an objectively defined morality, they are in fact not the same and not both valuable. Insofar as the moral dictate of the witch doctor requires the abdication of ones rational faculties in order to accept that he or she must do X or Y, it is in fact inferior a result than one who has defined his moral decision through application of the law of identity and logical deductions based on man's life as the standard of that which is good. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the ends justify the means. Of course on could argue for subjectivity in determining value... If they wanted to do so.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 11 months ago
                  People get caught up in the pre-conscious bicameral language...take that away and express it in a "Conscious" way...then it starts to make sense. Also understand that the OT is only history...good, bad and ugly...the T is what they call..."Civilization" for dummies and the NT is an ancient Blog about it all...in preparation for a growing connection to a mind. What screws that up is bicameral rulers, popes...whatever that knowingly or unknowingly keeping people in their bicameral brain instead of encouraging them to access their minds...that part really Pi$$'$ me off.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 7 years, 11 months ago
    I do not think Objectivist are inflexible. Some things are just not compatible with reason, self determination and logic. As for compromise, compromise on what? Principles? No. Please expand on what you think would require compromise.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 11 months ago
      Objectivists do not come out of the womb 100% dyed in the wool. People are a mix of rational behavior and what I will call irrational behavior. One hopes in a gulch, there would be mostly rational behavior.

      But, not every conclusion that a person makes is totally conscious and the result of perfect knowledge. Therefore there will be differences in opinions, and I do think that it is best to try and get the most rational compromise that is available.
      I would agree that certain basic human rights should not be compromised. But beyond those, compromise is a way to get things moving forward when there are disagreements.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by MaxCasey 7 years, 11 months ago
        An Objectivist understands that one has to be conscious by choice, which is to say, one has to apply the principles, objectively determined of course, by conscious effort. Are you suggesting that we excuse those who lapse into unconscious mode and randomly not live by their stated principles? How much hypocrisy is tolerable before one cannot call themselves an Objectivist or becomes unworthy of Gulch residency?

        Perfect knowledge isn't required. If it were required, scientific pursuits would be fruitless. Differences in opinion are fine, opinions are based off of value judgements. A compromise on opinions is not necessary any more than a compromise of one's values is necessary. Where facts are in dispute, well that is another area all together. For instance, Global Warming or No Global Warming, but that is where logic prevails. When you remove the subjectivity of "opinion" and all you are dealing with is objective facts, then what's the problem? Discover new facts that augment what was known? Great, integrate them in to the understanding of the concept and move on, or where previously held knowledge is proven unsound, modify decisions made based on the previous and now discredited knowledge and move on.
        Be very careful throwing around the concept of compromise. When you start talking compromise you inadvertently admit that neither party is correct, but that a combination of incorrect positions is somehow superior to a single incorrect position. All of which is non-sense. If one position is correct, you obviously wouldn't ever compromise it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by tdechaine 7 years, 11 months ago
        A rational person does not draw conclusions without sufficient knowledge, and what we don't know (that would perhaps make it "perfect" by your definition) cannot be a concern in the process.
        So there should be no differences of opinions on objective issues.
        Any "rational compromise" would be on subjective issues.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 7 years, 11 months ago
          but we dont always have sufficient knowledge, and some of us might have more or less knowledge- leading to disagreements.

          Is the earth cooling or warming for example. Is it a normal cycle, or caused by human intervention.

          I do basically agree that there would be no difference of opinion on issues on which there was no difference in knowledge.

          I would say that in a practical gulch, people could have different levels of knowledge, or they just disagree that the facts presented by some were in fact true.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by tdechaine 7 years, 11 months ago
            Yes, lack of K can lead to disagreements.
            The rational person with the most knowledge will be right. E.g. the true evidence re global warming says no significant warming, but those who do not choose to see the evidence or are simply emotional on the subject will disagree.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 7 years, 11 months ago
              Interesting, on the global warming stuff. I think the issue is whether human actions are upsetting the normal cyclical nature of weather can be of interest. Whether the earth is warming or cooling by itself on a cyclical basis is pretty much a matter of history.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
      What if someone was invited to join the Gulch and I disagreed? I am there of my own free will and can leave but is that being inflexible? Should I try to understand why others agreed to invite them? As the group grows I can see issues like this coming up quite frequently.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 7 years, 11 months ago
        there are always disagreements with people. after all, we each have different knowledge and context. This is why agreeing on definitions of things and context of issues is important, but so many are lazy about that kind of thing when entering a disagreement. I would not say that sticking to principles, expecting someone to define their terms is inflexible. The whole living in a Gulch thing to me is not interesting. just another HOA
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 11 months ago
          I definitely do not want the Gulch being an HOA. A sex offender who had served his time in another state came recently to my neighborhood. I have become acquainted with him. I wouldn't call him a friend, but definitely not an enemy. Several concerned parents found a law that said that sex offenders are not allowed to live within 1/2 mile of a kids' community playground, so they pooled money together (separate private donations, rather than HOA money) to buy a playground. The playground now exists, and the sex offender is back to his home state. His partner, a very long term resident in my neighborhood, will leave to join him in a few months. Ah, those pesky HOA's.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by MaxCasey 7 years, 11 months ago
        If someone invited and you disagreed, and your actions are guided by your principles, then you won't do business with them, and neither will anyone else unless your opinions are not grounded in logical deduction. The interloper will then either leave due to lack of success or they will resort to criminal activity, or become 100 self sufficient and a burden on no one. So they will have given you a reason for forced removal or you will have discovered a flaw in your initial premise
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 11 months ago
        I would expect how people get invited would be detailed as part of the agreement before one became a resident. If others invited new residents without my prior agreement or without complying with the terms of my original agreement, then I either wouldn't be there in the first place or would leave.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 7 years, 11 months ago
        Again, that depends on what you disagree on. Of course you could leave if you chose and that was in your rational self interest.

