Rand's Kind of Censorship!

[anthony]

41 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Not thinking in principles in a logical manner certainly is.

You need to admit you object to the principle--non initiation of force (non violation of rights)--and defend that, at least as exception making, to have an honest discussion. Absent that, Jonathan will continue to have a field day

--Brant

The more I've read, the more I find that libertarian principles and Objectivist principles have unique methodologies and justifications, and although they meet in the end, libertarianism hasn't that comprehensive, conceptual foundation. "Conservative?" In her politics and rights Rand HAD to take a WHOLE society into consideration, not just a tiny minority of libertarians and objectivists. Individual rights will (does) fit all men - now and here - not in some utopian future of completely rational and free men and women.

[Jonathan]

41 minutes ago, anthony said:

I find this very revealing, (especially coming as it is from an artist). Yes: it is doable to exercise the muscles of one's eyes and neck - and look away... physically. And it is the primacy of consciousness to believe that when I close my eyes and look away, some 'thing' (or existence) ceases to exist, until I look once more.

No one has advocated the idea that the thing ceases to exist! You're arguing with that imaginary straw man that lives in your head.

The same irrational argument could be made about relegating "loathsome" material to adult's only sections of shops: Doing so doesn't make it cease to exist, therefore you and Rand are advocating the primacy of consciousness!

Idiocy!

 

Quote

But your suggestion denies the obvious fact too, that a visual impact is immediate - and - lasting in man's consciousness.*

As for volition, you're one who said earlier: "Having deep feelings about someone's showing a naughty picture? Well, get over it!"

Why, who says one must? Who dictates the authority of when and what must be gotten over? Is this volition? However, each person has to adjust to reality for himself, if ever. But it shows me that this concern about "censorship" you have, is actually the need to pressure others into agreement with your standards of taste. So, not volition! Not free choice, not free thinking.

No one has to agree with my standards of taste. And I don't have to agree with yours or Rand's. I'm not the one supporting the idea of initiating force based on my tastes! I'm opposing it! I'm not the one saying that images that I find to be "loathsome" should be censored! I'm not "dictating" and trying to impose my tastes and sensitivities via government force on others!

"Free choice" and "free thinking" do not mean that you are to be guaranteed by government force to never encounter anything that you find to be "loathsome."

 

Quote

*Because I keep seeing the same 'meme' repeating, regarding "consciousness", I have to quote a fitting statement:

"The implicit, but unadmitted premise of modern philosophy is the notion that "true" knowledge must be acquired without any means of cognition, and that identity is the ~disqualifying~ element of consciousness". [ITOE]

*Identity is the ~disqualifying~ element of consciousness*. Yup. To have eyes, but not look. To look, but not see. To see, but not think. To think, but not feel.

You're incapable of logic.

J

[Jonathan]

16 minutes ago, anthony said:

The more I've read, the more I find that libertarian principles and Objectivist principles have unique methodologies and justifications, and although they meet in the end, libertarianism hasn't that comprehensive, conceptual foundation.

YOU don't have a conceptual foundation. Your foundation is to parrot Rand. When faced with any contradiction between the Objectivist philosophy and Rand, you immediately abandon the philosophy and go with Rand's irrational opinion.

J

[anthony]

47 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Not thinking in principles in a logical manner certainly is.

You need to admit you object to the principle--non initiation of force (non violation of rights)--and defend that, at least as exception making, to have an honest discussion.

--Brant

Not thinking in principles is amusing. Which principles? NIOF, of course, and that's about all. I've seen nothing but that same narrative, while I've advanced principles - connected to man's nature, reality and real situations. The trouble is, Brant, nobody has been thinking in principles, least of all J.

[anthony]

7 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

No one has advocated the idea that the thing ceases to exist! You're arguing with that imaginary straw man that lives in your head.

The same irrational argument could be made about relegating "loathsome" material to adult's only sections of shops: Doing so doesn't make it cease to exist, therefore you and Rand are advocating the primacy of consciousness!

Idiocy!

 

No one has to agree with my standards of taste. And I don't have to agree with yours or Rand's. I'm not the one supporting the idea of initiating force based on my tastes! I'm opposing it! I'm not the one saying that images that I find to be "loathsome" should be censored! I'm not "dictating" and trying to impose my tastes and sensitivities via government force on others!

"Free choice" and "free thinking" do not mean that you are to be guaranteed by government force to never encounter anything that you find to be "loathsome."

 

You're incapable of logic.

J

So? what's your problem? (Can you make any argument that doesn't incur "initiating force" repeatedly?)

If you wish to see whatever you want to see, who is stopping you?

Would you disallow ~all others~ to make INFORMED choices of their own? By their standards of taste and sensitivity?

Despite protest, it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like Lefty authoritarianism. Pornographers or purveyors of brutally shocking images are legislated to not display their wares in a window - and they scream "Fascism!"

 

[Jonathan]

1 minute ago, anthony said:

Pornographers or purveyors of brutally shocking images are legislated to not display their wares in a window - and they scream "Fascism!"

 

You're the supporter of pornographers! You want children to have access to books with rape scenes! Pervert! You scream "fascism!" when anyone suggests that the novel which contains your fictional rapist hero should be out of reach of innocent children!

J

[Jonathan]

13 minutes ago, anthony said:

So? what's your problem? (Can you make any argument that doesn't incur "initiating force" repeatedly?)

 

You need to explain why you disagree with the NIOF principle.

What metaphysical, epistemological and ethical basis do you have for rejecting it? Explain where you think that Rand erred in arriving at the NIOF principle. Demonstrate that it can be a "principle" yet, at the same time, you can follow Rand in deviating from it at whim.

Are there also any other principles of Objectivism that you outright reject or arbitrarily make whimsical exceptions to? Can an A be a non-A only when Rand mistakenly identified a non-A as an A? Is she the only person who is exempt from the laws of identity and of non-contradiction? How did she acquire that exemption status?

J

[Brant Gaede]

14 minutes ago, anthony said:

So? what's your problem? (Can you make any argument that doesn't incur "initiating force" repeatedly?)

If you wish to see whatever you want to see, who is stopping you?

Would you disallow ~all others~ to make INFORMED choices of their own? By their standards of taste and sensitivity?

Despite protest, it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like Lefty authoritarianism. Pornographers or purveyors of brutally shocking images are legislated to not display their wares in a window - and they scream "Fascism!"

The problem is you keep advocating it and not really owning up to it.

I believe in severely delimited government. I don't see how we can have one without taxes. That's initiating force. I admit it. So I live with this political-philosophical conflict. Rand beat around the bush here too. I get along fine with libertarian anarchists because I don't come with Rand bullshit. Everything costs something. Government does and so does anarchism. I consider government rendered into as rational state as practical to be less expensive. And I know--we all know--government is possible. Its force conglomerates like gravity conglomerates rocks.

--Brant

[anthony]

On 2016/04/28 at 3:49 AM, Brant Gaede said:

The problem is you keep advocating it and not really owning up to it.

I believe in severely delimited government. I don't see how we can have one without taxes. That's initiating force. I admit it. So I live with this political-philosophical conflict. Rand beat around the bush here too. I get along fine with libertarian anarchists because I don't come with Rand bullshit. Everything costs something. Government does and so does anarchism. I consider government rendered into as rational state as practical to be less expensive. And I know--we all know--government is possible. Its force conglomerates like gravity conglomerates rocks.

--Brant

Severely delimited govenments aren't going to come about by themselves. Governments aren't (by nature) in the business of shrinking themselves. a). the majority of people will have to become self-responsible enough, and have such strong convictions of personal freedom, to demand that end while refusing any form of gvt assistance. b). they, in turn, will create a growing number of that very rare breed (presently)of principled politicians who would be satisfied to vote themselves out of power - or into much lesser power- and oblige them. So it will work in a two way causality. Obviously this is not an over-night thing, it will take an evolution over a few generations I think.

[Brant Gaede]

9 minutes ago, anthony said:

Severely delimited govenments aren't going to come about by themselves. Governments aren't (by nature) in the business of shrinking themselves. a). the majority of people will have to become self-responsible enough, and have such strong convictions of personal freedom, to demand that end while refusing any form of gvt assistance. b). they, in turn, will find a growing response from that very rare breed (presently)of principled politicians who would be satisfied to vote themselves out of power - or into much lesser power- and oblige them. So it will work in a two way causality. Obviously this is not an over-night thing, it will take an evolution over a few generations I think.

