16

No more convincing others. Or whining here. Laser focused on finding like-minded people to associate and transact with

Posted by BrettRocketSci 7 years, 5 months ago to Going Galt
59 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

When I was new to Objectivism - in college - I became quite the proselytizer. Late night discussions in the dorm, campus events, starting a current events newspaper, buttons, stickers...

After college when the internet became more accessible, I created websites and spent a lot of time online trying to be a positive, effective, and persistent advocate for the ideas that form the basis of this unique community.

But those efforts started more than 20 years ago -- closer to 30.

While it provides significant motivation and rewards from the size of the challenge and the target-rich environment of opportunities, I also realized this humbling fact:

this work will NEVER be complete.

So how much time, effort, and money is rational for this effort? Especially when I consider that I see have many personal and family needs that are being directly compromised or threatened by unethical forces?

Then I considered who I associate with as friends,acquaintances, and business partners. If I wasn't entirely satisfied or proud of that, isn't that more important to change than strangers' philosophies who I haven't even met yet and probably never will?

I am grateful for having this online Gulch so that we can connect and interact with other like-minded people. Life is too short and precious to spend it with people who don't share your values and interests.

I've been absent here for the past few months because I've been laser-focused on taking care of some serious challenges to myself, my family, and our values.

Now I'm back - just briefly - to say that I'm re-committing to making my world into the one I want to live in. With people who share my values and orientation of the world. (The number of people not fully "awake" to what is happening around us has become a more essential issue and factor, IMO.)

We don't need the entire world to be objectivist-friendly. We can't - because it ain't ever going to happen.

After trying quite earnestly at it for many years - and watching many other people try a whole lot harder than me since the 1960s' - I can confidently say that we aren't ever going to even be close to a majority opinion.

So what is more rational - a goal achieve that ideal state of utopia?

Or - to create the best world of relationships and partnerships we can with the people who already share our world view and philosophy?

In darker or more stressful moments we may wonder when we will see a complete collapse as in Atlas Shrugged. Or another SHTF scenario that seems to have many varieties given all the threats and craziness in our world today.

If and when that happens, the smart (or "lucky") ones will have already prepared themselves and their families to have a place, a community, and a means to continue living.

That will be a Gulch of some type. Thanks to our internet, now it doesn't have to be 100% physical.

I've grown to believe that our biggest issue and need is not persuading more people that we need to live rational, productive, ethical, and peaceful lives. Rather, it is that we need to better identify and connect those of us who already share these values NOW so that we can build trust, success, and happiness amongst ourselves now - while we can enjoy all of these benefits. If and when things get more ugly - then we will all be better off too.

No fear. No regrets. And no time to waste.

If you live in northern California, or do business online and think you or others would be worth connecting with, I hope you'll reach out to me.

If you are on the Marketplace here, I know about you. :-) I encourage everyone to go to the Marketplace page, learn who is there, and think about how you can do business with them. I've done that and hope to see more people and businesses joining over time.

In future posts - possibly Marketplace listings - you'll likely hear from me again on topics related to this mission. High on my priority list is finding medical and health professionals who work on a DPC basis (Direct Primary Care). Outside of health insurance companies, in other words. They are out there, and there is a growing number of healthcare professionals who are sick and tired of becoming slaves to medical insurance companies and plans. Healthcare is something everyone has a rational reason to care about for themselves and their families too.

My name is Brett Hoffstadt. I am quite easy to find online other places if you want to. I'll be glad to hear from you here, but please understand I won't be spending much time here. Too much exciting and important work to do in other places...

My greatest enjoyment comes from making Galt's Gulch a practical reality for my life. Not for convincing others of this need or value. And there is a lot of fun work to do -- with a much more exciting and practical result.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The original 'going Galt' in what Ayn Rand described as her vision of the 'ideal man' meant living the productive life of a rational individual in accordance with her ethics, not dropping out and trying to collapse society, which accomplishes nothing even if it could be done. The threat to collectivists -- which they do not recognize -- is the spread of the original meaning of Galt, not dropping out. The only threat they see in 'dropping out' is the occasional wealthy person who abandons a high tax state with a punitive 'millionaire tax'; they don't recognize the productiveness of the successful, only the source of loot, and moving out of a tax jurisdiction does nothing to convince them otherwise. Ayn Rand's conception of John Galt was not as a resentful dropout, nor does the left care -- they don't know enough to miss those who cut back on what they produce in order to escape the punishment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    People are not generally freer now. Decades of 'liberal' welfare statism, controls, and ethnic balkanization have been crushing us as they progressively lead down a spiral of increasing collectivism and statism. The technological progress has occurred in spite of that, not because of it, and it is the technological progress that represents optimism of what is possible through rationality, but which is being progressively stifled by a politically elitist authoritarianism of the bureaucratic state. The effects are not felt uniformly; the impact depends on where you live, your personal interests, and your career. Elitist 'liberals' in upscale areas with lucrative careers are having a ball while they shaft those they have such contempt for. The kind of 'freedom' they luxuriate in is not political freedom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.

    There are no innate ideas in an inevitable 'span of human character'. People advocate what they do in politics because of the premises they have learned and accepted. Ayn Rand advocated convincing people of the proper philosophical premises and explanation, not engaging in politics, other than when there is sufficient common sense and proper sense of life to support a specific position. She advocated that it is too early for an 'Objectivist politics' precisely because the general principles of reason and individualism supporting it are not widely understood or accepted. All of her political commentary was thoroughly integrated with a philosophical approach.

    She urged that those who agree with her begin by ensuring that they understand what they are talking about themselves. The problem is not contending with impenetrable innate ideas, or stupidity, or 98% brainless worker bees, or -- as one anti-Ayn Rand conservative stated on this forum -- "self-absorbed imbeciles", but lack of understanding of philosophical premises and how to make the necessary connections.

    In "What Can One Do?" Ayn Rand stressed:

    "Today, most people are acutely aware of our cultural-ideological vacuum; they are anxious, confused, and groping for answers. Are you able to enlighten them?

    "Can you answer their questions? Can you offer them a consistent case? Do you know how to correct their errors? Are you immune from the fallout of the constant barrage aimed at the destruction of reason—and can you provide others with antimissile missiles? A political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war.

    "If you want to influence a country's intellectual trend, the first step is to bring order to your own ideas and integrate them into a consistent case, to the best of your knowledge and ability. This does not mean memorizing and reciting slogans and principles, Objectivist or otherwise: knowledge necessarily includes the ability to apply abstract principles to concrete problems, to recognize the principles in specific issues, to demonstrate them, and to advocate a consistent course of action. This does not require omniscience or omnipotence; it is the subconscious expectation of automatic omniscience in oneself and in others that defeats many would-be crusaders (and serves as an excuse for doing nothing). What is required is honesty—intellectual honesty, which consists in knowing what one does know, constantly expanding one's knowledge, and never evading or failing to correct a contradiction. This means: the development of an active mind as a permanent attribute.

    "When or if your convictions are in your conscious, orderly control, you will be able to communicate them to others. This does not mean that you must make philosophical speeches when unnecessary and inappropriate. You need philosophy to back you up and give you a consistent case when you deal with or discuss specific issues.

    "If you like condensations (provided you bear in mind their full meaning), I will say: when you ask "What can one do?"—the answer is "SPEAK" (provided you know what you are saying)."

    She followed with suggestions on what and what not to do.

    The whole post stone age world was once in much worse shape than now because the ideas of superstition and mysticism were much more prevalent. If no one had rediscovered and advocated the more individualistic and realist ideas of Aristotelianism we would still be in a Dark Ages. But understanding and explaining what is required are not simple. After the collapse of western civilization It took centuries of groping and stumbling to reach the Enlightenment.

    It is easier now because so much more knowledge is available to be potentially understood in contrast with the entrenched, widespread ignorance of medieval times, but understanding and knowledge do not come to anyone in a flash by magic, and bad premises and ideology for many adults are emotionally locked in like a religion, making it difficult to challenge false and poorly understood premises -- which is why education of the young, currently dominated by bad philosophy, is so important. But the honest of any age can understand.

    Those who have given up on advocacy, thinking that it is by human nature impossible, should understand that success cannot be expected to come 'overnight' (measured in generations), understand what it requires rather than continuing to ignore basic principles and how to support them, and realize that one should not sacrifice his own personal life and values to an all-consuming full time emotional involvement in activism, which only defeats the purpose of living your own life.


    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 7 years, 5 months ago
    I think that we are not going to convince others to think the way we do - and probably should not. There is genuine variability in the span of human character and I think that is a reality that politics tries to deny. I think that about half of humanity would be happy in an affluent socialist environment - one that had a totalitarian ruler who assigned them their work and made sure that they never did without. I think about 30% more would probably enjoy living in a high-tax re-distributive democracy, where they elected their leaders but had a daddy-state as a safety net.

    If you look at the history of the world, you will see that populations that did not compete for favored environment remained Paleo, Meso, Neolithic up to modern times. It is an error of perception to think that people inherently want to advance; they want 'their lives' to be like the ones before; they want their children to be like them.

    There is a skeleton of a young boy found in Southern Siberia. His genes are ancestral to the Proto Indo Europeans (who traveled west) and to the American Indians (who traveled east). I think that there was a mutation that said "move" and that this low-incidence genetic trigger produced two major peoples who were unlike everyone else in that they wanted to see over the next hill.

    The world does not need 'a lot' of us. They only need a few. In a beehive, 98% of the bees are workers; some fraction of the remaining 2% are scouts. We are the scouts.

    The role of communication is not to try to convert the worker bees, it is to be sure that the other scouts hear a philosophy that matched their character, so that they do not blindly accept a life that is not meaningful to them.

