10

So What To Do?

Posted by $ sjatkins 10 years, 4 months ago to Politics
61 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Most objectivists I have known say we have a long slog of educating people ahead of us and that we can't expect much to improve until this is accomplished. But Ayn Rand herself experienced that most people are very strongly resistant to this kind of education. They belittle and deny it from the beginning tossing out ad hominem and other logical fallacies with abandon.

We also experience a Government that is far far away from what objectivist minarchist legitimate government would be. On the order of 99% of all the regulatory and enforcement agencies writing and enforcing the rules on all of us are not elected or even very directly subject to control by anyone who is. So it is very unlikely that even an objectivist educated reasonably large chunk of the population could change much by voting or even running for political office.

So what is left? Violent revolution? We have said for so long that it isn't "time to shoot the bastards" that it looks to me like we lost the means and most importantly the will for such measures long ago. And we likely missed the window where that would have made much difference as well. However, in the face of a lawless and evil government resistance and even violent resistance seems quite rational.

So what else? Shrugging and just surviving in what happiness can be found with a few like minded people but with much our productive capacity not on offer and not making the world over as wondrously as it could? Being sort of hunkered down and staying smaller than we really are in protest?

Or perhaps swallowing our ideals and anger and just soldiering own thinking that if only that next invention gets done and out there and integrated that perhaps all these persons, ideologies and forces in the way will not ultimately matter?

Or perhaps it is time to build a real Gulch. A country of our own based on sound ethics and politics growing out of those ethics. I am reading with interest about artificial island creation, some as big as Manhattan. An objectivist city-state or eventual chain of them in international waters may be the only way to a fully alive and rational world that we have left.

Thoughts?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 10 years, 4 months ago
    I like your island idea. I think the disease is to far advanced for the patient to be saved.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 4 months ago
      The island nation idea is described at
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Utopia
      However, its founder never raised the necessary
      capital and then died in 2012.

      The great thing about the New Utopia idea is that
      it is about 100 miles from the nearest land
      (roughly equidistant from the Cayman Islands and
      Honduras) with a
      sizable reef only about 20 meters down on which to build.

      It is a reasonable concept if we can put together
      a critical mass of people from within the Gulch
      and have a Midas Mulligan to help get things started.
      Perhaps we could ask John Allison, the former ARI
      board member and BB&T CEO and now Cato Institute CEO.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 10 years, 4 months ago
        Yes. All it would take is one or two tech billionaires to get committed to it. Which is not that impossible. Look what they are doing in private space ventures for instance.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 4 months ago
      Rocky, you are absolutely correct. the disintegration of the nation is visible on a daily basis. And there is no place to go because once the nation dies the rest of the world will follow. the difference is that most of the rest of the world will not have changed. they still live in year one.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 10 years, 4 months ago
        Another theoretical possibility is to effectively buy control of some small poor country and build up from there. It depends on the country and how copacetic the natives are or are not. Or perhaps you could buy one of the harsher and relatively unused major chunks of an existing country. It would take more advanced tech to make a go of it there but likely lower cost than building your land itself up from scratch. Any yes you wouldn't have an empty buffer area around you. One thing I like about that buffer besides natural protection zone is sea based space launch possibilities. Not to mention of course room to grow.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 4 months ago
    I am waaay too old for any Objectivist organizing but organizing there needs to be. Learn from the enemy. Create small enclaves, put them together to form larger groups, make it a national movement. Perhaps eventually international. You'll need determined leadership. Aim at recruiting members of other groups such as the Tea Party, where some of the more rational members want more than what is being offered. Just about every movement started this way. I'm not putting down the island idea, but why build a coupe when there's a party limo waiting to be renovated? Even then, wouldn't a million people on an island be better than a few thousand? You've got one terrific communication vehicle in the Gulch, but no one impresses me as being really serious. By that I mean, full-on dedication. It wouldn't be self-sacrifice, but a joyous creation of a dream that started centuries ago and is running out of steam. It needs a breath of new life and we have the blueprint for the respirator.
    Or am I just an old geezer fantasizing about an old dream?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 4 months ago
      This reminds me of Rand Paul's 'free enterprise zones'. I think that this may be a viable approach (as is the New Hampshire Libertarian movement). If we can make small enclaves that 'tilt' a bit more towards free enterprise, perhaps we can show profit by example and slowly acquire a larger following of folks who are not interested in politics but who want to feed their families and put their kids through college.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsudell 10 years, 4 months ago
    We need to divide the country. Let those who want Communism take the east half, and those who want the Constitution & Capitalism take the west half. If we don't do something soon, we'll all go down. Let's get a nice, friendly divorce.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BradA 10 years, 4 months ago
    Unfortunately I think the United States has passed the point of no return. During our last election cycle we were presented with no clearer choice between the producers and the moochers. And yet the moochers prevailed. We now live in a society where the majority feels a moral right to take what they want/need from the minority without compensation. It's a slippery slope from which I cannot see a recovery. But unfortunately we do not live in Galt's world. Our decline will be more gradual, playing out over multiple generations. There might be small victories, as I anticipate in the upcoming elections. But make no mistake, the scales have tipped and the decline has begun.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 4 months ago
    While I not opposed to the island idea, I too am not ready to leave here. I will point out that there is a town in South Dakota - with the unfortunate name of Swett - that's for sale? Only $400,000!