The point is Utopia is impossible except in philosophical constructs. But not in Rand's mind. (She also believed in human moral perfection.) What is to be rationally done is move toward more and more freedom understanding that a Utopia is not to be achieved nor is it desirable regardless. If the human race--or a significant part of it--acquired political perfection it would be gone almost in an instant as society fell out of heaven into hell.

--Brant

[anthony]

Brant, I think Utopia can be described as an 'anti-concept' in that it's a collectivist and Platonic Ideal, therefore it can safely be dismissed from one's thought. I can't recall Rand extolling it. And a delimited government isn't anywhere near "Utopian": real, practical and possible it certainly is, and the only state which is fitting to man and individual men/women in order to have the space and freedom to think and act toward their chosen moral "perfection" (which is a journey and aim, not a final destination or product, I think) - if you like, a personal, metaphorical 'utopia'.

[Peter]

I just looked at the end of this thread, but I felt like opining.

Tony wrote: A free society is also a civil society, and viewing by-laws as "government enforcement" and "legislating morality" is the sort of muddled, alarmist thinking that can justify any uncivil behavior - and even anarchy. This makes a mantra out of "property rights" as if they aren't a derivation from morality, but the base of it. An individual must as much "be free of his brother" as to be free from government (which is the same thing basically).

end quote

I remember that there are certain things that a person can defend themselves and public decorum from - such as desecration of a flag or monument. If a person yells in your face you can physically stop them. If someone is quarantined due to disease you may insist they stay inside. If someone calls a loved or revered person a bad name you can get away with punching them if you do it in the heat of the moment. I remember something that struck me as hilarious when I was a kid were taboos against touching someone with your left (butt wiping) hand.

A lot of that common law is based on precedent, a general conception of what is morally acceptable, and that does change from region to region, and country to country. If we were to start from scratch then “ideal laws” could be composed but as it is we are starting in the middle of things.  It is a complex issue. Does a citizen have a right to expose themselves in public? Well, no, in general, but is a woman’s uncovered head or face obscene?

Peter  

[Peter]

Jonathan wrote: . . . Psychological disruption, on the other hand, is not a violation of individual or property rights. Images which Rand thought of as "offensive" do not physically affect others. Being offended is a psychological effect.

end quote

Common decency, current laws, precedent, and unwritten but understood, common law are facts. Is there any image that would bother anyone so much that it should never be shown in public? Shows like “Bones” show gruesome dead bodies which cheapens human life . . . but I must add, “that is in my opinion,” and maybe not in your opinion, Doctor Brennan (The “Bones” character.) But I don’t think it should be shown as you walk down the sidewalk. Or on the Times Square giant screen.

Amped up speakers blasting rock and roll, as Jonathan mentioned, is a potential, physical harm. But are being drunk and rowdy, disorderly conduct, nude bathing and fornication just peachy as long as you do them in your own front or back yard? We are assuming here that there is no “neighborhood agreement” that the landowner signed, so, does anything go? Not on this planet. Not anywhere.

You need to talk your theories on psychological effects over with a realtor, a surveyor, the county commissioners, or the local sheriff. Buy and own some property. Build on in. Live on it. Your perspective might change from the doctrinaire and philosophic, to the factual. You can’t do on your property as you please. And that is a good thing.

I have argued before that if you have a view of a mountain, the seashore, or something you like then no one should be allowed to build to block your view . . . if you were there first. And once again I would add, “within reason.” This is what litigation, zoning, and coming to the nuisance laws are about. I would rather have some limits and that sentiment is not in conflict with libertarianism.     

Peter

[anthony]

On 2016/04/27 at 9:10 PM, Jonathan said:

e.

 

Are you unaware of the fact that there is a difference between sound and images?

Loud sounds which exit one's property have an actual physical effect on others and their properties. Just as one can't leak unwanted liquids or gases onto others' property because of their physical effects, one can't leak physically disrupting sound waves onto others' property. Get it? Images which are on one person's property don't have a physical effect on another's person or property. Physical disruption is a violation of individual and property rights (you might want to review the Objectivist position of stressing the physical in regard to issues of rights). Psychological disruption, on the other hand, is not a violation of individual or property rights. Images which Rand thought of as "offensive" do not physically affect others. Being offended is a psychological effect.

 

Indeed, one has the right "not to look." That means don't look. It means stop looking. When confronted with sights one finds "loathsome," the solution is to look away, to shut one's eyes, to cover one's children's eyes, to leave the area, etc. Having the right to "not look" means exactly that, and NOT that one has the right to FORCE others to not display on their property whatever one finds "loathsome."

 

 

 

 

J

It is this sort of atom-splitting argument which does the cause of freedom no good: Sound is "physical" (therefore is "an initiation of force") - whereas, sight is "psychological", (and not). I have news for you, they are both psychological in their effects on a mind. Even faint noise (eg. someone's music, distant hammering) is disturbing/intrusive/offensive, if it continues for hours.

People hear this type of argument and think - how trivial, get real. Don't look at what you see ... huh?

A libertarian-minded friend once said to me that in the future he envisages, individuals won't need to pass driving tests, or need to observe speed limits, and not not drink and drive .. etc. - because such laws are "initiation of force by the State".

But if such a person causes an accident?... well, he said, of course he will be found guilty of "initiating force" himself!

"What then of anyone he injured or killed in the process?", I asked. "It's a bit late for the victim, right?"

Does anybody think that by-laws and city ordnances will become void in a capitalist-individual rights future? Wouldn't a minimal gvt. still have to legislatively pre-empt some of the damage and harm some irresponsible idiots and jerks - who will always exist - could cause? Or does one believe that individual rights automatically makes *everybody* responsible, sane and rational? I dislike legislation intensely, but the pre-emptive rules and standards of behavior for people in public (or seen or heard in a public place) aren't initiation of force.

 

[Peter]

Is John Wayne not worthy, pilgrim? Should his movies be banned from theaters?

Peter

From AP: Racist statements lead lawmakers to reject John Wayne Day.

Alejo cited a 1971 interview with Playboy in which Wayne talked disparagingly about blacks. "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people," he told the magazine. Assemblyman Mike Gipson, D-Carson, who is black, said he found Wayne's comments personally offensive. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, cited his comments defending white Europeans' encroachment on American Indians who Wayne once said "were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves."

Wayne is the latest deceased white icon to recently come under attack. Former President Andrew Jackson, a slave owner and Indian fighter, is being removed from the face of the $20 bill. Princeton University recently announced that former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's name will remain on its public policy school despite calls to remove it because he was a segregationist. Harper's resolution fell on a 35-20 vote to what Harper called "the orthodoxy of political correctness."

"Opposing the John Wayne Day resolution is like opposing apple pie, fireworks, baseball, the Free Enterprise system and the Fourth of July!" he said later in a written statement. Harper said he sought the resolution, ACR137, to keep up with a Texas resolution commemorating Wayne's birthday a year ago. He represents the legislative district that includes John Wayne Airport in Orange County. The airport, among the largest in California, was renamed after Wayne's death in 1979 and hosts a nine-foot-tall statue of the actor.

"I think the assemblyman would know if there was a cross word about having the airport named after him," said Harper's spokeswoman, Madeleine Cooper. Several lawmakers supported the resolution, recalling Wayne as an American hero whose family created a namesake cancer foundation after his death. "He stood for those big American values that we know and we love," said Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach.

Lawmakers have honored others despite controversies that eventually clouded their legacies, said Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine. Wagner cited President Franklin Roosevelt, who has been honored despite his internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. "Every one of us is imperfect," Wagner said.

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Brant, I think Utopia can be described as an 'anti-concept' in that it's a collectivist and Platonic Ideal, therefore it can safely be dismissed from one's thought. I can't recall Rand extolling it. And a delimited government isn't anywhere near "Utopian": real, practical and possible it certainly is, and the only state which is fitting to man and individual men/women in order to have the space and freedom to think and act toward their chosen moral "perfection" (which is a journey and aim, not a final destination or product, I think) - if you like, a personal, metaphorical 'utopia'.