    So continue to communicate. We are all people who have been the recipient of someone reaching out and saying, "Try this philosophy - it's different from what you have heard before." But do not expect the population to convert. They should not. This is genuinely not what they want.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by pamzt 7 years, 5 months ago
    Thank you for the post. It can get discouraging when we are constantly bombarded with collectivism everywhere. I appreciate the encouragement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    brett...the Creature book reads like a "how to get to '1984'...you will want to know how to stay off "their" radar...you and I are already labeled as "sovereign" citizens...and that is not a good thing...my wife and I spent the last 6 months working and living out of an RV in Yellowstone park...no cell phone and no internet...we are slowly going "under the radar"...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think Hillary gave us a gift by calling us “deplorable”. It was a rallying point for us actually. I went to Trump’s event here in vegas and I could feel the positive energy from the 8000 attendees. It was a great experience. I think his election was probably an anomaly in our March as a country to collectivism. I voted for him as a way to slow down this process, but as we have seen, the swamp is deeper and wider than even trump thought. The country is divided 50-50 now and it IS very disturbing that the colleges like Berkeley are anti free speech now. When milo Yiannopolous (sp) couldn’t speak there I was determined to read his book “dangerous”. So I got it on Kindle and found it quite good actually. I can see why the liberals hate him so much ! He speaks his mind and exposes a lot of liberal attempts to control people. He supports trump strongly. As Francisco said in AS, it IS a war out there and we have to take sides. I love kindle as it enables me to read a lot of material right on my iPhone at any time
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, people are different, but the members of Ayn Rand's circle were not "excommunicated" for "slight infractions of thought". The differences in behavior that caused them to split up mattered.

    Not only are people different, with like-minded not meaning equivalent, no one should assume that just because someone likes Atlas Shrugged that it means you should be his friend. Yes, "just live your life as best you can" -- and don't depend on belonging to any group to do that. Still, Brett's quest to find like-minded people in important ways is a rational quest as important, but secondary to personal goals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for posting. Blockchain is a disruptive technology. I'm not sure what to make of this website you shared. Care to elaborate a bit? Might be worth a discussion post in itself!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for replying to my post here and finding it! We are within reasonable driving distance to each other. I can connect you with some other people in our region. This DPC network is going to be successful.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Communication can have many goals. Convincing or persuasion is definitely one. But before that comes other things like assessing a common framework or interest. Then establishing rapport and trust. Or wrapping it up quickly with a respectful "have a nice life, now I'm moving on with mine." (so to speak)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks John. I haven't read that book but I'm very familiar with the history and topic from other sources. Wondering how you see this relating to my post? Maybe as a litmus test for identifying good people to associate with?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for your experience. Our recent election has become a very strong litmus test in our society. I find it also has very high correlation, but also very disturbing for our situation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Interesting, thanks. I do think it served a great value there because "going Galt" is a genuine threat to collectivists - and many of them now know it. And we need more of them to understand it by watching it happen, not just talking about it. ;-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good, let's do it! I don't know where you are exactly. I'm in zip code 95630. If you make a trip to the Reno area again you should be swinging by me so please keep that in mind.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, that's the premise I'm promoting, and proclaiming to do a better job putting into practice for myself. Forward ho!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Great decisions and lifestyle. Good for you! Thanks for the example and prompting. "Go do it now" is what I'm talking about. :-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That goal sounds a bit unrealistic, when you consider that every part of the "Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Law" had already been enacted in the US on the day it was published.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That depends upon what you are trying to convince another to understand. If one starts with a basic set of common principles, communication can take place that furthers the lives of both parties without having to constantly play "whack a mole" with ideas. Trying to talk reason with a Leftist or religionist is an exercise in futility that I stopped engaging in when I retired several years ago.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 7 years, 5 months ago
    Ayn Rand said that, during writing Atlas Shrugged, her motto had been "The goal of this book is to keep itself from being [or becoming] prophetic.' And in a pamphlet entitled "Is Atlas Shrugging?" (publication date 1964) she said that she saw "many, many signs that it is succeeding."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
    The 2016 election has given to me a relatively easy way to determine if I want people in my life. IF they voted for Hillary or Sanders, they are OUT. If they voted for Trump they are IN. If they didnt vote for either of those candidates, they are potentially IN upon further investigation.
    It would be easier if the Hillary supporters would wear an armband with the arrow on it which was her campaign logo. That way I can tell from afar.

    Call me bigoted, racist, a woman hater, whatever. BUT, in my experience this is not a bad way to pick out good people from a large pool of very bad people. I might miss a few good apples, but I avoid a LOT of bad apples.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 7 years, 5 months ago
    good hunting Brett...I have been challenging others for over 50 years...what challenge that is, but a fun one...

    if you have not read "Creature from Jekyll Island", I highly recommend it...it an excellent work on where the globalists are taking us and what we are up against...

    again ...good hunting...john kelly
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbroberg 7 years, 5 months ago
    I don't know if I buy it. What is the point of communication if not to convince?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Tbird7553 7 years, 5 months ago
    The fact that you seem committed to DPC is inspiring. I'm a psych nurse in Lodi and would love to learn more and possibly find related employment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just remember that each conscious human and possibly other animals has a self which is different than any other self. Even Rand's circle was composed of different selves who each were rational but each saw reality slightly differently and was eventually excommunicated for slight infractions of thought. I, personally, have never in 77 years, found another self like myself. Those like minded persons that you seek will all be different and if you hope for the same thoughts from them all, you will be on a fools mission. Just live your life as best you can and stop worrying about finding some persons equivalent to your own self.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo