Objectivism as an "ism" perhaps not. But everyone in the Gulch agrees on all essential core principles. That is more than enough.

With agreement on Objectivist core principles being essential to being an Objectivist there is at least a basis for rational discussion and working toward a solution. In the situation with people in general there is often very little agreement on shared principles or even about whether one should proceed rationally or what constitutes rational reasonable argument.

The problem is that many a problem and situation does not have one and only one obviously right solution. One must understand the difference between the essential and the inessential. Most people do not. Essential principles need to guide us to the best solution in a set of circumstances that we can reach agreement on. That does not mean it will be perfect. Remember the importance of voluntary agreements between people. Getting to an agreement where as much as possible to the good can be done without sacrificing anything essential should be the goal.

I know that it is almost dogma that there are no really differences of opinion between fully rational people. But I do not find it so in the real world. Even when agreeing on Objectivist principles it is quite possible to disagree on how to best resolve a particular situation. Then what?

Rational people including objectivists have no problem compromising on details that are not crucially important. Now some who think they are objectivists and/or rational have a hard time understanding which battles are worth fighting and what is and is not essential. I think that is the real issue, not compromise as such.

If you disagreed with someone being invited and the standard for the invite was that the individual in question held Objectivist principles, then the proper thing to do might very well be to just ignore the person and provide them nothing of value. For instance, the reason for the Gulch in the first place wasn't to just get away from people who didn't share their values, it was to let those who "mooched" of the men of the mind and sought to appropriate for themselves that which they hadn't earned or created so that those "moochers" would have to face the consequences of their own actions, which nature would dictate to be their ultimate demise. So someone arrives at the Gulch and you disagree with the decision. Don't engage them in commerce unless they prove that they are in fact trading value for value and not seeking to ask another man to live for their sake. Once you are sure that they are above board, you can then commence an appropriate relationship based on mutual, objective principles.

There is no need to get pissy and clickish. If every Objectivist left the moochers to their own devices, we would either be free of the moochers or the moochers would eventually get it and become producers.

It reminds me of what Rand had to say about the civil rights movement and Black Codes. She said that businesses should not be forced to hire minorities, nor serve them, or change how they accommodate them. Instead, everyone who abhors the behavior of those establishments should be able to identify them with ease so that they could avoid doing business with them so they might close down or change their ways.

An Objectivist understands that one has to be conscious by choice, which is to say, one has to apply the principles, objectively determined of course, by conscious effort. Are you suggesting that we excuse those who lapse into unconscious mode and randomly not live by their stated principles? How much hypocrisy is tolerable before one cannot call themselves an Objectivist or becomes unworthy of Gulch residency?

Perfect knowledge isn't required. If it were required, scientific pursuits would be fruitless. Differences in opinion are fine, opinions are based off of value judgements. A compromise on opinions is not necessary any more than a compromise of one's values is necessary. Where facts are in dispute, well that is another area all together. For instance, Global Warming or No Global Warming, but that is where logic prevails. When you remove the subjectivity of "opinion" and all you are dealing with is objective facts, then what's the problem? Discover new facts that augment what was known? Great, integrate them in to the understanding of the concept and move on, or where previously held knowledge is proven unsound, modify decisions made based on the previous and now discredited knowledge and move on.
Be very careful throwing around the concept of compromise. When you start talking compromise you inadvertently admit that neither party is correct, but that a combination of incorrect positions is somehow superior to a single incorrect position. All of which is non-sense. If one position is correct, you obviously wouldn't ever compromise it.

In Atlas Shrugged, anyone was admitted the Galt's Gulch who would swear and keep the oath of the strikers, the numb of which is not live for the sake of another nor ask another to live for one,

This is a statement in favor of individualism and toleration, and a demand for moral conformity on a basic issue.

It would be hard to get even a million people to honestly swear that oath today.

But I note, it doesn't demand that one be 100% rational. It does, however, cut against the basic earthly counsel of most religions.

But Galt's Gulch Online should be open to all honest, courteous discussants and be most of all, a friendly place for Rand fans, not a home of doctrinal conformity.

(Of course, I'll be advocating Objectivism myself, but, given the state of the culture, it would be sad to have this become an echo-chamber for those ideas.)

"Try pouring a ton of steel without rigid principles." ~ Hank Rearden

Good point. Also, having mutual respect for the other members of a Gulch would go a long way in preventing major disputes.

Yes - out of respect for his intelligence/reasoning. In which case, his intelligence/reasoning might be trusted/respected and he makes decisions.

AND, the owner of the property gets to decide what happens with the property. He can delegate that task to Galt or whatever. Just want to keep the authority straight.

Galt's authority is reason, not property.

Oh... I've only lived in the upper Midwest (MN, WI, IL, & IA). Good to hear that there are Hagens in CO that might like the idea of the Gulch though.

I know Hagens from Colorado Springs.

I don't know... Do we?

Yes. I have often wondered why people in this country on the political left support and defend Muslims. They are also quite different in their beliefs.

Old dino be a stubborn old relic from the past.
Snarl! Me theropd carnosaur got me free speech!
Don't care if I AM stuck in this consarn Jurassic Park paddock!
I may be prehistoric, but I got my PC!

LOL!

It is obvious to me that a mind of extreme great intelligence created all of this. It is too perfect and works to well for it all to be an accident.

A muslim would be very unhappy in the Gulch. Even if they were invited, it would not be long before they would leave on their own. Their whole belief system is diametrically opposed to Objectivism.

Agreed. Very industrious people we are.

Calling oneself an atheist really just means that one has no belief in the existence of a god. The trouble comes from those who have a belief in an atheism, a hypothesis as to why a non-existing being does not exist which results in a lot of wasted time answering religious believers' beliefs. Even those who claim to be atheists get into a quasi-atheism by debating whether they have a belief about the non-existence of god which is weak or strong as though there can be evidence for the non-existence of a nothing. Everyone is born an atheist ahead of years of socializing to come. You do not have to have evidence of no god, you just need to have no evidence of a god to be an atheist. Should evidence become apparent, it would be very easy to become a believer in a god.

Yes. +1

Good reasoning. Thanks Michael.

Good for you, allosaur. Well said. I learned my lesson at Easter that being a Christian in The Gulch is not easy. I admire you for staying in and holding onto your beliefs.

jhagen, do we know each other?