        The way I see a Gulch is an agreement on a philosophy. If someone doesn't agree with the philosophy they are unlikely to be invited no mater how great their individual skill(s). The common philosophy should keep the disagreements to a minimum. A simple legal system would settle contract disputes.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
          I don't think Rand covered this in AS. Judge Narragansett was there and I think they alluded to the fact that he handled their disputes. Someone on Facebook wrote an interesting piece that started with another Judge shrugging and wanting to be a Judge in the Gulch. Narragansett felt another Judge was unnecessary for such a small community. What if he was allowed to be a Judge? I thought what if this new Judge and Narraganset disagree?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ HeroWorship 7 years, 11 months ago
            Why would we only need one judge? Why not 2 or 20?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Kittyhawk 7 years, 11 months ago
              I agree. I'm actually rereading the Gulch portion of Atlas Shrugged right now, and they allowed the free market to decide who would hold which profession.

              From Part Three, Chapter I Atlantis, when John Galt is giving Dagny a tour of the valley, and they visit Stockton's foundry: "He's a sculptor," said Stockton, "When I came here, he and his partner had a sort of combination hand-forge and repair shop. I opened a real foundry, and took all of their customers away... He's making more money now, in shorter hours, than he used to make in his own foundry."

              The alternative would be to say that certain professions, such as judges and doctors, will be regulated and licensed by some governing body. But these kinds of mandatory professional monopolies are typically created to protect the profession from competition, and not for the protection of the consumer, so I would hope this wouldn't have a place in the Gulch.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by MaxCasey 7 years, 11 months ago
        If you disagreed with someone being invited and the standard for the invite was that the individual in question held Objectivist principles, then the proper thing to do might very well be to just ignore the person and provide them nothing of value. For instance, the reason for the Gulch in the first place wasn't to just get away from people who didn't share their values, it was to let those who "mooched" of the men of the mind and sought to appropriate for themselves that which they hadn't earned or created so that those "moochers" would have to face the consequences of their own actions, which nature would dictate to be their ultimate demise. So someone arrives at the Gulch and you disagree with the decision. Don't engage them in commerce unless they prove that they are in fact trading value for value and not seeking to ask another man to live for their sake. Once you are sure that they are above board, you can then commence an appropriate relationship based on mutual, objective principles.

        There is no need to get pissy and clickish. If every Objectivist left the moochers to their own devices, we would either be free of the moochers or the moochers would eventually get it and become producers.

        It reminds me of what Rand had to say about the civil rights movement and Black Codes. She said that businesses should not be forced to hire minorities, nor serve them, or change how they accommodate them. Instead, everyone who abhors the behavior of those establishments should be able to identify them with ease so that they could avoid doing business with them so they might close down or change their ways.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 7 years, 11 months ago
    Rich, one of the things I read into the descriptions of the Gulch was that here was a group of right-minded people who just wanted to be left alone to live their lives as they saw fit. It seemed to me that they were not a group of people who would want to argue and push their ideas onto others. They came together for enjoyment, not to fight. As they all shared Galt's philosophy, there wouldn't be anything that crucial to fight over.
    I know I sound naive, but Rand was, after all, describing heroes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
      I guess before entering a Gulch most of the major issues would have to be agreed to. I just keep thinking that while strong convictions are a strength they can be a problem as well. You don't sound naive. You're helping me think thru this.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 11 months ago
    Compromising principles is an absolute NO. There are a number of good quotes by Rand on the topic. My personal favorite: "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . . (emphasis added)

    When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil." For the New Intellectual, 216