If you can't deduce Utopian thinking from Rand's work you're purblind about what's there and what she was about.

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant criticized Tony: If you can't deduce Utopian thinking from Rand's work you're purblind about what's there and what she was about. end quote

I think Tony is on to something Brant. A Utopian *place* does not exist. If you deduce it, it is still a mental idea. Rand did not attempt to set up her own Eden, though she insulated herself from outside influences. To the extent that any person tries to live a utopian existence they fail. Hippies come to mind and cults. Utopias are not of this earth.

Peter

Oldies.

From: Monart Pon < Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com,To: Starship Forum Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Starship_Forum] Starship and Utopianism Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 21:13:58 -0700

I've started reading and studying about utopianism, in preparation for an essay I want to write. "Utopia" was coined by Thomas More in his portrayal of a place called Utopia, with the double-meaning of "ou" or "no" -place, "topia", and "eu" or "good" -place. By this logic, a dystopia is a bad place (like hell). There have been written many stories of utopias, in all civilizations, stories told of a good, or better place. Other names for this place are paradise, eldorado, shangri-la, nirvana, heaven, enlightenment, atlantis, and galt's gulch.

Utopianism is the belief that there is a good, or better, place for human beings to live. Utopianism is also the study of the beliefs that people have about what that good place is, why it is good, and how that place is found or built. With very rare exceptions, the utopian beliefs have all been altruist and collectivist, from Plato's Republic, to Thomas More's Utopia, to Marx's Commune. Numerous varieties of collectivist utopias have been implemented throughout history, most noticeably in 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries in Britain and America. Even though most of these settlements have not survived as autonomous and sovereign entities, most of their altruist and collectivist doctrines have already been applied, and by force, in the culture at large.

In the mid-to-late 20th C. and leading into the 21st, a new possibility of utopias and utopianism is developing: the liberal, libertarian, objectivist vision of a world, a place where human beings are free from aggression, free to pursue a happy life as they choose, where individuals are not involuntarily bound to each other or to the state. And more, a place where the unfettered people will use the power of reason to achieve abundance and prosperity, benevolence and goodwill, freedom and justice. This individualist, heroic vision of utopia is portrayed in "Atlantis" or "Galt's Gulch" in Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ There are connections between objectivism, utopianism, and the idea of starship(ism), which I'm going to understand more about. I want to post some of my thoughts as I progress, so that I may benefit from any comments. Thanks.

Monart

From: Andre Zantonavitch < Reply-To: So much of our universe, in my judgment, is self-created and self-contained. Thus, Utopia might not be NEARLY as unreachable and unobtainable as most people suppose. It should be interesting to see what Monart and other Aurorans come up with on this topic...

I've long thought that current Objectivism errs in focusing so intently on the outside world. This is probably the source of much of Ayn Rand's and Objectivism's destructive rage and bitterness -- and consequent unhealthy, unhappy retreat into cultism. Objectivists today could probably benefit from a little radical "eastern philosophy" in the mix. Perhaps something involving both meditation and visceral martial arts. With a good philosophy, I think we can mostly create OUR OWN utopia and high culture to exploit and enjoy. But "Rome wasn't built in a day," and so inventing and then continuously improving this private Galt's Gulch may take a while.

Zanton

From: "Technotranscendence" On Thursday, January 03, 2002 12:43 AM Andre Zantonavitch zantonavitch@yahoo.com wrote: I've long thought that current Objectivism errs in focusing so intently on the outside world.

I'm not sure about this, since much of Objectivist focus is on changing personal thought patterns and actions.  Rand's notion of "the sanction of the victim," e.g., seems to place emphasis on how personal life -- the life of the mind, so to speak -- plays a major role in shaping social structures and how changing it can change all of society.  Not that all Objectivist work sees the inner life merely as a means to change society at large.  For example, much of Rand's and almost all of Branden's work focuses on making individual, personal lives better. While it's probably likely that a society of individuals practicing, say, Branden's views on self-esteem and personal improvement will be much better than one not -- all other things being equal -- the focus is on the inside, in your terms, no?

 > This is probably the source of much of Ayn Rand's and Objectivism's destructive rage and bitterness -- and consequent unhealthy, unhappy retreat into cultism.

I think this only applies to some Objectivists and, at the same time, can apply to any movement.  Of course, some philosophical systems seem to encourage this more than others.

 

> Objectivists today could probably benefit from a little radical "eastern philosophy" in the mix. Perhaps something involving both meditation and visceral martial arts. With a good philosophy, I think we can mostly create OUR OWN utopia and high culture to exploit and enjoy.

On Eastern philosophy, check out Savaka Sukhothaia's "A Call to Objectivists and Randians For Dialogue With Buddhists" at http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/buddhists-and-objectivists.html Andrew Gole, a wayward Objectivist who runs a philosophy discussion group in my area (Northern NJ) covered some of these issues in a recent meeting.

Cheers! Daniel Ust

From: "zantonavitch"

My understanding is that several historical attempts at objectivist/libertarian utopianism have taken place. There were evidently a few Objectivist 'communes' around in the 1960s – at least according to my normally-reliable college professor. Some wealthy libertarian in the 1970s also tried to create his own city- state in the south Pacific on the unclaimed Minerva reefs (so-named by him). But the mighty government of Tonga thwarted it with a single small gunship. And libertarians in the 1970s apparently helped engineer a coup nearby on the Vanuatu isles -- which was successful, but which didn't result in anything like a free state ("Tax-Haven Takeover!" screamed the front page headline in the old 'Los Angeles Herald-Examiner'). And there may even be a few secret Galt's Gulches hidden around somewhere.

All of this is fascinating to me, but I have very little information on any of it. Any help here?

Zan

From: Monart Pon <

Zan asked (1/09) about any more information on objectivist/libertarian attempts at creating a sovereign country (or autonomous community).

Who knows for sure whether there are, or are not, any secret "Galt's Gulch"es out there, hidden from the world with force-shields? Who is John Galt? We only know about the ones that failed. Of these, I have s little more information, provided by a hand-written letter here that I'm about to type out, from someone who was among the people trying to build a free country in the South Pacific. He didn't provide much detail about what happened to Minerva, but he does give a glimpse. (He was also an early reader of my pamphlet, "Project Starship", in 1977 -- which was the context of his letter.)

--------------

"Jan 19, 1977 ... "In 1973 I became interested in the "Minerva" project in the South Pacific, and the principals thereof. When that collapsed, the principals became interested in Palmyra(?) Island as a future new country based on objectivist philosophy.

"We bought a ship and sailed there, cleared the airstrip and made some other improvements in the beginning of 1975. "In September of 1975 I moved my family to Hawaii expecting to further the Palmyra(?) project. However, the requisite support was not forthcoming, so that out of monetary survival necessity, I move my family back to Canada, to B.C., in late 76, and am presently practicing medicine. "My philosophy has not changed, but presently I am not able to pursue its logical implications. I'm certainly interested in finding people of like mind and communicating and working with them.

--------------

Later, from another Project Starship reader, I received a 20-page bound photocopy of the "Constitution of Minerva", with this as its Preamble:

"This Constitution is founded on the principle that the only true and proper function of government is to protect its citizens from force and fraud, and that this government is limited to this function only."

The document contains eight Articles, including ones defining the structure of government, functions and organization of the military force, foreign relations and immigration, fiscal matters, and judicial system.

Anyone interested in reading and studying the document? A thread can be started on it (or not): "The Minerva Constitution", to see if a conclusion could be reached about its viability as a political constitution.

Monart

[anthony]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If you can't deduce Utopian thinking from Rand's work you're purblind about what's there and what she was about.

--Brant

She was about the individual working for his own perfection and fulfillment, I believe. To do so he must have freedom from all others and the state, his right to action protected by a government just big enough. All through, Rand acknowledges I think that society is made up of millions of minds each with un-identical content, notwithstanding their similar ideologies. Mormons ... liberals--and the rest. In dealing with each other, or in passing, it is eminently possible to do so with consideration and recognition for each life and its freedom, and despite any differences, trade values. The angels can keep Heaven, men can aspire to the supreme of what's real and possible.

"...said Galt. ""We are going back to the world"".

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

She was about the individual working for his own perfection and fulfillment, I believe. To do so he must have freedom from all others and the state, his right to action protected by a government just big enough. All through, Rand acknowledges I think that society is made up of millions of minds each with un-identical content, notwithstanding their similar ideologies. Mormons ... liberals--and the rest. In dealing with each other, or in passing, it is eminently possible to do so with consideration and recognition for each life and its freedom, and despite any differences, trade values. The angels can keep Heaven, men can aspire to the supreme of what's real and possible.

"...said Galt. ""We are going back to the world"".

What was Galt's Gulch in "Atlas Shrugged" ?  Was it not an Eden?

[anthony]

14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What was Galt's Gulch in "Atlas Shrugged" ?  Was it not an Eden?

My impression was, anything but (and I admit it's been a long while). Those guys won't be needin' Eden. To me, the Gulch was a haven and temporary hideaway, a place to relax and recharge among esteemed friends and comrades while The Strike was still on. Maybe too, the opportunity for the author to demonstrate how very different individuals can easily get along in proximity, all joined by common rationality and purpose? An object lesson to society? These heroes are men and women who need to return to the challenges of being productive again out in the world at large, with its variety of commensurate rewards. A "safe place" wouldn't satisfy such active minds for long.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

My impression was, anything but (and I admit it's been a long while). Those guys won't be needin' Eden. To me, the Gulch was a haven and temporary hideaway, a place to relax and recharge among esteemed friends and comrades while The Strike was still on. Maybe too, the opportunity for the author to demonstrate how very different individuals can easily get along in proximity, all joined by common rationality and purpose? An object lesson to society? These heroes are men and women who need to return to the challenges of being productive again out in the world at large, with its variety of commensurate rewards. A "safe place" wouldn't satisfy such active minds for long.

That's the formal evaluation.

Informally, it was retirement. You cannot actually go back into the world without an army. Rand had the wrong idea about regime collapse. She thought Cuba's would if it were economically embargoed. Since it wasn't completely, thanks especially to the Soviet Union, we don't know how that would have played out except Venezuela and Zimbabwe show how dictatorships can hold on until just before hell freezes over. As for Rand herself, she retired from writing fiction, but she was still "in the world" so she got depressed for a few years. You could say writing her magnum opus was her being in and living in Galt's Gulch and she then went back into the world. It surely wasn't pleasant after the intense experience of writing AS surrounded by her "Collective." After being celebrated to the skies by Random House, there was little to keep that world at bay any longer. Even today, many people enthralled by the great work of art it is don't appreciate how much fiction in AS is piled on top of its fiction: economic, moral, psychological, political, and even militarial. After all the onion layers are finally removed you have the hard and essential truths. There's no art there, just facts.

--Brant

[Peter]

BaalChatzaf asked: What was Galt's Gulch in "Atlas Shrugged"? Was it not an Eden? end quote

 

Glad you asked. This is Donald Trump speaking to you, Ba’al. Yeah, you. How ya doin’ Jersey boy? Galt’s Gulch had an Immigration Policy. When I developed Midas’s Mulligan’s mountain retreat I had a fully rational and consistently integrated system of philosophy - based on metaphysical axioms and following through the branches of epistemology, morality, and esthetics (and the subgroup of architecture; I build it beautiful and I build it to last).

 

And last but not least, politics. At this time of my life I decided I wanted to lead a Government constituted on individual rights, WITHIN A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, for all time. I am starting my administration using the laws of the United States of America which starts at its borders, just like Galt’s Gulch. We will have no more illegal immigrants unless they look like Melania.

 

A Trump Government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force conferred upon it by the consent of the governed, so I want your vote. Tell your friends about me. Ring some doorbells. I will permit various jurisdictional agencies within our territory, like private security firms, as long as those agencies uphold the Constitution guaranteeing individual rights. Do not mess with me. If the United States had no immigration laws, then it would be an anarchist state. I am not for anarchy. Or arachnids. You know, Spiders. I hate spiders. Any militias are permitted to play soldier, but it better stop there.

Donald Trump, the frontrunner.

[anthony]

On 2016/04/30 at 6:19 PM, Brant Gaede said:

That's the formal evaluation.

Informally, it was retirement. You cannot actually go back into the world without an army. Rand had the wrong idea about regime collapse. She thought Cuba's would if it were economically embargoed. Since it wasn't completely, thanks especially to the Soviet Union, we don't know how that would have played out except Venezuela and Zimbabwe show how dictatorships can hold on until just before hell freezes over. As for Rand herself, she retired from writing fiction, but she was still "in the world" so she got depressed for a few years. You could say writing her magnum opus was her being in and living in Galt's Gulch and she then went back into the world. It surely wasn't pleasant after the intense experience of writing AS surrounded by her "Collective." After being celebrated to the skies by Random House, there was little to keep that world at bay any longer. Even today, many people enthralled by the great work of art it is don't appreciate how much fiction in AS is piled on top of its fiction: economic, moral, psychological, political, and even militarial. After all the onion layers are finally removed you have the hard and essential truths. There's no art there, just facts.

--Brant

Well, then I think the formal evaluation is right. It can be possible to read too much into a novel and derive a principle which just isn't there - i.e. meant by the author. Especially and despite the fact, that we have other sources (Rand's non-fiction) to make accurate deductions of her thinking from and compare. (Not to say there's not a massive wealth of deductions to be taken from her fiction). Although an extremely 'realistic' novel relating to a society you know well, it is still a novel, first. The good guys win, ultimately - as they must in all justice - but it is tempting but wrong, I think, to believe it follows that the dystopia of a collapsing society/state will be replaced with a Utopia (in Rand's mind, as in reality). What can be reasonably extrapolated, however, is that the people of the nation have been shocked into a realisation of the critical truth of individualism, beginning with themselves - and come to fully appreciate and respect those minds who ~selfishly~ have largely carried the nation. But it's not as if they are instantly all Objectivists and libertarians now! It is the same admixture of people as before, only having learned the hard way a fresh commitment to individual rights and capitalism - I think we can assume? And it would still leave a huge amount of valuable rebuilding effort for the returning Strikers*.

That is the reality of what is rational and possible - in one's mind and for one's actions - expanded to a society of every type of individual, and because it's the only way, the absolute best. In it, each man (whatever his thinking and morality) is left to his own devices to choose and pursue the good of his own life and values, as he best sees it, therefore his errors and rewards are his own. The Eden-esque or Utopian 'solution' (not remotely feasible, conceptually or in practice, without increasing force) presumes a homogenously collectivised Society and a mystical, intrinsic, Ideal Good. As always with any "Ideal", the greatest harm ensues: sacrifices "will have to be made"...and we return full circle to the premise of Atlas Shrugged, and the reason it was written.

*[A novel still to be penned, as I'm sure it will one day:  "Atlas Arises: The Aftermath". There would need be a renewed theme and some further conflict, around the renaissance of the country, its politics and its industry, and some new characters and love interest].

Sacrilege! I can hear some say.

[Brant Gaede]

"Tomorrow is another day."

[anthony]

On 2016/05/02 at 5:24 PM, Brant Gaede said:

"Tomorrow is another day."

Yes right, told myself that yesterday and it came true. You mention dictatorships in Venezuela and Zimbabwe hanging on, I only know the first from a distance, but I know a little of Zim since I schooled there (Rhodesia) when we were living in Zambia. How they will end (in total collapse like Venezuela seems to be going) I can't predict, but how dictatorships begin has one thing in common: The promise of a Utopia. Usually an earthly one, but in other places and times, one in the afterlife, a Nirvana. To seize and keep power, those in power promise everything the entitled citizen feels he needs and deserves, citing 'justice' and 'equality', 'sacrifice' and 'brotherhood', and like children they lap the sweets up and demand more. Except, only Nationalisation can make it happen, and like looting the piggy bank - when the farms and the oil wells aren't producing any more because the talented, dedicated minds have been kicked out or given up in disgust - you can't loot it again. Then things fall apart and the people get a bit cross with their State..