Against Gulching

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 4 months ago to Politics
33 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

It does not matter that the Chilean farmer whose grapes are on your table has a religious icon in his home. If you cut yourself off from him - and the global commercial network - you only have the grapes you grow yourself... if you grow grapes, rather than apricots, kiwi fruit, watermelon, coconuts, ...

http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 4 months ago
    "The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws, A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure,
    which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    regardless of how one was raised (jewish in this case)acknowledging reality can be difficult for even Rand at times (evolution, homosexuality, the fact that she was HIGHLY influenced by Locke, etc). at the beginning is A is A and mysticism need not apply. any romance for it can certainly be acknowledged-we all enjoy folklore, but we do not hang our hats on it at the end of the day. If I may, I think his main point is that a "Gulch" is a literay device and nothing more. and it feeds into the bad notions of Libertarians who imagine all of these small communes trading with one another. The anarchos failed dream
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 4 months ago
    Trading is a key to wealth. Isolation is the road to poverty.

    I'm fascinated by intentional communities, including "gulches". As a practical matter, for them to work they must be open to trade. I think they will appear in some form, they will be open to trade, and they will be a good thing.

    They also cannot depend on the flood-myth collapse-of-civilization fantasy. When I read the part about the lights going out as the plane flew away, I took it as a cautionary worst-case scenario. It especially makes no sense at a time in history when the concept of respecting people's rights is doing better than historical norms.

    As you say, it is unfortunate that some fans of Ayn Rand and full-on Objectivists condemn the entire list of billionaires.

    You point out that Mark Cuban is Objectivist, but he supported Hillary Clinton for president. Clinton was far-and-away the best choice in my Ayn-Rand-fan view, assuming Gov Gary Johnson had no chance. In my view, rational choice was so overwhelmingly Clinton that I didn't give Trump any consideration. In general Republicans seems more detached from reality, more attached to politics. President-elect Trump isn't like other Republicans; I think he's even worse. It's hard to convey how highly I esteem Clinton over Trump.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 4 months ago
    I think I may have misinterpreted this article completely. It was written by Mike Marotta, a Gulcher, as criticism of an article deriding 'gulching" (I think), but seems to be more of an apology for Objectivist philosophy.

    I'm not sure what your point is, Mike. You rattle on about the heroes withdrawing their moral sanction from their destroyers, then go into some supposedly substantiated statements about how objectivism is incompatible with religion, a completely absurd tenet.

    Rand's argument with religion was not based on the elements of reason that are entwined within it (she has said Aquinas, along with Aristotle and herself, were the only three philosophers worthy of note). She didn't care for how some aspects of religion regarded humans as low forms of life, and she didn't like the mysticism inherent in it. Remember she was Russian; there are definite forms of mysticism in the Russian psyche.
    Her "objective" was to exalt man, not to deride him, as I've said some aspects of religion tend to do. And she used man's ability to reason as a "reason" for his exaltation.

    (One cannot read Ayn Rand and hope to understand her philosophy without considering that she was Russian, was exposed to Russian thought and character, and Russian learning.) Have you ever read "The Russian Radical" by Chris Matthew Sciabarra? Although I have many disagreements with some of what he posits, he was very right about her "Russianism."
    He said he believed she actually was not against dialectics, but he is completely wrong about that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 4 months ago
    Was the Gulch an attempt to not have to deal with people who do not share your philosophy or was it to avoid being controlled by those people? I always thought it was the latter.

    Can an objectivist make a free-market exchange with a group organized via socialism? It seems to me that the important thing is that it be a free choice and not what the motivating force of the trading partner is.

    The isolation of the Gulch may have been to keep the government from coming in to make sure they pay their "fair share", and follow rules for the "safety of the children".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DanielJackson 8 years, 4 months ago
    I read the article at Necessary Facts. It would be something if people could loose there hang ups with religion. Of course some religions are better than others. To explain the idea of religion it is something that is meant to be beneficial to mankind, and hence benevolent and a blessing to mankind. Hence some are more so this idea than others. I could hardly call something a true religion that desires to subjugate those who do not believe as they do and hence make slaves of those who will not submit or just kill those who will not embrace their beliefs. I find that I can live at peace with those religions that meet with the true idea of religion than with those religions that do not. As for those who would outlaw religion of any kind, and I mean even the benevolent kinds, this really is not productive in that we now enter the realm of Orwell's 1984 or that of Huxley's Brave New World. And so enter a dictatorial scientific technocracy that uses propaganda and mind control to control the mass, which is not much different than the religion that desires to kill all of those who will not submit to it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 4 months ago
    My first impression of this article is that the author is attempting to us the "non-rationality" of the Left---Marxist thought---as if it applied to Objectivism. I saw other inconsistencies in the essay, and will comment on them occasionally. (If I am not killed off!)
    Rand wrote her novels so that her philosophy would be reachable by everyone, the "common man" as well as so-called philosophers; although she has said writing was her first passion, and that her philosophy provided only the framework for her fiction. The "ideal" man or woman of which she wrote is a classical Greek philosophical character. She may not have realized that writing HAD to be her passion. How else could she promulgate her philosophy? You know how interested she was in film making as well. Another means of promoting rationality to all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
    very interesting article. food for thought. PM coming shortly.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo