Going Galt

[moralist]

Boy, are you naive about government, but not in the way most people are.

I know that I'm personally responsible for how the government treats me by how I live. And because the personal experience of how this moral principle operates isn't transferable to others, I couldn't expect you or anyone else to understand how free I am.

This is why I'd never try to dissuade you from your own belief that you are not personally responsible for how the government treats you by how you live... so instead I simply state my own view and describe how it differs from yours. It's totally up to the objective reality of getting the consequences you deserve from your own view to convince you.

Certainly not me... because getting the consequences I deserve from my own view can only convince me.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Boy, are you naive about government, but not in the way most people are.

I know that I'm personally responsible for how the government treats me by how I live. And because the personal experience of how this moral principle operates isn't transferable to others, I couldn't expect you or anyone else to understand how free I am.

This is why I'd never try to dissuade you from your own belief that you are not personally responsible for how the government treats you by how you live... so instead I simply state my own view and describe how it differs from yours. It's totally up to the objective reality of getting the consequences you deserve from your own view to convince you.

Certainly not me... because getting the consequences I deserve from my own view can only convince me.

Greg

But you don't know my "own belief." You've only inferred it. Did you once grant me or anyone else here the courtesy of asking and going from there? Nope. That would be grace. You just drop a load of shit on whom you are engaged with and talk about how shitty they are compared to you. The only worse kind of ad hominem is, ". . . and your mother deserved you." I think I said it before but I'll say it again, you represent (organic) moral narcissism.

--Brant

with Ayn Rand it was just added on in a triumph of philosophy over psychology using will power and self delusion

you're best just talking about yourself

[moralist]

Boy, are you naive about government, but not in the way most people are.

I know that I'm personally responsible for how the government treats me by how I live. And because the personal experience of how this moral principle operates isn't transferable to others, I couldn't expect you or anyone else to understand how free I am.

This is why I'd never try to dissuade you from your own belief that you are not personally responsible for how the government treats you by how you live... so instead I simply state my own view and describe how it differs from yours. It's totally up to the objective reality of getting the consequences you deserve from your own view to convince you.

Certainly not me... because getting the consequences I deserve from my own view can only convince me.

Greg

But you don't know my "own belief."

Sure I do, Brant. You had just stated your own belief. Here it is in your own words:

BRANT: Boy, are you naive about government, but not in the way most people are.

Your view is that I don't have an accurate understanding of government because of my my view that I'm the one who is personally responsible for how it treats me. You are obviously disagreeing with my view, or you wouldn't have said what you said.

Would you like to restate your own words so as to make what your meaning more clear?

My understanding of how the government operates is quite precise, because I understand the higher moral law it answers to. It's exactly the same higher moral law I answer to, and that's how I know by my own personal experience.

It's a mistake to assume that the world is playing by different rules than you are, because it leads to the fantasy of viewing yourself as an "innocent victim of unjust government oppression". When you are the only one who holds the power that allows yourself to be oppressed.

The US government cannot oppress you unless you first grant it your sanction to become its victim... and that sanction is need.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Boy, are you naive about government, but not in the way most people are.

I know that I'm personally responsible for how the government treats me by how I live. And because the personal experience of how this moral principle operates isn't transferable to others, I couldn't expect you or anyone else to understand how free I am.

This is why I'd never try to dissuade you from your own belief that you are not personally responsible for how the government treats you by how you live... so instead I simply state my own view and describe how it differs from yours. It's totally up to the objective reality of getting the consequences you deserve from your own view to convince you.

Certainly not me... because getting the consequences I deserve from my own view can only convince me.

Greg

But you don't know my "own belief."

Sure I do, Brant. You had just stated your own belief. Here it is in your own words:

BRANT: Boy, are you naive about government, but not in the way most people are.

Your view is that I don't have an accurate understanding of government because of my my view that I'm the one who is personally responsible for how it treats me. You are obviously disagreeing with my view, or you wouldn't have said what you said.

