Unless I overlooked it, this comment from yesterday was deleted, although it had 4 thumbs up:

Original thought and commentary has decreased relative to sloganeering, unthinking acceptance of canned points of view, and out and out nastiness. Originality, a product of thinking for one's self, is hard work. Even some of the people who regard themselves as objectivists sound like Ayn Rand robotic clones. Current rearranging-the-deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic politics is boring and abysmal inside or outside the Gulch. Since I've joined the Gulch, I've found some real gems of posts and commentary (and some good books by Gulch authors), but they are fewer and farther between, and I don't have time to extract them from the dross. Yesterday, in response to Khaling's "I'm Bored" post, I said that when I'm bored with what I read, I try to write something interesting. I will continue to try to write interesting things for my website and post them in the Gulch, but beyond that I don't get much intellectual bang for my time buck.

I'm wondering if this repost will get deleted as well. I await an answer from whomever deleted the original.

If you are choosing to argue this point based on egoism, then you are arguing that everyone is pursuing his/her own self-interest. With that I agree. The problem with that is that some others (non-Gulchers) think it is in their self-interest to violate the principle of non-interference by forcing us to be keeper to those who are not our brothers.

Before I get trashed for being racist or classist or some other "ist", I am making a distinction between humans of all races, colors, creeds (or lack thereof), ideological foundations, etc. vs. those who are part of my family (i.e. brothers, sisters, parents, kids, and those in the extended family with whom I have chosen to continue to make a part of my life).

Do we have the right to enforce the principle of non-interference on others? In general society, we certainly do not. In an Objectivist society such as the Atlas Society or in Galt's Gulch Online, we can expect the principle of non-interference to be followed. But enforced? The best we could do even in an Objectivist forum is point this out to the moderators, and have the moderators ask people who violate the principles agreed to follow the terms and conditions of forum participation that that person agreed to.

Regarding the "votes to non-relevant Troll Posts", some in this forum might consider my posting of the fire in Hillsborough, NJ as an irrelevant Troll Post. It was a legitimate news item from the town I grew up in. I rode past that warehouse every day I went to middle school. Back then, it stored many metric tons of mercury, which was moved out of there after I left in 1985. Such a warehouse fire epitomizes that Atlas Shrugged is now non-fiction, thereby making it relevant.

I prefer to let the people who post define what is relevant, rather than let you or any other non-moderators dictate (word chosen carefully) what constitutes a Troll Post. If Scott, for instance, tells me something is a Troll Post, he has the right as a moderator to contact me and request that I do not post such items. Any non-moderators who attempt to limit discussion only to Objectivist philosophy on this site are now wondering why the forum isn't as entertaining as it used to be. Well, that is the just reward for attempting to infringe on others' freedom of expression.

Yes...when "We the people" are forced to divide we do seem to find comfort and safety with members of the same tribe.

Yea, the screen name is just my way of staying humble and honest. I seem to do my best work when I am reminded of that.

I like your screen name. At least on this site we are all members of the same tribe

Yes these times try a man's mind, still, I find this site much more entertaining, enlightening and satisfying than the Julian Jaynes or Neothink blogs I engage in.
I realize that the latter two blogs kind of make me and outsider, but it was those studies that introduced me to Ayn Rand.
Hope I haven't bored you.

AWRIGHT!
Hear that Gulchers?
You got an active brain and you're bored?
For shame, children.

Hmmm. Yes. What happened and where's the humor? Agreed. How about some thing different? I'll find something. An oldie, a classic.

Personally, I agree with your assertion JBrenner. I believe its an honest assessment based on empirical evidence.

I'm a really good example of this....being a conservative its said by some that I have sullied and degraded this website by expressing and defending my thoughts and ideas.

Pay attention, archer, and you may find like I did that what I thought were conservative views were really "randian" views. I wonder how many times you have a view that is in opposition to what Ayn Rand taught?

Thank you. BTW, you didn't "butt in." I was basically asking anyone in the Gulch.

