Rich, one of the things I read into the descriptions of the Gulch was that here was a group of right-minded people who just wanted to be left alone to live their lives as they saw fit. It seemed to me that they were not a group of people who would want to argue and push their ideas onto others. They came together for enjoyment, not to fight. As they all shared Galt's philosophy, there wouldn't be anything that crucial to fight over.
I know I sound naive, but Rand was, after all, describing heroes.

It does bring up a lot of variables, none of which has an easy answer. One of the key threads was "jbrenner assigns HOMEwork".

Jbrenner, have you ever been told to leave? Who did so? Just curious. I like you here.

I agree.

Rich, a strike of the mind is so difficult that I have not been able to do it. Even people like k and db have not done so.

Rich, if you and I sat down to resolve this we would do so by looking at the realities of the situation. If you need workers and bringing them in does not jeopardize the safety of the Gulch, and there is no concrete logical reason for them not to come to work in the Gulch, then I wouldn't object to your doing so.
I am assuming that the people in the Gulch will be at least as reasonable and logical as I. I think that's a reasonable assumption. :)

Put them in quarantine, lol.

Pirate, my feeling has always been that those of us who agree on our basic philosophy will be able to settle the disputes easily.

A limited Government. Probably a necessary evil and if the Gulch was truly limited to those governed by reason it should work. I wonder what we would do to Gulchers who were coughing too bad to contribute? :-)

Elections. I see a gulch as a Republic. Of course that depends on the number of people in the group.

Unless it was a a closed secret location like in the book, why would anyone have a problem with it? The rules set forth in the Constitution would again be the final arbiter. If it said no one outside the gulch may be brought in then you are in violation. If there is no such rule. then is there an elected council or other group that has been elected to make decisions?

I don't think Rand covered this in AS. Judge Narragansett was there and I think they alluded to the fact that he handled their disputes. Someone on Facebook wrote an interesting piece that started with another Judge shrugging and wanting to be a Judge in the Gulch. Narragansett felt another Judge was unnecessary for such a small community. What if he was allowed to be a Judge? I thought what if this new Judge and Narraganset disagree?

Judge Narraganset was rewriting the Constitution in the Gulch in the book. The Constitution would be the ultimate arbiter, not the founder of the gulch.

They can but we always believe our own logic and reason. What if, for example, I started a farm. The work was too much for just me and I wanted to bring non members to the property to work the farm. I would take them back home at the end of each work day. Would that be allowed? If someone didn't like that how would we resolve the issue?

Again, that depends on what you disagree on. Of course you could leave if you chose and that was in your rational self interest.

The way I see a Gulch is an agreement on a philosophy. If someone doesn't agree with the philosophy they are unlikely to be invited no mater how great their individual skill(s). The common philosophy should keep the disagreements to a minimum. A simple legal system would settle contract disputes.

If it was HIS Gulch I guess we would have no choice. If a real Gulch existed I guess someone would have to establish it. They would then expect to be the ultimate arbiter. Not sure if everyone would be okay with that.

I vaguely remember your posts about that. I don't remember any of the questions. As for a physical Gulch, we can't hide like they did in the book, so that brings up a lot of variables Rand didn't have to deal with.

As all of us consider ourselves as our own highest authority, I doubt that many of us, if any of us, would defer to Galt. I know I wouldn't.

Strong minded and strong willed people can still use logic and reason. I would think anyone invited to a Gulch would possess thee ability for logic and reason, therefore disputes would be resolved easily.

What if someone was invited to join the Gulch and I disagreed? I am there of my own free will and can leave but is that being inflexible? Should I try to understand why others agreed to invite them? As the group grows I can see issues like this coming up quite frequently.

That is a great question, rmp. I posed a series of questions in 2015 related to richrobinson's question today. I couldn't get people to agree on the location of a physical Gulch, or even whether people would want to come to a physical Gulch if I built one. There were other questions that I posed as well that led me to my opinion. We all hold our principles as being exceedingly important, often more important than getting along with each other. I am not saying we should compromise. I detest compromise.

A number of us have been told to leave on multiple occasions. I am one of the few who hasn't permanently left after such a "Be gone!"

Possibly. If enough strong minded, strong willed people get together there are bound to be disputes. I just keep wondering if Objectivists would be able to resolve these differences so that a Gulch would be feasible.

I do not think Objectivist are inflexible. Some things are just not compatible with reason, self determination and logic. As for compromise, compromise on what? Principles? No. Please expand on what you think would require compromise.

What is your reasoning for thinking there would be a number of arguments? Enough arguments to make it unstable? edited for clarilty

A basic understanding and appreciation of creation should never in any way be a problem. Even Ayn understood that at a biological level.

It's the organization and enforcement of such thoughts by those that are brain only, (no connection to the mind), that go arye.