Would you like to restate your own words so as to make what your meaning more clear?

My understanding of how the government operates is quite precise, because I understand the higher moral law it answers to. It's exactly the same higher moral law I answer to, and that's how I know by my own personal experience.

It's a mistake to assume that the world is playing by different rules than you are, because it leads to the fantasy of viewing yourself as an "innocent victim of unjust government oppression". When you are the only one who holds the power that allows yourself to be oppressed.

The US government cannot oppress you unless you first grant it your sanction to become its victim... and that sanction is need.

Greg

My belief is that your belief has two parts: one is true and the other not. That's all. In your life you can avoid it. That's freedom for you. But government is force. Properly conceived and used it mostly suppresses bad boys and would be bad boys as an adjunct to a more general cultural suppression of these actors. Even then there's some good guy suppression as the price of effective law. That it would be so slight as to be almost unnoticeable wouldn't change that. Everything costs something. Everything is a trade off. I'm happy the US government is negatively inconsequential in your life--at least until now--which raises the question, however, of state and local governments. You have managed to rationalize away any bad things from there too, going by some of your previous posts, but I attribute that to a kind of purblindness necessary to maintain the utopian world you think you have created for yourself. You have your own "Fort Freedom" with walls mighty enough to withstand assault but never mind the peasants in the fields being raped and taxed and killed by sundry statist assaults. Your gates never open for your knights to ride out to do battle. You haven't got any. Yeah, I know. The peasants should simply build their own castles. You did; they can.

Your view of me is half right, just as is your view of yourself. If you put those two half rights together, as I have done, you'll get an all right. (Thanks to your being on OL I got clarity on this and I'm now personally trying to make the all right right in my own life by tweaking it. Not easy; the matrix is strong. Ignorance is a great diversion. The leitmotif of my life is to fight ignorance, especially my own.) I know you won't do this because you're living off others' grace, such as the grace of those who made what's good about the US government by your lights to even the grace of anyone who has so far failed to make that government so bad to you as to interfere with how you function and do business. You simply don't want--I suspect--to risk getting your clothes dirty that way. I wonder how and if your attitude would change if you were a Jew living in Israel. A rocket here, a rocket there or something else in your hair. It's not California!

--Brant

note the approach of the forest, consuming the peasants' huts and soon to envelope your walls except you'll build more walls closer in as your world gets ever smaller (you need to raise an army and sally forth ["Game of War"?]--or at least find a King Arthur with his Excalibur and help him sharpen it up)

[BaalChatzaf]

I think I can summarize Moralist's view point very briefly:

"It's all your fault"

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I think I can summarize Moralist's view point very briefly:

"It's all your fault"

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's a brilliant reduction. Just brilliant.

--Brant

[moralist]

I think I can summarize Moralist's view point very briefly:

"It's all your fault"

Ba'al Chatzaf

Do you consider that statement to be a blessing or a curse, Bob? Are you saying that to someone else, or to yourself?

I think I can summarize Moralist's view point very briefly:

"It's all your fault"

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's a brilliant reduction. Just brilliant.

--Brant

Taking the pejorative spin out of it:

It's all your personal responsibility.

Greg

[moralist]

I'm happy the US government is negatively inconsequential in your life...

It's only inconsequential because I live like it is.

It's all up to me... because government is not a cause. It's only an effect.

Government exists in its current form only because people have failed to live like Americans.

at least until now --which raises the question, however, of state and local governments. You have managed to rationalize away any bad things from there too, going by some of your previous posts, but I attribute that to a kind of purblindness necessary to maintain the utopian world you think you have created for yourself.

I understand your belief that it's not real, because it's not a reality in your own life. For me it's a literal concrete reality because I literally worked to literally build it. Our exchange demonstrates the truth that one person's personal experience is non transferable.to others.

You either build your own world or you don't.. That's totally up to you as your own free choice and has absolutely nothing to do with me or my free choice.

You have your own "Fort Freedom" with walls mighty enough to withstand assault but never mind the peasants in the fields being raped and taxed and killed by sundry statist assaults. Your gates never open for your knights to ride out to do battle. You haven't got any. Yeah, I know. The peasants should simply build their own castles. You did; they can.

Just so you understand that melodramatic fantasy exists only in your own mind.

I'm just one of the peasants who worked and earned and saved and built my own "Galt's Gulch"... but that's not what protects me.

Doing what's morally right is the ONLY thing that protects me from the evil in this world...

...because it's becoming personally accountable to Something which is greater than this world.

Greg

[Derek McGowan]

While Brant and Moralist argue back and forth over Moralist's view of the world, I'll actually be commenting on the book later this evening.

[moralist]

Brant writes:

"...government is force."

This is a topic all it's own.

Whether or not that force is applied to you personally is totally up to how you choose to live. Live like an American and that force has no leverage on your life. Fail to live like an American and you make yourself fair game!

Greg

[moralist]

While Brant and Moralist argue back and forth over Moralist's view of the world, I'll actually be commenting on the book later this evening.

Please do, Derek.

No one's post can prevent anyone else from posting. This is not zero sum Marxism.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Well, some of us go out and wrastle with evil, not just stay at home making electrical connections.

--Brant

that was too close for comfort, btw

[moralist]

Well, some of us go out and wrastle with evil, not just stay at home making electrical connections.

--Brant

that was too close for comfort, btw

Evil can only operate through our internal weakness. So the real wrestling match with evil always begins inside each of us. Win the gold belt for that tournament, and you'll always prevail over every evil in the outside world.

Greg

[anthony]

The talk of 'Government' as being some abstraction of power which has to be opposed (or escaped from) is often a little bemusing. Cause and effect seems to be reversed. Notwithstanding any excellent Constitution and safeguards, governments and types of governance are ultimately influenced - even 'created' by the majority of citizens in their own image - so the State is as much a result of irrational morality, as a cause of it. The more that persons and groups call on their rulers to fix their problems, allay their fears, solve purported social injustices, "equalize" people's conditions/wealth, or simply give them stuff - the greater is the responsibility handed over to government, as bureaucratic agencies are further expanded or opened, with more staffing and higher budgets. Always, an expansionist, Statist, government will gleefully accept its enlarging role - as we see.

It's not governments that have to be tackled firstly, it is people who should be persuaded differently, on ideological grounds, not just political.To be free, man must be free of his brothers, Rand wrote, and this includes being free from our brothers' electoral power which is allowed to flourish presently, with compromised, and in some places barely-existent individual rights of course.

These are, unfortunately, the height of altruist (the abject loss of self responsibility and self independence, through the surrender of one's mind to others) and collectivist (being and viewing 'as one', with somesuch group or tribe - nationalist, ethnic, etc.) times. In his singular manner, in practice Greg has it right, I think: above all other considerations, even more now each person must protect and succour his own circle of values and ride out the storm, mostly regardless of the bigger picture. Active examples of non-self-sacrificing individualists will be as essential as our verbalised ideas to lead eventually back to a proximately moral and free society.

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

[jtucek]

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

The protagonist rejects such a disappearance as the rational thing to do, but as something he is not brave enough to do.

There are degrees of removing support for the society at large ... although they leave the protagonists in a somewhat unjust position, consuming services they refuse to pay for...

[anthony]

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

The protagonist rejects such a disappearance as the rational thing to do, but as something he is not brave enough to do.

There are degrees of removing support for the society at large ... although they leave the protagonists in a somewhat unjust position, consuming services they refuse to pay for...

The so-called Free Rider concept, you mean? When the problem is framed as taxation being the absolute of immorality, when it isn't, it is then we find ourselves in such a paradoxical pickle. The immorality is collectivism-altruism from which ensues taxation, for only one. Way I see it, I pay tax (the minimum I can) to avoid any guilty self-equivocation first, and troubles with the State, second. I think this comes under knowing what to physically fight and what not to fight ("and the wisdom to know the difference"). The system has to be undone from the bottom up - the thinking of individuals - the way it came into being. I will have a look at your story to better understand where you're coming from, but for now leaving a country or "withdrawing one's sanction" is always an option. Where to, when everywhere is collectivist, and would it entail a greater self sacrifice than remaining? - is the question.

[jtucek]

I've written it before in the thread, but maybe I can repeat. There is absolutely zero chance of a democratic welfare state changing bottom-up, as the majority of the electorate will always have something worth looting to look towards, and will not give up the chance. Or how specifically do you imagine the change?

The only chance is a reconstructin following a Galt-style destruction of the system, by those who have something worth looting refusing to provide it. Sadly, the system doesn't really stand on only a handful of giants, as in Atlas Shrugged - in the real world, a much larger proportion of the population will have to revolt.

[Brant Gaede]

The talk of 'Government' as being some abstraction of power which has to be opposed (or escaped from) is often a little bemusing. Cause and effect seems to be reversed. Notwithstanding any excellent Constitution and safeguards, governments and types of governance are ultimately influenced - even 'created' by the majority of citizens in their own image - so the State is as much a result of irrational morality, as a cause of it. The more that persons and groups call on their rulers to fix their problems, allay their fears, solve purported social injustices, "equalize" people's conditions/wealth, or simply give them stuff - the greater is the responsibility handed over to government, as bureaucratic agencies are further expanded or opened, with more staffing and higher budgets. Always, an expansionist, Statist, government will gleefully accept its enlarging role - as we see.

It's not governments that have to be tackled firstly, it is people who should be persuaded differently, on ideological grounds, not just political.To be free, man must be free of his brothers, Rand wrote, and this includes being free from our brothers' electoral power which is allowed to flourish presently, with compromised, and in some places barely-existent individual rights of course.

These are, unfortunately, the height of altruist (the abject loss of self responsibility and self independence, through the surrender of one's mind to others) and collectivist (being and viewing 'as one', with somesuch group or tribe - nationalist, ethnic, etc.) times. In his singular manner, in practice Greg has it right, I think: above all other considerations, even more now each person must protect and succour his own circle of values and ride out the storm, mostly regardless of the bigger picture. Active examples of non-self-sacrificing individualists will be as essential as our verbalised ideas to lead eventually back to a proximately moral and free society.

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

You have obviously given these issues a lot of thought. I don't see how ideological knowledge and righteousness is going to trump short term considerations of financial well being. There is a vast circulation and re-circulation of wealth between government, taxpayers and recipients. From outer space it must look like a huge blob stifling civilization. Within the context of all this pulsating movement, however, are two huge anomalies suggesting effective avenues of attack. The first is the administrative skim off. Government workers earning very large, even huge salaries and benefits compared to the private sector becoming de facto through de jure lords of all they survey. That's what might be called an ad hominem weakness or ironical vulnerability through envy. The second is the huge regulatory cost of this mixed economy. Lifting that does not threaten most of hoi polloi feeding at the teat so that can be smashed down through righteous control of government itself for there would be vastly less opposition to change. This would help release great creative forces in the production of wealth.

Now, why hasn't Atlas Shrugged swept at least the American world? It has to do with its moral message which is for the individuals that want it. That message is too particular for most people but millions no longer work as slaves to sacrificial moral codes both from religion and state. They have also found many ways to get around the state using their knowledge, wealth and brains. There is a big deficiency, however, in Rand's "moral revolution" and it's not what was put forth but in its incompleteness both in content and structure and its consequent inability to match up enough with human nature. You can think your way into acceptance of this morality and use it without contradiction as a base to work off of, but most people don't think or care about these things as thinking itself is not a habit for them.

Regardless. It's going to take generations for this Objectivist Ethics to put up a proper social fight and win out. People have to learn to think more and better--that is, critically--and the intellectuals need to buff up the ethics, if not politics, respecting human social needs properly integrated with every human being's basic individualist nature. Ayn Rand and her Objectivism only got halfway there, so naturally there it sits just outside the door.

--Brant

[anthony]

Revolt against whom, jtucek? The people? They get the government they 'deserve', I'll say again. If the majority support welfarism, a revolt against government would be short-lived. If the majority would ever start moving against it, it will come about naturally anyhow. Individual wealth, ideas and talent are spread far more than in Atlas to bring about change by strike - as you acknowledge.

[anthony]

Yes Brant, I have been seeing it clearer, though it's only a culmination of my thinking and nothing new. I have the dubious advantage of perceiving what goes on here in the raw: the complete wastage of revenues by our State, self-enrichment by inept pols, outright theft and corruption, blatant nepotism, constant strike action by powerful unions and huge mispending of taxes on inessentials. Things that would not be tolerated for a second in the US. If most of the lost money had been going to the proposed, welfare beneficiaries, at least some good might have come of it. As it is, we've made a whole new elite rich class and a huge number of highly paid public servants, and the dirt poor remain. The stinking ANC aren't honest enough to practise even their socialist pretences with integrity. Having a foot in your camp is revealing by comparison, and while the responsibility and transparency there is on an entirely higher level, the basic principles are the same, I believe.

[Selene]

...the complete wastage of revenues by our State, self-enrichment by inept pols, outright theft and corruption, blatant nepotism, constant strike action by powerful unions and huge mispending of taxes on inessentials. Things that would not be tolerated for a sehttp://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15167&page=3condin the US.

Tony, except for the unions striking, you have taken a precise snapshot of what is transpiring in the United States.

The Clintons have raised this to a high art.

However, the rape of funds by the "corporatists," Mark Levin's moniker for the Carl Rove types and the American Chamber of Crony Capitalism [CCC], another Levin moniker, as well as the "Green" thugs of Solyndra solar [ http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/06/06greenwire-solyndra-bankruptcy-reveals-dark-clouds-in-sol-45598.html?pagewanted=all ] and General Electric is the way of things here in the United States.

A...

[moralist]

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

The protagonist rejects such a disappearance as the rational thing to do, but as something he is not brave enough to do.

There are degrees of removing support for the society at large ... although they leave the protagonists in a somewhat unjust position, consuming services they refuse to pay for...

Living by moral values is the personal power to remove support for the corruption in society... and everyone already possesses the power to do that.

Greg

[moralist]

...the complete wastage of revenues by our State, self-enrichment by inept pols, outright theft and corruption, blatant nepotism, constant strike action by powerful unions and huge mispending of taxes on inessentials. Things that would not be tolerated for a sehttp://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15167&page=3condin the US.

Tony, except for the unions striking, you have taken a precise snapshot of what is transpiring in the United States.

Tony has also taken an equally precise snapshot of the values held by the majority in America... of which the government is only an effect... and not a cause.

(Adam... I listen to Mark Levin every day )

Greg

[moralist]

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

Absolutely right, Tony. Anyone can figuratively go Galt right now. "Disappear" from the immorality in society by refusing to participate in it... by refusing to allow it into your life.

But it is impossible to literally go Galt without first securing personal financial independence, and it is impossible to secure personal financial independence without first "disappearing" from the corruption in society. When those conditions are first met, you're then free to build your own Galt's Gulch if you so choose. It's not always necessary, just icing on the cake.

Greg

[moralist]

Revolt against whom, jtucek? The people? They get the government they 'deserve', I'll say again. If the majority support welfarism, a revolt against government would be short-lived. If the majority would ever start moving against it, it will come about naturally anyhow. Individual wealth, ideas and talent are spread far more than in Atlas to bring about change by strike - as you acknowledge.

Spot on.

The real revolt is going on strike from the majority's rotten values. This action alone sets into motion a completely different set of consequences in your own life, and you will naturally diverge from becoming collateral damage of the majority getting the government they deserve. Because you will then deserve a different government, and you will have it, even as the majority has theirs.

Greg