    That being said, have you ever been to a Libertarian Party platform meeting? and lived to tell the tale? Lordy-lord, it's heaven and hell all rolled into one magnificent, never-ending package. To put it lightly.

    Any organizational meetings of a Free Island would put those meetings to shame, unless it was one guy who invited everyone to come live with him and follow his rules. For example, I read rr's post and immediately think "strong leadership? I don't need to be led anywhere! Hire a good city manager, let him hire a staff, and be done with it." [thanks for giving me the example, rr]

    That is, how do you organize it and run it? I have a very difficult time supporting a move [movement?] when I don't know what we're going to get when we get there.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 4 months ago
      Now there is a good question indeed. I have seen a lot of people say they want no leaders but they also never gell to do any particular thing as a group either. Someone finally gets fed up and just does something, anything and people either like it or they don't.
      I liked the motto in the Gulch. Those that abide by it and all it implies are welcome. Those that don't are not. Just being a relative of someone that holds to it or even married to them is not enough. Without strong ideological basis developing justified laws and practices is not possible.

      In cynical experience very few people have the courage to lead. Especially when most would rather throw brickbats than learn what it takes to do so.

      Very few hard rules. The chief among the is no initiation of force. Enforcers of laws may use force to bring to justice those that break this basic rule in any of its forms. But that is about it. Laws are come up with by those that seem to be good and teasing out implications of the basic rule. If people think they went overboard they will neither enforce them or convict someone of them in a jury trial.

      I think DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations) and signing up for adjudication by one as part of most contracts are a pretty good idea.

      Outside of not breaking the prime rule and its supported derivatives you are free to do whatever you like. That is the short form.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 4 months ago
        I'm a little confused here. You say "very few hard rules", and then you start talking about laws. Sounds contradictory, but we know what to do about that. Which is false?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by IndianaGary 10 years, 4 months ago
          Don't forget that Ayn Rand supported a minimalist government that enforced objective law. Such law is designed exclusively for the purpose of protecting individuals and their property. In such a society, there is a place for police, judges, and a military. What we have now so taints the proper concept of government that many people shy away from having any government at all.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 10 years, 4 months ago
          I described a loose minimum much more briefly than a fuller exposition. This is not a complete anarchy allowing people to initiate force against others. Who would want to live there?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 4 months ago
      Or that the weakest link is the country you 're nearest to claims soverienty. See San Fran over Floating Google "city "
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 10 years, 4 months ago
        The relevant law says (simplifying to essential) that you cannot be independent from the laws of an existing nation unless you are about 200 miles out and the body you are sitting on is fixed in position.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 4 months ago
          Moreover, with regard to the area in the Caribbean I mentioned, I am not particularly worried about the Honduran or Cayman Island governments coming after me. Compared to most, they are among the least powerful and most laissez faire anyway. Honduras had a president who wanted to become a dictator, and their legislature successfully impeached (and exiled) him.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 4 months ago
          That law technically only applies to economics, but your point is taken. Other legal aspects apply to only 10-12 miles, as I remember. I did learn this a month or two ago.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 4 months ago
      Your welcome WW. I think what I was thinking is that never before in our history have we had such a group of buffoons at the highest level of government. The right President with the right ideas could still make a difference.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 4 months ago
    I'm not sure if it is sentimental or stupidity but I am not ready to give up on America. Educating the masses is out of the question. We need strong leadership at the top and that is possible. Elect the right people and let them know we are watching.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 4 months ago
      The US Constitution had a fundamental flaw when it was written and, at this point, I don't think that there is a chance in hell that it would be voluntarily corrected by the people in power. The people writing the Constitution, an incredibly well thought out and progressive (in a positive sense) document, assumed that only Gentlemen will be at the helm and, therefore, gentlemanly language was used. The Constitution is very specific as to what the government and the people with the power of the government behind them can and cannot do. It limited the powers of the State, for the first time in history. But the Constitution never mentions what punishment is to be levied upon those that simply fail to abide by it, except for the impeachment of the president. Thus, successive presidents and members of Congress pushed the envelope and usurped more and more power with impunity, based on insolence and precedent. Today, clearly treasonous acts like the Fast and Furious or releasing terrorists are viewed as nothing more than a news blip for a few days. There are no more Gentlemen in the government and they are not coming back, nor will the criminals that replaced them will ever sign up for their own punishment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 4 months ago
        I disagree only slightly. The Constitution was written for a people that supported and cherished honor. When the majority of the people (who vote) choose dishonor and graft, the representative government soon devolves into tyranny, and the Founders recognized the possibility from the outset. While they hoped that the Constitution would provide principles upon which to build a successful nation, as soon as those elected to power attempt to narrowly tailor those principles so as to apply in certain cases and not apply in others, you have the beginning of the end.

        In today's government, the vast majority of our elected officials see their position as a means to their own ends and have manipulated and twisted the system into exactly that. All one has to do is look at the lobbying firms infesting DC to see that our government has ceased being "of the people, for the people" except in facade only. I fear that the only way to get things back to what they should be is a collapse and rebuilding of society - a Constitution 2.0 if you will. Living through those days will not be fun.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by katrinam41 10 years, 4 months ago
          blarman, I agree that one way to save this whole thing is to let if go and then rebuild. If we can populate a Galt's Gulch here in the USA, even a small one of several towns clustered together out in the boonies somewhere, we would have at least a tiny nucleus to build on and like minds to keep us on a rational course. I often read the Constitution, trying to see exactly where those changes noted at the end of A.S. would have to be made, and so far my biggest concern is the amendments added year after year, ever narrowing the definition of who has the right to do what. Each "granting of rights" to another named group has weakened this document to the point where you have to be named in an amendment to be protected by the courts. I would remove many of the newest amendments and add just two--the protection of the free market and term limits for all elected officials. Of course, there are many more changes to be made in other areas, like the tottering weight of useless, contradictory laws--local, state and federal--but that would take much more time and space than I want to use right this second... :D
          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 Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago
        By "gentlemanly" I believe you mean honest, trustworthy, having integrity and fidelity to the underlying intent and purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. But when you have those in power that exhibit none of those traits, you end up with what we have now.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 4 months ago
          Yes, of course. The term is used as you described it, with no gender connotation. But if such a person were to even attempt to run for an office today, chances are that he’ll never get through the narrowly focused special interests that control the primaries, let alone survive in the shark infested waters beyond.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Solver 10 years, 4 months ago
      Unfortunately electing the best politicians is becoming more and more about picking those that have the best plans of earned wealth redistribution. In the race to the bottom, the most loot gets handed out to those who have learned how to best mooch political favors or those who appear the best of the needy
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by conscious1978 10 years, 4 months ago
      I agree, Rich. Besides, I'm not confident that any island "Gulch" would survive the 'envious' actions of the nearest looter nation (as alluded to by others). They would find a way to suck the life from an upstart little 'nation'. Either by harassing its 'citizens' via their connections with other countries, or by direct 'annexation', they could not let a group like that exist. The cost of the precedent would be too great to let it thrive.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 4 months ago
        isn't that why Rand had the barrier above the valley --
        to prevent others from knowing what was down there?
        we would have to disguise the island as a wasteland
        to prevent knowledge of the actual facts.