I entered the Gulch as a place I assumed would have the excitement of a get together at Kay Ludlow's home in the Gulch. Diverse people with a common agreement on love of the mind and reason sharing exciting ideas about their work and rebuilding a culture.
The hidden premise is simple. Objectivism is the most powerful creative idea in the history of thought since Aristotle. Rand showed every premise of contemporary thought is false and needs to be redone. That's huge markets and incredible opportunities but all I see posted here are complaints and lets run away.
What I want is to see someone doing the new and exciting. The sense of life I yearn for is shown in Sandra Shaw's bust of Ayn Rand. I will do my best with the launch of a web site next month on knowing, essentially integrating science and philosophy. The point is that people are desperate to know in a time of anti knowledge and I think there is a market for knowledge. When it is dark nothing sells like a lantern.
Ayn Rand showed evil is impotent. Its up to us to show the joy and virtue of the good life.
Philosophercat

i AM a fan of Rand.... however, i lean conservative to libertarian depending on the issue.... i get sick and tired of being bashed or looked down upon because of the conservative views... but there are a few in here that really are no better than the folks we are against in the fedgov they are just a different flavor of the same ol thing

it is that the 'regulars' here are absolutely no different than the groups they despise... they act absolutely no different than the groups they rail on .... the only diff is the groups they rail on ARE the groups in power.... and there is a reason these "smart, intellectual, holier than thou" folks are not in power and it can be seen right here in the gultch

No, no, no! I want everyone to participate instead of just a few. If you are a Rand fan, you belong here!

AMEN!!!! the few 'libertarians' who are so full of themselves who do nothing but talk down to the rest of us who may disagree on an issue.... but what do we know we are all idiots but them.... i am ready to blow this site off as a waste of my time

Oh, that's rich!!! I'm laughing picturing the looks you got!

God bless your wife!

A number of our group of friends, and co-workers, between the ages of 38 and 43 all got pregnant for the first time at the same time. It was great being older, you have a different perspective and never have the feeling you missed out on anything. You also have the advantage of having watched your friends raise their kids - I learned a lot about what not to do that way!

How about this... Our one and only came along when I was 48 and my wife, 46. Certainly no boredom there. Went to my 30th HS Reunion with her in the carrier. Boy, did I get some raised eyebrows.

Yes, the falling apart is a pain. But other than that, it's a blast. I didn't have my only until I was almost 40 (my husband was over 40) so that kept us young for a long time - it's only now we're slowing down physically.

We have no problem keeping ourselves happy and busy. Boredom is something we don't grok.

Here's a reason to not be bored. I used to be into Libertarianism many years ago, but it hasn't been within my realm of interest. People in the Gulch put me on to Gary Johnson. I'm impressed. I may re-evaluate my entire thinking as a result.

It depends on what they (or I) say or if they (or I) chose to defend their (or my) position.

Welcome may be too strong a word. I think tolerated works better.

We'll agree to disagree then.
Objectivism is predicated upon the premise that it should be self-evident that humans should have liberty to do as they please, as long as it doesn't negatively affect others. In Galt's Gulch Online, even though individual contributors have some disagreements, as you and I do in this case, in general, we respect each other and can get along at the end of the day.

Statists operate under the premise that they have the right to use force to make us bend to their wishes. This is fundamentally incompatible with the existence of an Objectivist society.

If I were to disagree with my own prior assertion that "Objectivism works well for small groups of like-minded individuals", it would be on the side that it doesn't even work well in small groups of like-minded individuals, rather than on the side that it can work for a larger society. Perhaps I was being too generous to Objectivists.

There's another laugh for me! Thank you, Herb!

The bible does have some quotable snippets. "By their deeds shall you know them." For the most part, I'm not interested in their deep dark secrets, or even their philosophy. What they have done is the best indicator of what they will do. Trump is a good example. After reading the first paragraph of his bio I knew I couldn't vote for him.

Noodles are too tasty to use as a weapon.