Atlas Shrugged page 1169 what's next?
Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years, 8 months ago to Politics
Personally I don't believe that the control freaks and property thieves can be kept out for an indefinite period of time. I doubt that Moses would have written the eighth commandment (thou shall not steal) if there were no thieves in his time. I don't believe that Men are innately either good or evil but that we learn to be so. The U S Constitution basically held together for 100 years. How long will John Galt's gulch last?
Is this paradise available to anyone? Yes! But you have to see it in your mind, believe it to be possible, work in that direction, and recognize it when the pieces come together. Can it be destroyed? Yes. By neglect, or by the envy and ill will of others. What is there that mankind and mooches cannot destroy?
A dear friend of mine taught me how to build this place. He had done so himself and in the 2008-09 financial collapse he told me he felt like he was on an island, completely oblivious to all of the financial disaster around him. He has passed away now. Instead of leaving me his fortune and property, he left me something far more valuable, his knowledge! With that a person can build their own Galt's gulch.
Harry Browne, "How I Found Freedom in An Unfree World" 1973. Another book that changed my life.
If there's any forum where being self-serving is not a problem this should be it.
My own novel, Alongside Night, portrays a near future where one doesn't need to retreat to a hidden valley in Colorado; the clandestine free markets are embedded all over, waiting for the government to collapse under the weight of overspending and totalitarian controls. That novel was published in 1979 and now it's a feature motion picture just being released into movie theaters.
Official Alongside Night Movie Website: http://www.AlongsideNightMovie.com
Official Alongside Night Movie Facebook Page:
http://Facebook.com/AlongsideNightMovie
J. Neil Schulman
author of the novel
writer/producer/director of the movie
I did like the One-Eyed-Jack character (as a good guy) as I have a glass eye and, until recently, owned a one-eyed horse named One-Eyed-Jack.
Gulchers, I highly recommend Neil's story.
I might note, as with AS, your story is very prescient, considering its age.
Are you familiar with "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.
As for Unintended Consequences, it's in a box with most of my unread books from my last house move in 2008, waiting for bookshelf space to open up.
I had a Danish friend named Thorkild Poulson. He worked for the Danish Parliament on the Citizens Tax Council or some such name. He, as part of his job published a monthly magazine on all matters pending in parliament regarding tax issues that affected the populace and other fiscal and political matters. One of the things he did was p;publish the Muslim-oriented cartoons that caused so much fervor.
He read the constitution and constantly berated his American friends on their lack of understanding. In this matter, he undertook to read overy constitution, pact, agreement, edict and any other pertinent document regarding the formation of government and citizen's rights.
Here is what he found. I am paraphrasing his words: The American constitution is the only document that comes from the people to the government. It describes the powers the PEOPLE allow the government to have and specifically denotes powers the government does not have. Every other document of the same or similar name basically describes rights people have that are bestowed by the government. The US Constitution is the ONLY document where the opposite occurs and thus it is the most important political document ever created.
Remember this when you hear people talk about the constitution. It is a document drafted by the people defining limits for government. It is not from government giving rights to people. In fact, it states that government may not limit or do anything to those freedoms reserved for people. It's there in black and tan.
Have we forgotten anything?
This next analogy is not original, but it bears repeating. Imagine a democracy where a pack of wolves and a single sheep discuss what is for dinner. While we may not be meek like sheep, those outside Atlantis are like the wolves. No,, they are worse. Wolves at least only kill what they plan on eating.
I have this discussion every few months with somebody that wants a new law to ban something or make something illegal. They often say that it is the government that grants the ability for people to do things so that the government should have the right to restrict things as well. I have to inform them that it is only the people (and the states, in some cases) that have rights, not the federal government. And we actually created the constitution to ensure that we retain our rights and only give very specific authority to the government to very limited things, but that this has been warped over the decades. This often comes as a surprise and shock to them, and most don't really believe me, until I pull out my pocket Constitution and read to them from it. Then they start to awaken.
"In 1883, reporter John Dickinson Sherman questioned him about why he ran the limited express train: "Do your limited express trains pay or do you run them for the accommodation of the public?" Vanderbilt responded with: "Accommodation of the public? The public be damned! We run them because we have to. They do not pay. We have tried again and again to get the different roads to give them up; but they will run them and, of course, as long as they run them we must do the same." The interview was then published in the Chicago Daily News, but Vanderbilt's words were modified. Several accounts of the incident were then disseminated; The accounts vary in terms of who conducted the interview, under what circumstance and what was actually said. William received bad publicity and clarified his response with a subsequent interview by the Chicago Times. In that interview he was quoted saying: "Railroads are not run for the public benefit, but to pay. Incidentally, we may benefit humanity, but the aim is to earn a dividend." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hen...) But an isolated instance is not enough to reverse a cultural trend.
Following Rand, many Objecitivists claim to admire Ancient Greece, especially the Athenian Golden Age 480-400. But in fact, Athens itself was no friend of philosophy until after the death of Socrates, though it nurtured philosophy and art by attracting "metics", Greeks from other towns.Unable to speak in the Assembly, they wrote books and lectured in gardens. However, that launched a 500-year culture of open inquiry, learning, and exploration, both physical and intellectual. It was at Alexandria in Egypt that the word "cosmopolitan" was coined. No one was persecuted for questioning the existence of the gods, or asserting their own self-interest. Read about Aristippos of Cyrene.
But it was not perfectly explicit or consistent. Merchants were still looked down upon. Slavery was accepted as an institution. Not the Cyreniacs, Hedonists, Epicureans, Peripatetics, Platonists, Stoics, or anyone else developed a consistent and complete philosophy of reason. But it lasted 500 years anyway.
Rand's thesis was that once clearly articulated and demonstrated, the truths of Objectiivsm will endure like any other science.
Most of what you post here I agree with. However it should be noted that Aristotle felt it necessary to leave "lest Athens sin twice against philosophy."
I also like this one - "We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson
Even in the revolutionary war, there was only about 40-45% popular support and no more than 3% of the population in active combat. The majority certainly did reap the benefits of the 'illegal' actions of the minority. History shows that this is how real changes come about in governments. The majority of today’s population are too ignorant of their rights, and are too irresponsible to do what is right.
The most important thing you wrote, Spark, is the first part about the right to secede. The only state that retained that right to secede when it came into the US was Texas. When the South did secede in 1861, we had the War Between the States. I refuse to call it the Civil War even though I vehemently disagree with slavery, racism, etc. for all the reasons Ayn Rand would have. I do sometimes call that war the "War of Northern Aggression", however. Any state that wants to secede now will no longer be able to do so. I do agree with Mark Levin and j_IR1776wg about the Liberty Amendments and the Article V convention, but the moochers and looters will not let us walk away from their debt without taking us to war. I better get back to 3D printing some of my defensive countermeasures. I am sure the NSA will be reading this one.
It is unfortunate that of all the countries which abolished slavery in that time period, the US was the only one who used it as a pretext for war. Slavery could have easily been abolished without destroying liberty and property rights along with it (the Confederate Constitution actually made importation of slaves illegal).
Congress definitely has a spending problem, not an income problem. Promises for unfunded liabilities can be un-promised. The fed certainly has a long history of breaking its promises when in its own best interest. Once spending is properly managed, one approach to debt repayment could be to continue to debase the currency, putting the newly ‘minted’ money into the debt rather than the banks and Wall Street. That way the debt would be borne evenly by all currency holders, citizens and non-citizens alike.
Washington said that this great experiment would only work if the people are educated. This is still a representative democracy, and unfortunately, the representatives we have are what the people want (or think they want).
I got properly criticized (although not much) when I recommended Tax Man as a song Ayn Rand might have liked. I heard it on the radio this AM. The last line is "And you're working for no one but me. (i.e. the tax man)." I started that post on the day that I rendered to Caesar what is Caesar's (i.e. paid my taxes). I refuse to accept guilt, debt, etc. that was not MINE. If I do something stupid that I should feel guilty about, then I'm OK with feeling guilty for a brief time. However, I refuse to accept what I like to call false guilt - the kind that Ayn Rand wrote most of AS about.