        of course, this is an immense challenge, these days.
        another chance for innovation -- and let's leave out
        the idea of permanent clouds, ok? maybe if we
        could pretend that it was a leper colony? some
        smart gulcher will have ideas here -- things go in
        and nothing leaves?

        but we might want to travel. well, there are those of
        us who could pose a strong defense. -- j

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by conscious1978 10 years, 4 months ago
          Sure; the barrier was a brilliant literary construct in AS, and they _needed_ to remain hidden until the demise of their looter government when they could rebuild on different principles.

          In today's visual information age, that kind of secrecy is near impossible for a large group of people with extended families. Organization and planning would have to shift to a secure form of communication. There are also numerous other major hurdles in logistics that would be very hard to keep secure with today's monitoring technology.

          Tying together the scattered enclaves of rational thought via The Gulch and other media may be our best hope for this land. We may wind up concentrating geographically, as we are able, and reinforce our local culture. In doing so, we also strengthen the resolve of our philosophy. Meanwhile, we are here.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 4 months ago
            yes, the longer I think about it, the better swett SD
            sounds! I still wish that a really rich person would
            buy an island and let me stand guard from midnight
            to 6am every other day. stargeezer and I could
            swap out. pretty good lookin' place;; they have a pool
            hall and a high school of some note!!! -- j

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 4 months ago
      Well, that 99% of the government mass survives elected officials. It is creature of its own that cares only about continuing and becoming more powerful. For a president to have the power to dismantle it would be to put much too dangerous an amount of power in the hands of one person. The office of President is however going in that direction with Executive Orders, direction of various agencies to go after those the President dislikes, ability of the President to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" and suspend due process and so on. So the sword big enough to cut this Knot cuts both ways.

      What are the chances of such a one reaching that office? Slim to none. An Objectivist Party might be possible to create except that many an objectivist seems as bent on pulling the splinter out of each other's eyes with great shows of exercising judgment and much rationalization than pulling the beam out of the eye of our country. I would hesitate to try to do it through the Libertarian Party. And in any case 3rd parties in this country are rather systematically kept small and impotent. It is hard to picture either of the major parties going far enough in the right direction. Although I would be delighted if a Rand Paul, even with his flaws, was nominated.

      When nearly 50% of the people get their livelihood from the government in one way or another how many do you think will vote on principle to greatly dismantle that same government and recast it in proper terms and proportion?

      Is it America? In basic spirit and understanding of its people, is it America? Do the majority of those in their 40s and younger understand and hold as true and important what those of us that are older were taught in high school civics? In what is held most important and sacred is it still America? Or is it something increasingly alien that now inhabits the same land area? Bottom line, is it at all acceptable for rational honest people and if not what to do about it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 4 months ago
    Islands are awfully small and artificial islands are even smaller. With that limit, they still go to sea without a resource base or manufacturing base, or readily usable power base. They are essentially, huge cruise ships. Ships at sea require a Captain and a hierarchal power structure in order to operate and stay safe, not suitable to representative type of government or elections. I don't see that as a realistic goal for Objectivist.

    Remember that even the Enlightenment took centuries to develop to a point that a country could be founded on such ideas. It's true that we face a multi-lifetime struggle, but our place in that struggle is possibly the most important - to continue our efforts to demonstrate the gains of such a philosophy and to spread the word, in real world terms and real world application.

    Many imagine that at the founding, we were actually closer to an Objectivist country - but they forget that the vast majority of the population weren't thinkers, they were doers and achievers willing to let others run their government and make the policy decisions that incrementally led us to where we're at today. Until more of the population is educated to the gains possible in individualism and the works of the rational mind, we're only puffing into the wind.

