I understand and appreciate the concern some have with regard to news posts detracting from the overall goals of the web site. Nonetheless, there are many of us who have been looking for modern parallels to AS and are simply checking boxes to mark the inevitable destruction of the world of the looters. It is a means of acknowledging the reality we are in, and in some respects, giving us something to laugh about in an era where our beliefs are not shared by many.

First, conservatism and Objectivism are not nearly one and the same. Objectivism is a logically structured philosophical system based on reality with man's happiness as its goal. To this point in the history of the United states, conservatism has been a "me too but less" political policy that has contributed to an ever increasing removal of freedom and wealth from the American people. Second, you are correct as to the nature of the posts on this website being mostly not tied to Objectivism and in many cases in opposition to it. The owner's of this site have the right to step in and correct that but thus far have deemed not to do so. Based on that, I have chosen a date at which I will leave this site, shrug if you wish, even though I only joined it a couple of months ago.

THe main point I read here is that you want more Objectivist disscussion. One of the challenges objectivists face on this site are disscussions assuming agreement with first principles. There are actually several core areas where Conservatives and objectivists disagree. Religion is one of them. You can always frame the disscussion with "the objectivist would say..." if you 'd like. Several of us do, but it can be a little frustrating always going back to the 1st principles and showing the logical progression. I 'll occassionally do it, simply, but the conversation can sometimes wane. That 's my personal opinion. The site is first about the movies second about an introduction to AR and AS. There are many excellent Objectivist forums out there having current events discussions. I think the uniqueness of this site is a strong political awareness and possible focus that the current audience craves or they 'd post other stuff. I do prefer posts that frame up a disscussion. But sometimes I post with a comment. I never did enjoy the Objectivist focus on the individual to the exclusion of what is going on in the world around them. Personally I think that 's too much academia influence. It 's why we have scientists buying into manmade global warming and Objectivists in favor of some gun control or voting for Obama. But that 's just me. Mminick posted a individual study of Objectivism a while back. If you didn 't see it consider joining his disscussion, it may be more of what youre looking for AJ.

I can agree that many posts of late have been no more than links to current event news, many with no comments from the poster. While some of those won't interest me enough for comment, I will look at them after a time for the comments from others in order to see if there's an objectivist related point to discuss. If not, I just pass on. And there are topics raised in many of those discussions that impact my philosophical life enough to engender both critical and agreement comments from me. I've only a few months of involvement with the site, so I won't pretend to have any opinion for the site, but I find a good deal of enjoyment participating in the discussions - even with the many that I find little agreement with.

But your view of Objectivism as strictly concerned with the individual and his/her own happiness - I don't see it as something that can be separated from the individual's life in society or society's impact on the individual, which can sometimes be epitomized by current events. In matter of fact, many of today's current events can be analogized back to AS and their impacts to the key roles. So I see an opportunity for a rich field of Objectivist discussion in many postings. I can't agree at all with the thought that national and global events have no immediate impact on one's day-to-day personal pursuits. If one is an Objectivist, then of necessity, one is interested in what is reality, what is true, and discussing such in the 'Gulch' is the perfect place to do it since there seems to be such a broad reach of viewpoints and opinions.

I also find some disagreement with your description of a nation/state as a pseudo-entity in a global/national society. I can't find any necessity for a nation/state to be a part of a global/national society either for it's establishment or continued existence. Nor can I agree with the definition of a society being a collection of like minded people that willfully agree to anything. Rather, I believe it to be a power projection by those that have attained a level of control of the property of that locale, by being the first there with ownership, by wealth and the application of influence of that wealth, by majority consensus, or by imposition of force. I believe that any identifiable society is composed of a wide range of agreement/disagreement with the controlling basis or power structure of the society that are in a continuing struggle for influence and control.

As to how to best or significantly spread the philosophy of Objectivism, I don't know that there is a best, but I fully agree that the Gulch is far more significant than any current events site. i just don't think imposing any kind of strict purity test for participation helps to increase that significance. I rather enjoy interacting with all of the wide variety of opinion and discussion, and if I find one that repulses me for some reason, oh well, I find the same in my day-to-day existence. But I find no argument with your desire to introduce topics that cultivate the Objectivist viewpoint.

Although I can see some areas of general agreement between the statements of Conservative and Objectivist, I also see a large amount of disagreement, particularly with the actions of Conservatives and I can't agree with any of the cultural conservation goals of a Conservative. In my view, Conservatives are as far way from the enlightenment principles of natural individual rights and rights protection as are progressives. I contend that particularly in the private writings of the most influential Founders, that you find very little interest or belief in a country based on cultural structures, but almost solely on the rights and achievements of the individual and the de-centralization of any power base.

jrberts5 is correct: Even if you could redefine "conservative" to mean "libertarian" so that principles were the standard, rather than tradition, you are still left with the fact that there is no such thing as a "conservative" analysis of induction.

I posted a review of David Harriman's _Logical Leap_ here in the Gulch and it drew little interest.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/90...
Similarly, Harry Binswanger has a new book out on epistemology, again with little interest here:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/42...

But even politics draws little philosophical interest. khalling started a discussion on why voting is not a right http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/51...
The comments did not get very deep into analysis. Maybe she just convinced everyone. But certainly it did not lead to any deeper discussion of the wider issues. See the comment from LetsShrug about "natural rights" and "individual rights." The statements are easy enough accept, especially from a conservative viewpoint, but Objectivism is NOT a natural rights philosophy. (That fact is well known to mature students of Objectivism.)

It is true that by our nature in order to live in society, we must have rights. But as khalling has shown, what those rights are is not obvious or well understood.

Trial by jury is another of those so-called natural rights that are integral to the American political tradition but which are merely custom and not objectively required by "man qua man." I put the so-called right to own firearms in the same category of arguable privileges. A convicted felon still has the right to judicial review or freedom of religion, but does not have a right to own a gun.

Those are example of conservative political issues that float about without philosophical grounding. As such they are examples of why conservativism is not at all "almost like Objectivism."

I think there is a wide area of topics of discussion that can all boil down to individual rights and natural rights in an attempt to wake people up to objective thinking and following things to their logical conclusion (A=A). (Except religion). I also think some posts are just meant for fun.
I would sure hope this site will still active (even more so) after part III is released. Aren't we all on the same mission on one level or another in the gulch? (trolls excluded of course).
Maybe I missed your point. ?

Many current events parallel those in the novel, even though it was first published in 1957.

Even the original "Objectivist Newsletter" (published in the 1960's) included a featue titled "From the Horror File" which drew parallels with current events of the '60's with events in the novel.

I never had the impression that purpose of this website was to "cultivate the Objectivist viewpoint" or that "Objectivism, regardless of the topic being posted, should ultimately be the core of any discussion in any thread on the Gulch."

I thought it was about promoting the films, and I personally believe that those who see today's news as an exemplification of Rand's vision (including me) are making a positive contribution to this site.

The producers of the films may or may not be Objecivists. It doesn't matter. If this website enlarges the audience for their films it will have achieved its purpose.