Yeah.... that's quite a different meaning. And by the way, honest work is honest work. As unsexy or mundane as it might be.

"world's basic needs"
I guess I mean mundane non-sexy businesses that keep the modern world running.

A visitor to the Gulch who is a supporter of Obama could be called a) a spy, b) a looter, c) a moocher, or d) all of the above.

Actually, "To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability" is just a motto. Osama's and the despots before him. In reality, it is "steal as much as you can from as many as you can." And that suits a lot of people quite well...

Sure, absolutely....if you want to hasten the collapse of the existing society. It is akin to "Going on strike”.

I adore your response, ewv;;; the kindness and
direct-to-individual sense of discovery of natural
law which have evolved from Jesus' teachings
appear to be positives, to me. . Thank You. -- j

Those are the world's basic needs???

"I am envisioning a "Gulch Visitors Visa".:
I imagine the Gulch being a spot for conventions and conferences, like Vegas, because he has business leaders living or visiting there, and after the convention you can indulge in vices that are criminalized in many places. Foreigners to the Gulch might think of it as a place to party, but the core of the economy would be people just serving the world's basic needs: insurance, software, call centers, quick-turn proto fabrication, etc.

It depends on what you mean by Christianity. If it's the real one as preached and practiced through the dark and middle ages, and sometimes in that form still today, than yes, it's just as bad. But if it's modern 'Christian' culture thoroughly watered down by the secularism since the Enlightenment and formed by and practiced as in fact American individualism it's possible to see how someone could be confused and still actually endorse the values of the Gulch if he doesn't actually take Christian mysticism and duty seriously, It's not Ayn Rand's philosophy because it corrupts it and contradicts it at the root, but it can be more civilization and individualism than most of what else is going on today. Honesty will sort it out one way or the other as an individual learns.

But for Obama, there is only one version: him. If you know what he's doing and saying you can't confuse it with the Gulch.

There is no parallel with endorsing obama and Christianity. Is that even a real question? Why would you ask that?

Why would you ask?

Whoaaa, dennis55 here--objectivist to the core. I of course cannot support this president. I don't know who could-objectivist or not.....I was merely trying to respond to a similar question. But while I'm on the subject, I'm not seeing too many objectivist/libertarian choices out there. Maybe we will get what they ask for. The government subsidized voter is s crewing us over in Illinois-for the most part.

Read the article in the Atlantic Magazine and tell me who you think Obama is.

BHO is a socialist moslem and I don't want anything to do with him.

How in the h--l could that be possible?! Unless, of
course, one had some idea that the country had to
have a total collapse in order to return to freedom,
similar to the situation in "Atlas Shrugged". But
even then, Galt did not actively support statist
policies, just got others, along with himself, to
leave the country to its fate. Anyway, the situ-
ation is not that desperate yet. No; in fact,h--l,
No!! Obama is a statist who is trying to obliter-
ate private property and individual rights.

are there some here who would say that
a Gulch resident must not support Christianity?

is this question parallel to the one above,
in any significant ways? -- j

Being entitled to your own views doesn't make them right. The question was about the content of one's position, not the biological possibility of endorsing falsehood and contradiction.

Spoilers!

Excellent comment in my opinion, Snoogoo

Could they, sure they could do anything. However I would offer that if they did support any socialist agenda, then they would no longer be gulch residents, by their choice through their actions.

It is only by choosing to protect the smallest minority, the individual that one can be a gulch resident. This requires that the person make a choice to use the tools available to them to protect individual rights within a society and to use their mind to identify the best way to do so.

Supporting Obama requires that you use your mind to support the ideal of "To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability." Support of such an ideal is contrary and opposite to the individual and thus impossible for one to do so and continue to live in "the gulch"

Well if you really ARE a Timelord, that is a very big possibility! Quite appropriate.

Hah! I am envisioning a "Gulch Visitors Visa".

I'll admit that I have memory leaks worse than a student's C program, but didn't we just have this very discussion?

OR, am I remembering the future again?

Obama is an admitted collectivist (spread the wealth) so it would require major cognitive dissonance for an Objectivist to support him or his agenda. It is the collectivist notion that human ingenuity is the property of the state not the individual as a result the importance of the individual to society is marginalized. I can't imagine any ideology that is more in conflict with Objectivism than that espoused by President Obama.

Can John Galt work with Thompson and Mouch?