    But there are small efforts that are in work - see the Free State Project.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 4 months ago
    A couple of years ago I proposed an idea, the New Atlantis, where individuals that want to create a new world could do a virtual design of it. With current and emerging technologies, the creation of a nation outside of the physical and political bounds and controls of current tyrannies is a possibility. Seasteading projects are showing us the technical feasibility, but they all remain attached to some country politically and they do not seem to grasp (or publically admit) that they need political and economic independence and a physical defense system to make them truly viable. To create the new world, the philosophical foundation and the technical design must first be laid down. Not unlike a constitutional convention, but with a technical side as well.
    I proposed a virtual collaborative effort where people of various skills would discuss the details, each area being compartmentalized, just like the Gulch website. Political structure, law, the mechanics of life support, etc., would be discussed by experts in those fields and codified as the constitution and the technical blueprints of the eventual new nation. In order to avoid any Ponzi schemes, there are monetary payments, collections or bonds involved in this project. Instead, based on the individual contribution to the project, electronic ownership certificates can be issued, redeemable for ownership in the new nation when and if it materializes, as the blueprints will be the intellectual property of the people participating in the project. Thus, one can become rich only if we make it work and then we all gain. Even if such nation does not materialize in our lifetime, I still think that the mental exercise is to our benefit. Anyone interested?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 4 months ago
    I love the idea but question how it could happen. If it were a town in America and it proved to be successful which I fully expect it would be, people would flock to it and then try to force change on it very similar to what happens now. And there are so many state & federal mandates that already force cities to do things they may not agree with that it would be a major battle to keep the established principals. But I am all ears.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by desimarie23 10 years, 4 months ago
      I agree, it's a beautiful thought, but I believe 'we' would need to wait for the fall of the government to really build a community as we would want it. It has to be on our terms, not theirs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 10 years, 4 months ago
        Why. Get the hell out is always an option. I don't want to be here when this economy and/or government falls. Very very low possibility of survival much less of a society that in rational coming out of that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 10 years, 4 months ago
    Every single person I talk to says if we had a nation that is solely based on the Constitution and nothing else (aka limited government), they'd move there in a heartbeat.

    I think the logistics of making it happen are the problem, not the people to go there.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by m1tmc 10 years, 4 months ago
    Such an island or enclave would require defending, so why not band together and make a stand when the time comes. These guys aren't going down alone and will likely not let anyone escape in obvious defiance of their idiocy, but if escape appears possible, best get it done. I'm staying and prepping to re-establish liberty with like-minded folks when it all crashes. Either way, it will take time, and getting ready for anything has become a hobby.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by H6163741 10 years, 4 months ago
    My thoughts exactly. Creating a new country seems incredibly daunting, but I agree that the US may be too far gone at this point to save. I have also considered the possibility that Texas may eventually secede from the union. If so, my family and I will be there before they close the borders!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by conscious1978 10 years, 4 months ago
      I would not be surprised if there is an actual secession plan in the halls of Texas state government, and as a Texan, I've had the same thoughts many times.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 4 months ago
        Some states also have mandatory secession clauses written into their State Constitutions. Montana, for example automatically secedes if the Federal Government denies an individual right to bear firearms as per the Second Amendment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnmahler 10 years, 4 months ago
    I think a seastead would be a perfect colony on the open sea beyond the nutty landlubbers and their oil wars and dictatorial central governments. I also have great and workable harvesting technology for harvesting the mineral wealth on the ocean floors as well as geothermal technology which could allow a Holland type colony to survive and thrive. Please see "Thrive the Movie". http://www.thrivemovement.com/
    Foster & Kimberly probably don't realize it, but they are really Gulchers in their hearts.
    John Mahler
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 4 months ago
    That the word "minarchist " is nonsensical and would never be used by an Objectivist
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by harriswr50 10 years, 4 months ago
      I agree with rockymountainpirate that our society seems to be too far gone to trade in handouts for reason. I also can not see the numbers needed to violently overthrow any government, so what is left. My belief is that we must do all we can to bring Objectivism to the most people in hope that it will temper the illogical reality that is in place today and someday move the tipping point back to reason and rationality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 4 months ago
      The word is accurately descriptive when talking to people, especially when not all of the are objectivist. And this is nit-picking crap having nothing to do with the main point.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo