- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Elect that Cortez lady- she would make such stupid decisions that things would blow up in her face and take some of her ideology with it. An idea anyway. Nothing else seems to stem the tide of the socialist political fire.
At least until hunger, cold, and danger cant be ignored any longer. At that point, even in AS, people started to listen. Before a crash, I am thinking its pretty hopeless.
Venezuela tells us tht a crash has to be a really serious crash before it wakes people up, however. I wonder how its going to work out here
Venezuela did not wake people up. At most it is seen as one way collectivism does not work to achieve a collectivist ideal.
Venezuelan collapse isn’t waking people up. That said, I think it makes people more receptive to new ideas
The Venezuelan collapse has made the people there frightened, not receptive to fundamentally new ideas in politics, let alone ethics and reason as the human means of survival. They seek a "middle way" still trying to make collectivism work without giving up their faith and altruism.
People in Venezuela have been suffering and dying for years. Socialism has a record of this for a century. Capitalism has demonstrated its superiority for two centuries. Further "degenerating" of socialism will add nothing new. It will not provide them with values opposite to what they believe and ideas they do not understand.
America was formed by a group of very adventurous people who wanted more freedom than the king of england was willing to grant, and they came to a far away place too far from the motherland to be subjugated. It was a unique set of circumstances, and enough of them were successful in creating a country out of wilderness (and not really by granting the local indians THEIR rights...)
America was very intellectually divided even then, and talked about human rights, but didnt consistently uphold them. The leaders had slaves, and when the south wanted OUT, they were destroyed by the 'freedom loving" north.
If we gulchers tried to do this today, based on reason and intellectual consistency, it couldnt happen UNTIL the powers that be were rendered powerless by their own economic and military collapse. Otherwise, our little "country" would be squashed in short order by the establishment forces.
If this logic is correct, the only way we are going to get anywhere is to follow the path of AS, and help destroy the current country in hopes that people can eventually see the folly of collectivism, or at least not be able to stop the rise of individualism. Writing books like AS really did very little, while the people are getting goodies from the government. Make those goodies stop, and those people might still want collectivism, but when its not feeding them they might start thinking a bit.
Even at that, however, my point still stands: people keep continuing to try things we know will not work. Why? Because they rebel against sound principles. It is the universal challenge of every individual who lives, which is why the same problems keep coming back up despite historical failure. So at best a collapse and rebuild is a temporary fix. Ultimately, only education about proper principles from generation to generation can produce a long-lasting solution.
We fight on the basis of reason; but they decide on the basis of emotion, and the two paths dont cross. Giving up socialism means a distinctly dire emotional result is a sure thing for them.
I would agree in principle that education is required as an ultimate solution, but we seem to be losing that battle. We argue on the basis of reason, and they ignore that and go by emotion.
Doesnt that mean that we have to change our tactics a bit and appeal on a more emotional basis to get their attention? The emotions caused by lack of food, unsafe neighborhoods, and general economic collapse perhaps are more powerful than arguments based on reason, as they were in AS.
If we ever want to change the direction of the world, I think AR had it pretty much right in that collapse is needed as a precursor. John Galt said "I am going to STOP the motor of the world..." as I remember. He didnt say he was going to not keep it running any more.
Ayn Rand advocated the spread of better ideas of reason and egoism, not letting society collapse and then expecting and automatic acceptance of individualism.
I get the impression that the leftist emotions are just borne out of a desire to somehow be taken care of by some universal mother. I think these emotions come from birth as a baby, and the leftists never get past those emotions. They dont think about getting past them. Babies are taken care of by momma and they get used to it. Its only the facts of reality that come into play at some point and the baby is forced to accept the way things are and to start thinking.
We are not born with emotions for collectivism. Emotions are automatic reactions to one's own values. There are no innate ideas.
Ayn Rand emphatically advocated the spread of better ideas of reason and egoism, not letting society collapse and then expecting and automatic acceptance of individualism with no understanding. There are no shortcuts.
I think babies are born with survival emotions before they actually think about things in a conceptual level
Societal collapse doesn’t guarantee acceptance of individualism, but I do think collapse of collectivist society makes the people more receptive to individualism. That is my point
The speech in the plot was addressed to anyone who was willing to listen and who had an idea of what was wrong but couldn't put it together themselves. Its role in the plot shared the fictional speeding up of events.
It was never intended to urge bringing down society so that people would embrace an individualistic society without understanding the required ideas, and did not claim that those ideas can in reality be understood, accepted, and spread in a very brief period.
People who believe in collective dependence do not become receptive to self reliance by a collapse; they only become more frightened and seek another collectivist attempt.
A young baby's instinctual emotions for self interest in the form of immediate gratification are not conceptual and are not a concept of either how to survive in self reliance or collectivist entitlement. They have natural inquisitiveness and seek to understand; they do not just lie there becoming accustomed to being taken care of until forced to think for survival. They want to think. Leftists do not seek self survival, they want power and nihilist egalitarianism, as illustrated by the villains in Atlas Shrugged.
Trying to appeal to the emotions of those accepting altruistic premises is hopeless and not a shortcut bypassing reasoned understanding and explanation.
And I would agree that there is no widespread intellectual basis for individualism in that culture today.
The events in Venezuela so far have followed the path of the story in AS though
Would you not agree that the people of Venezuela would be MOrRE receptive to the ideas espoused by Galt when their system is collapsing than when their system was basking in socialist plenty?
I am wondering that the decision to lead Ives life as an individualist or collectivist is made as a very young person and is less likely to be changed later in unless faced with irrefutable and unforgiving reality.
So here we are today with half the people not really understanding the moral underpinnings if capitalism., but kind of going along with a combination of capitalism and fascism, and the other half not even knowing really what socialism is, but going along with it While it feeds off the wealth created by the remaining productive people
“Stopping the motor of the world” seems to be required today to get people at least more receptive to change than when they are basking in the light of s socialist nirvana living off the wealth of others. Venezuela is close to that point today. It needs a galt to start educating the people as maduro’s regime collapses further. That’s my real point
Whether AR WAS INTENTIKNALLY SUGGESTING or not thst the society must collapse, I think that the plot of AS is actually pretty close to how things would go. But I agree the timing in real life would be a lot slower
Venezuelans have been suffering and dying for years, not "basking in the light of socialist nirvana living off the wealth of others". They are not receptive to ideas opposite to what they believe and which they do not understand.
A single "Galt" to "start educating" Venezuelans claimed to be receptive to ideas and values the opposite of what they cling to is fiction.
There are no short cuts. Seeking to bring down societies in order to get frightened, desperate people to reform their life long thinking is fiction, and not what Atlas Shrugged portrayed.
Seeking to crash everything in an emotional outburst is not rational. There are no shortcuts. Spreading the proper ideas of reason, ethics and political organization requires educated people with philosophic understanding, and time and effort to reform an entire culture over generations, not frightened people suddenly scrapping for their next meal with no time for education and contemplation. Crashing civilization with the expectation that "libertarian" politics will suddenly save everyone is a destructive, hopeless non-solution. This has been discussed on this forum and elsewhere many times.
This is a long term intellectual process. There are no shortcuts.
Religion is bad because it is dogma, not based on facts or reason. Each religion holds as dogma different principles, some of the ones the religions have selected as "truths" arent that far from reality. Most are not however.
I would disagree that "most of the oppositon" has been from conservatives, however. The liberals, at least today, are the worst offenders by far
I'm currently on my 3rd fire assignment, this year, and have seen my share of these backfires. So far...none of them has gone the wrong way.
Break first? With Cali who knows?!?
That sounds like a strong possibility I wish the video was a little more expansive.
Don't know about the purpose.
1 month ago I submitted this https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
As it slid across your windowpane
Or struggled with a bit of rain
Or danced about the weather vane
Or sat along a moving train
And wondered where the train has been
Or on a fence with bits of crap
Around its bottom
Blown there by a wind beam
Who searches for the moonbeam
Who was last seen
Looking at the tracks
Of the careless wind beam
Or moving to the clacks
Of the tireless freight train
And lighting up the sides
Of the weather vane
And the bits of rain
And the windowpane
And the eyes of those
Who think they saw what happened...
Have you ever watched a moonbeam
https://youtu.be/btyelrNYCtU
https://genius.com/Stephen-sondheim-s...
Correct that is about clowns and moonbeam.
BTW I think it is to burn the trees.
Arsonists even like droughts here in Sweet Home Alabama.
There's always that first time, though.
But politicians are capable of ANYTHING., especially one like Moonbeam.
He has been a looter for government "help" from the beginning, to the extent of billions of dollars. Take the high speed train, his costly obsession that everyone is against but him. He is counting on the government to foot most of the bill.