For a moment I thought you were writing a CSI episode, ewv.

Your personal sense of life is not the same as your evaluation of the course of society. Whatever happens out there, and whatever they may ultimately do to you, it's still your life for as long as you have it.

Ayn Rand wrote about the phenomenon of people losing their sense of life as they grow older, but it happens not by imposition but acceptance.

There is only one "Objectivism": Ayn Rand's philosophy as she wrote it, which excludes utopianism, evangelicalism, and pragmatism. There are, however, different personalities with different personal values and interests.

It depends on how stiff they become and what they have been dragged through. Sometimes it helps to add salt.

That is called reputation and has always been crucial. "Underground economy" is something else and pertains to how values are exchanged in trade outside of the system.

Herb really fell apart when he tried to make music on a typewriter. He tried to escape through a trash can into a tunnel, but it didn't work. A is A.

Rand indeed did not recognize the premises that I stated. Nonetheless, what I said regarding those premises have been proven throughout the course of history, even American history. I recognize these premises on my own.

Rand did say that Objectivism is a philosophy for the individual to live on earth. Objectivism does have implications for social relations. Those implications are precisely the problem. Those who reject Objectivism's tenets have no compunction about using force to get their way and will always win over those who show restraint in using force to get their own way.

What I am saying is that the philosophy of Objectivism is fatally flawed precisely because it does require rationality of the vast majority of a society's citizens. An Objectivist society is to be desired, but not stable. If I were to simulate an Objectivist society, its Lyapunov exponent would be positive, meaning that it can never reach a stable steady-state.

Ayn Rand was neither a liberal nor a conservative. To the extent that someone, who is either, is rational and individualist to significant degrees there are commonalities with Ayn Rand's sense of life and philosophy. That makes it possible for many to be attracted to her writing and ideas. Where else would they come from?

The question is not whether a conservative should want to be here, but why anyone would want remain either a liberal or conservative who is attracted to Ayn Rand's ideas and the sense of life she portrays, without further exploring her philosophy and the historical facts outside the prevailing "narratives" to see what made Atlas Shrugged and its implications for life on earth possible. (And that learning should be done primarily by reading it and listening to the lectures first hand, not by socializing here or anywhere else.)

There have only been a few conservatives (and a-philosophical libertarians) here who have obnoxiously and militantly pushed anti-Ayn Rand views, or pushed all kinds of politics or causes without regard to Ayn Rand's principles, along with interjecting often angry personal feuding.

For the rest, whatever they have been, this is an opportunity for exploring, improving understanding, and sharing common values. But no one without sufficient knowledge should believe he or she must "become" anything without knowing first what it is and why. You aren't joining a religious sect here, signing up in advance for a dogma. Forget about what you call yourself and strive to discover what Ayn Rand's philosophy is in all its ramifications and what is right. That should be true for all of us.

Ayn Rand did not hold as a premise that "it should be self-evident that humans should have liberty to do as they please..." nor is it true that "everyone is pursuing his/her own self-interest".

Ayn Rand was neither a psychological hedonist nor an a-philosophical libertarian. She developed an entire philosophy showing how political freedom requires ethical egoism, how what is in fact in one's self interest depends on the nature of man and is not whatever one feels it is, and how an ethics of egoism requires reason as the exclusive means of knowledge. The notions of a self-evident politics or automatic selfishness were alien to her.

Objectivism is not "for small groups of like-minded individuals" and you are not "too generous" to Objectivism. You don't understand what it is. It is not politics. Objectivism is a philosophy for the individual to live on earth. That has implications for social relations and what kind of social system is required. It does not mean that everyone has to be "like minded". It does require rationality, without which no society can work. In a mixed or irrational society every rational individual still needs philosophical principles by which to live and survive the best he can for his own life despite the irrationality of others.

Thanks. Your posts on this thread have been insightful.

I love this song. Hope springs eternal that I'll ever be able to play and Dire Straits.

A couple of weeks ago, I had a thread of comments disappear as well. I contacted Gulch support, described the threads, where they had been and wondering why. They were tame posts providing praise for Shadows Live Under Seashells.

Support got back me to after two days, thanked me, and said they had found a glitch in the system. They fixed it and the thread comments were back. I wonder if it or something like it is still happening?

There is a lot of truth in what you say. I wonder how much is driven in part by trying to be a top point earner? What if we tried without that for awhile?

Another factor I think is happening, is the long drawn out, endless pounding and grinding of this campaign season. You can't access news without it. And so much real news is just eclipsed and gone because of it.

However, I still enjoy the Gulch immensely. There are some fine folks here. I would never have latched onto the novel Shadows Live Under Seashells which I just finished. A highly worthwhile read. The mood and tenor is lingering with me for awhile yet.

And I have gotten, and hope have given some good insight and advice. I am thinking of finding some Ayn Randisms of the day to bring to light again. I recently found my collection of the Ayn Rand Newsletter that I subscribed to back in high school. There are no doubt some gems in there to bring forth to today's non-fiction.

Good points, as always SLL.

j; I'm not certain what we're crossing pens about here. My response to rmp's posted question seems to have touched a sensitive nerve in you. Galt's Gulch Online is a site dedicated to Objectivists and those interested in the philosophy generated from AS or the AS Trilogy of movies or AR's writings, and almost any post or reply I make derives from my Objectivist viewpoint and knowledge. If such 'interference' offends those that don't yet have a firm grasp on the philosophy, or those that disagree with it, or those that are attempting to conflate their 'beliefs' onto or into it, or those attempting to flood the discussions available on the site with non-relevant replies and non-relevant posts--that's just too bad. I am unapologetically an Objectivist.

I have little patience, time, or interest in PCness, courtesy over content, quantity over quality, or compromise of principles. I don't waste my time on tact or other nonsense. Words have definitions (AR described those definitions as the primary line of defense against the statists) and actions have consequences. As to your proposed principle of non-interference, I think any Objectivist would agree that one has no individual right to intrude into the private property of another and interfere with that others exercise of rights, unless the results of such exercise intrudes onto others in negative ways.

But when that other enters into the public sphere or into a gathering of Objectivists with the intent or attempt to espouse anti-Objectivist discussion and ideas under the guise of 'freedom of expression', that other opens himself up to my unapologetic condemnation and/or counter arguments, and certainly invites my responses to and for those open to the Objectivist Philosophy.

As to your last paragraph, your statements and implications are generally wrong and inappropriate to the discussion. I don't know of any on this site that are generally recognized as Objectivists, that demand purity in posting or comments and have even found many of them to welcome humorous and personal interactions.

This discussion of what is 'Trollish Behavior' has been going on for more than a year now, and the reluctance of members in general to utilize the tools available to respond to the behavior has resulted in many of the Producers of the site dramatically reducing their involvement or even leaving the site--to the detriment of the rest of us as well as to those that find their way to the site discovering it to more resemble a general discussion or Conservative site than an inviting Objectivist site.

For now and the future, you may fully expect that I will continue to espouse and defend Objectivist principles and the development of Objectivist thinking and growth in any venue that I choose.

Hello RMP,
It is a reflection of life on the streets.
https://youtu.be/lAD6Obi7Cag
Hope springs eternal.
Regards,
O.A.

An excellent question that I'd also like the answer to.

What can we do to fix it? I've only been here for less than a year, and even I've noticed the downturn. What would we like to do about it?

Excellent, Mama

Rand made very clear that neither she (nor her philosophy) were conservative. As closely as I can remember, her statement was "what are the conservatives trying to conserve?"

Thanks. I'm curious as to how it was deleted.

I think there have always been tribes of one sort or another. A tribe is a group of people with some shared needs and interests which allows for easier cooperation. A family is a tribe . The workers in my small company form a tribe. And vouchers are a tribe too

This is my post and I did not delete it. It's very well said and I hope it's just lost somewhere in the threads. +1.