Totally agree about "Tax Man." I'm guessing that they must have just paid their taxes when they wrote that.
It probably would be a good thing to have a resident at the age of majority sign a contract, probably as a pre-req to gaining the ability to vote, that would obligate one.
I will gladly agree that Rand would prefer music other than rock-and-roll, but the lyrics of Tax Man would have suited her well.
Setting aside the legal issues, it's hard to imagine a violent overthrow of the gov't resulting in more liberty. If there are enough liberty-minded people to overthrow the gov't, couldn't they bring about change peacefully and legally?
Nice Beatles pun, CircuitGuy, given my Tax Man rant. Well.. you know. We all want to change the world. No, I don't want a violent overthrow of the US government. Just like the colonists came to America to flee persecution, it is time to do so again. Going back to Lana's point on a different thread, I think that it is possible to flee such persecution and start over again.
What would the Gulch look like in terms of the six issues I mention in this post: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/69...
What would be different in an ideal society vs. ours? I agree with the oath, but does taking it solve the problems? Or do we just have a bunch of AS fans dealing with the same issues.
By itself, the oath doesn't solve the problems, but it prevents the vast majority of them. The oath is a wide spectrum antiviral, antibacterial vaccine.
Contrarywise, the progressive/collectivist only seeks to impose their will on others, and thus seeks positions of power, particularly elected office.
Thus, we have a situation where the enslavers actively seek power, and the freedom lovers actively rejecting power. Eventually, the enslavers will hold enough power that the freedom lovers will lose what they cherish.
I have already shugged and have prepared a real life place for others to do the same.
Am I a hero?
That is not for me to say.
But it is my great desire to make it possible for others to save themselves by joining me.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/ShruginA...
Now I have a place for (at least a few) others to do the same.
And, hopefully, survive the chaos of the collapse.
How long will John Galt's Gulch last?" The question is "How long will the world of the looters and moochers last?" Or how do we accelerate the end of the era of the
looters and moochers? If the answer to those questions is longer than our lifetimes, then what do Gulch citizens have to look forward to?
It is no wonder that so many people in AS committed suicide. I am actually surprised that more people in the land of moochers and looters have NOT committed suicide.
Hey jbrenner it is more about fighting for the truth. Do you think Ayn Rand would have quit fighting for her ideas merely because she had reached the end of her life without Galt's Gulch becoming a reality?
Maybe. But so many of us have planted seeds knowing full well that we wouldn't live long enough to enjoy the fruit and did not despair in doing so.
Pardon me for interjecting here, but I would suggest that just because one may not live to see their wishes fulfilled does not mean that they may not acquire satisfaction from putting into motion actions which may benefit posterity. This can be reward in itself.
Respectfully,
O.A.
You state that Moses wrote the 8th commandment, I beg to differ, it was God that wrote the 10 commandments. We could argue forever whether man is innately good or evil. My experience has convinced me that there are some human beings that are in fact innately evil.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
What do you think is going to be happening when they emerge from Galts Gulch? The world will be filled with Mao's and Putin's and Kim Jung Il's. There will be a war like no other in history, because all those dictators will not let go of control easily. Those of us who believe in freedom will have to put up the fight of our lives, and many, many will die on all sides.
But that's in a future book, a story ("Atlas Returns"?), an allegory. In reality things are much grayer, the enemy is diffuse and hard to identify. it's like fighting a wet bag. but the fight will require as much dedication as a full blown physical war, but it will be a war of ideas, of politics, and still yet may require our lives.
In some ways Ayn Rand by writing Atlas Shrugged changed the world so to guarantee that her story actually will never happen. Or maybe there are just more of us that are capable of carrying a but if the world on our shoulder, who are now aware of what the fight is, that we're changing the world in our own individual little towns and neighborhoods and workplaces. And yet it's not enough. The support that the current president enjoys for some of his looting ideas is evidence of that.
I have my own image of it--no doubt most do. Perhaps that was Rand's intention. But I do wonder how she imagined it.