    A gulch willing to compromise is no longer a gulch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 11 months ago
    Compromise?...No...I would not compromise my values...I would however, would search for things in common and I suspect that observationalist and objectivist would have a lot in common, be able to self lead, self rule and fell free to create value for self and as a consequence for others as well.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
      We would definitely be a self reliant group. I guess my thinking is when would we compromise and who determines it. Galt was the ultimate decision maker in Atlas but a real world Gulch would most likely not have someone of his abilities and temperament.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 11 months ago
        As all of us consider ourselves as our own highest authority, I doubt that many of us, if any of us, would defer to Galt. I know I wouldn't.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
          If it was HIS Gulch I guess we would have no choice. If a real Gulch existed I guess someone would have to establish it. They would then expect to be the ultimate arbiter. Not sure if everyone would be okay with that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 11 months ago
            That was why posed the establishment of a physical Gulch in my questions last summer. I was seriously considering being Midas. After the difficulty in coming to agreement on a number of issues, I ... shrugged.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 7 years, 11 months ago
    Ayn Rand was flexible as are those who have studied under her, when it is appropriate.

    As for compromise you should never compromise because when you do neither you or the other person is happy.

    As an Objectivist I never compromise nor did I before I was an Objectivist!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by WilliamRThomas 7 years, 11 months ago
    In Atlas Shrugged, anyone was admitted the Galt's Gulch who would swear and keep the oath of the strikers, the numb of which is not live for the sake of another nor ask another to live for one,

    This is a statement in favor of individualism and toleration, and a demand for moral conformity on a basic issue.

    It would be hard to get even a million people to honestly swear that oath today.

    But I note, it doesn't demand that one be 100% rational. It does, however, cut against the basic earthly counsel of most religions.

    But Galt's Gulch Online should be open to all honest, courteous discussants and be most of all, a friendly place for Rand fans, not a home of doctrinal conformity.

    (Of course, I'll be advocating Objectivism myself, but, given the state of the culture, it would be sad to have this become an echo-chamber for those ideas.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 11 months ago
    There is tolerance for idiosyncracies and fallibilities, but compromise is usually about principles. A society which tolerates varying levels of education and differences of opinion is critical to lasting stability. A society which is willing to compromise its principles, however, will crumble. This is precisely what we have seen with this great nation over the last 200+ years. At first, the power-brokers were interested in anything but the aggregation of power. Nowadays it is all they can think about.

    I still believe that the Constitution was the best thing to be invented by mankind and I would love to see a return to its founding principles. If the Gulch were based on that, I believe we would see what the US saw in the early 1800's - a dramatic explosion of productivity and wealth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
      I like the comparison to the U.S.. Strong argument for insisting on people to adhere to Objectivist principles. I wonder at times if we can get back to our Constitution? We have strayed a long way.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ycandrea 7 years, 11 months ago
        A muslim would be very unhappy in the Gulch. Even if they were invited, it would not be long before they would leave on their own. Their whole belief system is diametrically opposed to Objectivism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 11 months ago
    After reading Rand, it is easy to become deeply in love with the characters. It's hard to think of the heroes as archetypes. You can aspire to the degree of perfection in a Roark or Galt, but you will never achieve it unless you are an automaton. However, they survive as a guide to what is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is bad, what is true, what is false. Humans are continuously variable. In everyone there resides good and evil, so, to be honest, if one becomes inflexible, or a better word might be concretized, they are contrary to much of what Objectivism stands for. That attitude precludes the ability to change, to learn, and to improve.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 7 years, 11 months ago
    Rich, I contend that looking for positive value in others
    allows objectivists to accept non-proselytizing Christians,
    for example -- and it's not a compromise. . nothing is
    "given up" in many instances of value acceptance.
    if Richard Halley were muslim, would it not still be good
    to enjoy his music? -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
    • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
      In AS Judge Narragansett settled disputes that arose. I'm thinking if a real Gulch existed that strong personalities would eventually collide. Could differences be resolved well enough for the Gulch to continue? I don't know.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 7 years, 11 months ago
    "Atlas Snubbed" addresses those concerns, what, shall we say, "adjustments," need to be made in the course of interactions doing business in the fictional Gulch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 11 months ago
    of course because the first thing to go would be compromise. "Three answers. Right, Wrong and Compromise which makes two wrong and one right answer. A.R."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 11 months ago
    This is an interesting twist on a question I have asked before and commented upon in this forum. My opinion is that Mulligan's Valley would be unstable. The number of arguments would be high enough that many would either want to leave, or be told to leave. Such a high number leaving would be problematic with regard to future privacy. This is a very important problem to be resolved if a physical Gulch is to ever be successful.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 7 years, 11 months ago
      What is your reasoning for thinking there would be a number of arguments? Enough arguments to make it unstable? edited for clarilty
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 11 months ago
        That is a great question, rmp. I posed a series of questions in 2015 related to richrobinson's question today. I couldn't get people to agree on the location of a physical Gulch, or even whether people would want to come to a physical Gulch if I built one. There were other questions that I posed as well that led me to my opinion. We all hold our principles as being exceedingly important, often more important than getting along with each other. I am not saying we should compromise. I detest compromise.

        A number of us have been told to leave on multiple occasions. I am one of the few who hasn't permanently left after such a "Be gone!"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
        Possibly. If enough strong minded, strong willed people get together there are bound to be disputes. I just keep wondering if Objectivists would be able to resolve these differences so that a Gulch would be feasible.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 7 years, 11 months ago
          Strong minded and strong willed people can still use logic and reason. I would think anyone invited to a Gulch would possess thee ability for logic and reason, therefore disputes would be resolved easily.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
            They can but we always believe our own logic and reason. What if, for example, I started a farm. The work was too much for just me and I wanted to bring non members to the property to work the farm. I would take them back home at the end of each work day. Would that be allowed? If someone didn't like that how would we resolve the issue?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Mamaemma 7 years, 11 months ago
              Rich, if you and I sat down to resolve this we would do so by looking at the realities of the situation. If you need workers and bringing them in does not jeopardize the safety of the Gulch, and there is no concrete logical reason for them not to come to work in the Gulch, then I wouldn't object to your doing so.
              I am assuming that the people in the Gulch will be at least as reasonable and logical as I. I think that's a reasonable assumption. :)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 7 years, 11 months ago
              Unless it was a a closed secret location like in the book, why would anyone have a problem with it? The rules set forth in the Constitution would again be the final arbiter. If it said no one outside the gulch may be brought in then you are in violation. If there is no such rule. then is there an elected council or other group that has been elected to make decisions?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 7 years, 11 months ago
                A limited Government. Probably a necessary evil and if the Gulch was truly limited to those governed by reason it should work. I wonder what we would do to Gulchers who were coughing too bad to contribute? :-)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by philosophercat 7 years, 11 months ago
                  The reason we have the expression "Carved in stone" was ancient Greek villages needed all the citizens to know the rules by which they lived so they carved them in stone and placed the stones in the market place. Just like Galt's Oath on the power plant. Limited government is just those laws, agreements between the citizens, needed to protect life and property it is not a necessary evil but necessary for life. Read Locke to understand the history.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ sjatkins 7 years, 11 months ago
          With agreement on Objectivist core principles being essential to being an Objectivist there is at least a basis for rational discussion and working toward a solution. In the situation with people in general there is often very little agreement on shared principles or even about whether one should proceed rationally or what constitutes rational reasonable argument.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 7 years, 11 months ago
    Rational people including objectivists have no problem compromising on details that are not crucially important. Now some who think they are objectivists and/or rational have a hard time understanding which battles are worth fighting and what is and is not essential. I think that is the real issue, not compromise as such.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 11 months ago
      Has nothing to do with objectivism. You are talking pragmatic mish mash. Something is correct or it isn't correct, proven or unproven, useful or not useful. Even then it must be constantly tested. And so far the only battle I see worth fighting is to a. regain the Constitution. b. use it. and c. take no prisoners.

      that includes those who support half way pragmatic compromises and the rest of that crap. It's understandable. If anyone spend too much of your life looking for excuses and reasons to give in they are bound to thenselves become the wrong choice.

      Objectively speaking that point is long past as we watch the effort to justify the action. Aint' gonna work. I don't have to justify my position. It IS. What I see is a bunch of wanna be's who having publicly declared them selves guilty by stating lesser of evils is the way to go in one way or or form or another - try to evade culpability using other terminology.

      Such irrationality is beyond any emotional consideration on my part except pity. I don't have to live with the results. i didn't choose the wrong choice or a make a compromise with the wrong side nor call it good. But then my morals, values, and standards are far different....and without purposes of evasion. No hate, no contempt just pity.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 11 months ago
    Makes you wonder where all the missing comments are residing if anywhere.

    One more try.

    This from Ayn Rand herself. "If one of the three solutions is compromise then the three solutions are one right and two wrong answers. Ergo sum compromise is never an acceptable solution. The gulch is possible only if no one is willing to compromise, Upon finding the solution the final answer is there is no compromise."

    That is a subjective way out and fit for the lame and lazy. If wiling to compromise they couldn't be objectivists therefore you are not in the gulch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ sjatkins 7 years, 11 months ago
      The problem is that many a problem and situation does not have one and only one obviously right solution. One must understand the difference between the essential and the inessential. Most people do not. Essential principles need to guide us to the best solution in a set of circumstances that we can reach agreement on. That does not mean it will be perfect. Remember the importance of voluntary agreements between people. Getting to an agreement where as much as possible to the good can be done without sacrificing anything essential should be the goal.

      I know that it is almost dogma that there are no really differences of opinion between fully rational people. But I do not find it so in the real world. Even when agreeing on Objectivist principles it is quite possible to disagree on how to best resolve a particular situation. Then what?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo