Shrugging...

[~Sophia~ 0]

Withdrawal of the sanction of the victim is not the same thing as withdrawing from the situation.

No it is not but you have asked how it (withdrawal of the sanction of the victim in terms of taxation) could be implemented and it would be (could be) by withdrawal from the system.

My point was that not every active withdrawal will necessarily resemble going in strike in AS.

I had thought you had wanted to come to the US and would have thought that Canadian socialism is something you would prefer to escape from, even though Europe may be worse.

Ideally, yes. However, as my son is getting older and that becomes more of a possibility for practical reasons, sadly, conditions here become less and less significantly different than living one hour south of my location. What troubles me greatly as well is the strong influence of religion in America.

[Rational_One 0]

What troubles me greatly as well is the strong influence of religion in America.

Hi Sophia, the influence of religion here isn't as bad as it may seem to an outside observer. Most people might consider themselves Christians here but few go to church or take it very seriously. It's mostly just the politicians blabbing on about it. By the way, I'm EC over at OO.net.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

What troubles me greatly as well is the strong influence of religion in America.

I live here and I don't see it, but I live in California and not the Bible Belt. Yet even in the heart of Jesus Country, most seriously religious people are content to practice their faith and have little interest in converting non-believers or forcing their ideas on them.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the socialists and environmentalists.

[ewv 0]

Time spent in the valley was a reprieve, but was not intended as a way of escaping the reality of battling the injustices of the looters.

I can't agree with this characterization of the valley. The primary battle being fought by the strikers was to inform the best men to strike and that there was someplace where they could *live* for once...

That the scale of what the strikers could achieve in the valley was smaller is not the issue. They did not continue to go back into hell in order to altruistically help, of course, but primarily to find and save the best men, and were prepared to live - happily - in the valley indefinitely once the outside world became impossible to survive any longer.

It wasn't just a smaller scale; most of them were there only one month of the year as a reward for what they did the rest of the time on behalf of the strike in the outer world. They didn't know how long it would take or how long they might have to remain in the valley for safety, if necessary, after a big collapse, but always thought of the valley as a temporary situation, with the long term goal of destroying the looters' world by withdrawing their victims and then going back to rebuild the country after unconditional surrender and collapse of the looters. That long term active plan, consuming most of their time, is much different than viewing the valley as dropping out for an escape to a utopia rather than continuing to do what was necessary to fight. In "draining the brains of the world" they were activists, not utopian escapists.

Of course the whole idea of the strike and the role of a "valley" was a fictional device to illustrate the role of man's mind and what would happen without it, and a strike and safe-haven in "the valley" are not available to us. Ayn Rand stated in "Is Atlas Shrugging?", the article cited earlier, that it was not her purpose to promote a "strike":

[A]lthough the political aspects of Atlas Shrugged are not its central theme nor its main purpose, my attitude towards these aspects-during the years of writing the novel—was contained in a brief rule I had set for myself: "The purpose of this book is to prevent itself from becoming prophetic."

She recognized the importance of ideas in shaping the direction of a culture, and regarded a deliberate 'strike' in advance of changing those ideas as futile, both culturally and for one's own life. (She discussed that explicitly but I don't know where it is; it's not in the article "Is Atlas Shrugging".)

Good (and mixed) people today often "strike", withdrawing as a psychological default without realizing the principles behind it, but an Atlas Shrugged type of strategic "strike" is not the proper motive for the kinds of situations Piz referred to. The resemblance he notices between his own actions and the characters in Atlas are not because they represent the Atlas "strike" as such, but because he lives and sees the world in accordance with the same philosophy as the best characters in AS.

[piz 0]

What troubles me greatly as well is the strong influence of religion in America.

I live here and I don't see it, but I live in California and not the Bible Belt. Yet even in the heart of Jesus Country, most seriously religious people are content to practice their faith and have little interest in converting non-believers or forcing their ideas on them.

I can't speak for the U.S. or its various regions as a whole, but I have an example of that: My best real-life friend is an every-syllable-of-the-Bible-is-literal-truth Baptist. Yet as far as the majority of the most ridiculous parts go, she interprets what she finds there to mean something far more rational than what it actually says, and she outright ignores or even denies portions that would have her go against her very this-world values.* She's also never tried to convert me (though I helped with that early in our friendship by firmly pointing out that it would be impossible). So even this worst sort of Christian can be far better than one might expect.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the socialists and environmentalists.

Agreed. All I've ever had from any of them is venom for my views. They won't even attempt to refute with argument, they just immediately sneer and go ad hominem. With them, I issue a simple, "I disagree. The facts show that that is entirely wrong." If they press with "What facts?" I say something like, "I went looking for the truth, questioned the 'authorities,' didn't take anyone's word for anything, educated myself. Go do that and you'll see." Then I stop participating in the conversation, because invariably it's useless to continue.

_____

*She also rationalizes a lot, such as claiming that her King James bible is what's literally true, then saying that you have to go back to the original Hebrew to explain away the water-to-wine story so she can maintain that alcohol is forbidden.

[piz 0]

I think that there is a difference between a proper human reaction of withdrawing from something (when you can) versus "going to the valley" or "going on strike" as in Atlas...

Thanks for that - it's exactly the kind of discussion I was looking for. You make a number of good points; I'll be giving it a lot of thought.

[PhilO 0]

It wasn't just a smaller scale; most of them were there only one month of the year as a reward for what they did the rest of the time on behalf of the strike in the outer world.

Yes, but it was stated (unfortunately I can't find the quote at the moment) I think by Hugh Akston that it would soon be impossible for them to stay in the outside world at all, until the collapse was complete. In the meantime, and this is my primary point, the valley was a self-contained place to live and work. It was not a "utopia" even in fictional terms. In the context of the novel, the conditions would have permitted people to live there for their entire lives.

Also, not all of the strikers were depicted as fulltime outside activists. Why would the mother with her children not be there fulltime for example? Ellis Wyatt is certainly there "for the duration", he isn't spending just one month there, as is the composer, the banker, the surgeon, and so forth, who are no longer wasting time in the outside world, because activism is not, in fact, their goal, nor was there an expectation that they had some kind of duty to be like Francisco or Galt or Ragnar.

Of course the whole idea of the strike and the role of a "valley" was a fictional device to illustrate the role of man's mind and what would happen without it, and a strike and safe-haven in "the valley" are not available to us.

Not within the U.S., no. But the earth is a big place, and the rest of the solar system is bigger still. To imagine that one is hopelessly trapped under the thumb of evil men is less about actual reality than what Blake dubbed "mind forged manacles" (in a poem that has nothing to with Objectivism but I like the phrase.)

I know that Ayn Rand was not promoting the valley or a general strike as a current ideal, but I think those who believe she thought (more importantly, that Objectivist principles imply) that it was better to "go down with the ship" in reality are badly mistaken, in the event that the novel was *not* successful in averting its own predictions.

Good (and mixed) people today often "strike", withdrawing as a psychological default without realizing the principles behind it, but an Atlas Shrugged type of strategic "strike" is not the proper motive for the kinds of situations Piz referred to. The resemblance he notices between his own actions and the characters in Atlas are not because they represent the Atlas "strike" as such, but because he lives and sees the world in accordance with the same philosophy as the best characters in AS.

If one withdraws from a particular entire career field (e.g. teaching or medicine) because of the state of the culture, that is to some significant degree adopting the strikers' principle. Of course that isn't the same as entirely withdrawing from the culture - though anybody who willingly emigrates from one country to another *is* doing just that. The primary difference between the Valley and emigration is that in the context of the novel, the entire planet was no longer civilized.

[ewv 0]

The purpose of the strike in the Atlas Shrugged plot was to actively withdraw the best minds from being sacrificed to the looters in order to bring down and replace their system as a consequence of the general public recognizing -- through demonstration -- what made civilization possible. The purpose of the strike was not to provide for a permanent place to live outside society in order to live properly in spite of what was happening in the world. This is described in several passages in the two chapters on the valley following Dagny's inadvertent crash there.

When John Galt decided to strike there was no valley or the equivalent for him to go to. He quit, and began to recruit strikers, never expecting to see his motor again or to rebuild it somewhere else [p. 745-6, 1957 hardcover edition]:

"You knew the kind of achievement your motor represented?"

"Yes."

"And you knew you were leaving it to perish?"

"Yes." He looked off into the darkness beyond the windows and chuckled softly, but it was not a sound of amusement. "I looked at my motor for the last time, before I left. I thought of the men who claim that wealth, is a matter of natural resources -- and of the men who claim that wealth is a matter of seizing the factories -- and of the men who claim that machines condition their brains. Well, there was the motor to condition them, and there it remained as just exactly what it is without man's mind -- as a pile of metal scraps and wires, going to rust. You have been thinking of the great service which that motor could have rendered to mankind, if it had been put into production. I think that on the day when men understand the meaning of its fate in that factory's junk heap -- it will have rendered a greater one."

"Did you expect to see that day, when you left it?"

"No,"

"Did you expect a chance to rebuild it elsewhere?"

"No."

"And you were willing to let it remain in a junk heap?"

"For the sake of what that motor meant to me," he said slowly, "I had to be willing to let it crumble and vanish forever" -- he looked straight at her and she heard the steady, unhesitant, uninflected ruthlessness of his voice -- "just as you will have to be willing to let the rail of Taggart Transcontinental crumble and vanish."

First Ragnar and Francisco, and then Hugh Akston, joined Galt in the strike before there was a valley to go to or conceived. A year later Galt's former boss in the research lab at Twentieth Century Motors joined the strike, then Richard Halley, and then Midas Mulligan, all committing to the strike before and indepedently of any plans for the valley [p.746]:

"Who were the first to follow you?"

He let a moment pass, in deliberate emphasis, then answered, "My two best friends. You know one of them. You know, perhaps better than anyone else, what price he paid for it. Our own teacher, Dr. Akston, was next. He joined us within one evening's conversation. William Hastings, who had been my boss in the research laboratory of Twentieth Century Motors, had a hard time, fighting it out with himself. It took him a year. But he joined. Then Richard Halley. Then Midas Mulligan."

"-- who took fifteen minutes," said Mulligan.

Mulligan had previously owned the valley as a "private retreat" and built a house for himself to personally retire there after he joined the strike. Judge Naragansett and Halley, both already on strike, were then invited to join him, while the other stikers remained outside. [p. 746-7]:

She turned to him. "It was you who established this valley?"

"Yes," said Mulligan. "It was just my own private retreat, at first. I bought it years ago, I bought miles of these mountains, section by section, from ranchers and cattlemen who didn't know what they owned. The valley is not listed on any map. I built this house, when I decided to quit. I cut off all possible avenues of approach, except one road -- and it's camouflaged beyond anyone's power to discover -- and I stocked this place to be self-supporting, so that I could live here for the rest of my life and never have to see the face of a looter. When I heard that John had got Judge Narragansett, too, I invited the Judge to come here. Then we asked Richard Halley to join us. The others remained outside, at first."

The purpose of the strike was only to withdraw the strikers' intelligence from the world of the looters, not to establish a better permanent place to live in the valley. The valley was for years used primarily as a place to meet only once a year. Most of the stikers remainded scattered across the country, either working in low level jobs or retiring if they had the financial means to do so [p. 747]:

We had no rules of any kind," said Galt, "except one. When a man took our oath, it meant a single commitment: not to work in his own profession, not to give to the world the benefit of his mind. Each of us carried it out in any manner he chose. Those who had money, retired to live on their savings. Those who had to work, took the lowest jobs they could find. Some of us had been famous; others -- like that young brakeman of yours, whom Halley discovered -- were stopped by us before they had set out to get tortured. But we did not give up our minds or the work we loved. Each of us continued in his real profession, in whatever manner and spare time he could manage -- but he did it secretly, for his own sole benefit, giving nothing to men, sharing nothing. We were scattered all over the country, as the outcasts we had always been, only now we accepted our parts with conscious intention. Our sole relief were the rare occasions when we could see one another. We found that we liked to meet -- in order to be reminded that human beings still existed. So we came to set aside one month a year to spend in this valley -- to rest, to live in a rational world, to bring our real work out of hiding, to trade our achievements -- here, where achievements meant payment, not expropriation. Each of us built his own house here, at his own expense -- for one month of life out of twelve. It made the eleven easier to bear.

When the strike began Galt did not know if the strike would be successful in his lifetime, but aimed to eventually liberate the world as the long term goal no matter how long it took. Twelve years into the strike, Galt told Dagny [p. 748]:

"We started with no time limit in view," said Galt. "We did not know whether we'd live to see the liberation of the world or whether we'd have to leave our battle and our secret to the next generations. We knew only that this was the only way we cared to live. But now we think that we will see, and soon, the day of our victory and of our return."

Galt did not have his own cottage in the valley until four years into the strike [p. 755]:

"You see, today is June first, and the three of us -- John, Francisco and I -- have had breakfast together on every June first for twelve years."

"Here?"

"Not when we started. But here, ever since this house was built eight years ago."

Dagny, because she had inadvertently crashed in the valley, was the first outsider to learn of the valley before agreeing to the strike. The rest all made their committment to the strike before learning the secret of the valley as a place to go. They were not offered the valley as an inducement to strike [p. 749]:

"We never tell anyone more than he is ready to hear. You are the first person who has learned our secret ahead of time. But you're here and you had to know.

The valley became more prominent, years into the strike, when it became necessary for safety. As explained to Dagny when she crashed in the valley after the stike had already lasted for 12 years and shortly before the collapse of the looters and the end of the strike [p. 747]:

"It's the destruction of Colorado that started the growth of this valley," said Midas Mulligan. "Ellis Wyatt and the others came to live here permanently, because they had to hide. Whatever part of their wealth they could salvage, they converted into gold or machines, as I had, and they brought it here. There were enough of us to develop the place and to create jobs for those who had had to earn their living outside. We have now reached the stage where most of us can live here full time. The valley is almost self-supporting... The time is approaching when all of us will have to be called to live here -- because the world is falling apart so fast that it will soon be starving. But we will be able to support ourselves in this valley."

Otherwise, the main participants and organizers were still living in the outside world, still coming only one month a year. As Galt told Dagny after her crash, "We come here because we want to rest" [p.714] and "You're going to stay here for a month. For the one month of our vacation, like the rest of us." [p. 759]

By then the essence of the strike had spread beyond the organized action, without the equivalent of a valley for the participants to go to [p. 748]:

"The world is crashing faster than we expected," said Hugh Akston. "Men are stopping and giving up. Your frozen trains, the gangs of raiders, the deserters, they're men who've never heard of us, and they're not part of our strike, they are acting on their own -- it's the natural response of whatever rationality is still left in them -- it's the same kind of protest as ours."

After twelve years and only when the end was near did they retreat into the valley full time. Francisco anticipated moving to the valley within a few months: "And I -- in a few months, I'll come to live here permanently,..." [p. 796]. At the June retreat, with a crash imminent after 12 years of the strike started, about a dozen strikers still planned on one last extended trip back to the outside world to finish up their activity within the next year [p. 803]:

"In fact, there's only ten or twelve men who're going back this year -- mostly to finish off, convert whatever they own and come here permanently. I think this was our last vacation month, because before another year is over we'll all be living in this valley."

"Good," said Galt.

"We'll have to, from the way things are going outside."

"Yes."

"Francisco," said Mulligan, "you'll come back in a few months?"

"In November at the latest," said Francisco.

Galt intended to be the last to remain in the outside world, despite the risk, because he wanted one more value rescued from it (viz., Dagny) [p. 804-5]

"But there's nothing left there for you to do. We got everybody we knew of or can hope to know of. Our list is completed, except for Hank Rearden -- and we'll get him before the year is over -- and Miss Taggart, if she so chooses. That's all. Your job is done. There's nothing to look for, out there -- except the final crash, when the roof comes down on their heads."

"I know it."

"John, yours is the one head I don't want to be there when it happens."

"You've never had to worry about me."

"But don't you realize what stage they're coming to? They're only one step away from open violence -- hell, they've taken the step and sealed and declared it long ago! -- but in one more moment they'll see the full reality of what they've taken, exploding in their damned faces -- plain, open, blind, arbitrary, bloodshedding violence, running amuck, hitting anything and anyone at random. That's what I don't want to see you in the midst of."

"I can take care of myself."

"John, there's no reason for you to take the risk," said Francisco.

"What risk?"

"The looters are worried about the men who're disappeared. They're suspecting something. You, of all people, shouldn't stay there any longer. There's always a chance that they might discover just who and what you are."

"There's some chance. Not much."

"But there's no reason whatever to take it. There's nothing left that Ragnar and I can't finish."

Hugh Akston was watching them silently, leaning back in his chair; his face had that look of intensity, neither quite bitterness nor quite a smile, with which a man watches a progression that interests him, but that lags a few steps behind his vision.

"If I go back," said Galt, "it won't be for our work. It will be to win the only thing I want from the world for myself, now that the work is done. I've taken nothing from the world and I've wanted nothing. But there's one thing which it's still holding and which is mine and which I won't let it have. No, I don't intend to break my oath, I won't deal with the looters, I won't be of any value or help to anyone out there, neither to looters nor neutrals -- nor scabs. If I go, it won't be for anyone's sake but mine -- and I don't think I'm risking my life, but if I am -- well, I'm now free to risk it."

Midas Mulligan's original purchase of the valley for his personal retreat turned out much later to provide a safe haven all in one place for the strikers as they progressively found it necessary to hide and then later escape from the violent lashing out of the looters, the collapse of the food supply, etc. when the crash came sooner and more violently than expected. They enjoyed their life in the valley as the way they wanted to live, even if on a smaller scale, with the majority who went there for a month "vacation" regarding it as a place to engage in the kind of work they had withdrawn form the world. But according to Ayn Rand's description the valley had not been intended as a permanent home for the strikers, nor was seeking such an informal community the purpose of the strike, nor was it offered to potential strikers as an inducement in advance of their committment to strike.

[PhilO 0]

Midas Mulligan's original purchase of the valley for his personal retreat turned out much later to provide a safe haven all in one place for the strikers as they progressively found it necessary to hide and then later escape from the violent lashing out of the looters, the collapse of the food supply, etc. when the crash came sooner and more violently than expected. They enjoyed their life in the valley as the way they wanted to live, even if on a smaller scale, with the majority who went there for a month "vacation" regarding it as a place to engage in the kind of work they had withdrawn form the world. But according to Ayn Rand's description the valley had not been intended as a permanent home for the strikers, nor was seeking such an informal community the purpose of the strike, nor was it offered to potential strikers as an inducement in advance of their committment to strike.

If this is intended as a response to me, I never intended to say, nor do I think I actually said, anything that contradicts what you wrote above. The valley was of course not originally intended as a permanent alternative to the entire earth; my point was, my point is, and my point remains consistent with everything you just wrote: that the Valley was in fact capable of supporting the lives of the strikers on an indefinite basis, for however long it took for the outside world to go through the spasms of collapse so that it could be recovered. Furthermore, nothing you write, that I can tell, contradicts my point that there were in fact long term year-round residents of the Valley such as Ellis Wyatt who was effectively a wanted man outside, as well as the surgeon and others. Nothing in what I wrote indicates that I was, or am, necessarily promoting the Valley as an *ideal* permanent place for all of the strikers to live - *if* the rest of the world were sane. But in the context of the novel, the Valley is a huge value. You seem to have some notion that "the strike" meant some kind of duty to become an activist. Certainly one goal of the strike was for the strikers to personally ensure their own safety and survival and those of similar spirit whom they valued and making them understand that it was important that they withdraw their minds from an evil culture. Well, Ellis Wyatt wasn't sitting around fiddling his thumbs waiting for the world to collapse and then to appreciate him, he was out getting oil in the Valley (and he was *not* actively working in the outside world ala Ragnar or Galt, if you think so, provide the evidence from the book to that effect); even Francisco wasn't just fighting, he was mining and then subtly encouraging Dagny to create a small rail line to carry the ore. etc.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that there is something inherently wrong with the idea of permanently making such a place one's home - even, let's say in the context of a resurrected and sane world - go ahead, so far you haven't offered any reasons supporting that view other than the innuendo that it would somehow be "giving up" or that such an idea is inherently identical to "utopian", which it is not. Personally it sounds like a pretty nice place to live, have you checked the real estate prices in comparable places such as Aspen, Colorado lately? If AR had written a postscript to Atlas, it wouldn't surprise me if she indicated that some of the strikers would choose the Valley as their permanent homes anyway. Why wouldn't they? Not everybody wants to live in the middle of New York City, "sane" or not, I sure don't.

[ewv 0]

Midas Mulligan's original purchase of the valley for his personal retreat turned out much later to provide a safe haven all in one place for the strikers as they progressively found it necessary to hide and then later escape from the violent lashing out of the looters, the collapse of the food supply, etc. when the crash came sooner and more violently than expected. They enjoyed their life in the valley as the way they wanted to live, even if on a smaller scale, with the majority who went there for a month "vacation" regarding it as a place to engage in the kind of work they had withdrawn form the world. But according to Ayn Rand's description the valley had not been intended as a permanent home for the strikers, nor was seeking such an informal community the purpose of the strike, nor was it offered to potential strikers as an inducement in advance of their committment to strike.

If this is intended as a response to me, I never intended to say, nor do I think I actually said, anything that contradicts what you wrote above. The valley was of course not originally intended as a permanent alternative to the entire earth; my point was, my point is, and my point remains consistent with everything you just wrote: that the Valley was in fact capable of supporting the lives of the strikers on an indefinite basis, for however long it took for the outside world to go through the spasms of collapse so that it could be recovered.

You originally responded:

The theme was to demonstrate the role of the mind in human existence and what happens when it is withdrawn, and in the plot the strikers were deliberately trying to bring down the looters' system so they could return to something better. Time spent in the valley was a reprieve, but was not intended as a way of escaping the reality of battling the injustices of the looters.

I can't agree with this characterization of the valley. The primary battle being fought by the strikers was to inform the best men to strike and that there was someplace where they could *live* for once.

That was not the purpose of the strike or the valley. Most of the strikers remained outside the valley for twelve years, visiting for a "rest" one month a year in what Galt called a "vacation" among rational, benevolent and productive friends. Potential new strikers were not informed of the secret of the valley until after they committed to the strike. After almost twelve years of the strike, near the end, they had all moved or planned to soon move into the valley when it became necessary to seek safety during the final collapse and before they could return to the outside world. For some, that necessity began with the collapse of Colorado near the end of the strike (which is when Wyatt and the others went to the valley full-time because they had to "hide").

But in the context of the novel, the Valley is a huge value. You seem to have some notion that "the strike" meant some kind of duty to become an activist. Certainly one goal of the strike was for the strikers to personally ensure their own safety and survival and those of similar spirit whom they valued and making them understand that it was important that they withdraw their minds from an evil culture. Well, Ellis Wyatt wasn't sitting around fiddling his thumbs waiting for the world to collapse and then to appreciate him, he was out getting oil in the Valley (and he was *not* actively working in the outside world ala Ragnar or Galt, if you think so, provide the evidence from the book to that effect); even Francisco wasn't just fighting, he was mining and then subtly encouraging Dagny to create a small rail line to carry the ore. etc.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that there is something inherently wrong with the idea of permanently making such a place one's home - even, let's say in the context of a resurrected and sane world - go ahead, so far you haven't offered any reasons supporting that view other than the innuendo that it would somehow be "giving up" or that such an idea is inherently identical to "utopian", which it is not. Personally it sounds like a pretty nice place to live, have you checked the real estate prices in comparable places such as Aspen, Colorado lately? If AR had written a postscript to Atlas, it wouldn't surprise me if she indicated that some of the strikers would choose the Valley as their permanent homes anyway. Why wouldn't they? Not everybody wants to live in the middle of New York City, "sane" or not, I sure don't.

As much as many of us might wish there were such a place to go to today, it is important not to equate that with the purpose of the strike and the role of the valley as actually presented in Atlas Shrugged. Finding a better place to live is also not related to Piz's original question concerning to what extent there is a similarity between the strike in Atlas and the withdrawals from different kinds of situations he described -- "shrugging without going to the valley", as he put it. No one said anything about a "duty to become an activist" or that the valley was not a value to the strikers, and there have been no "innuendos". No one knows what Ayn Rand, who unlike you and me did prefer living in New York City, would have written in a postscript about where some characters later decided to live, but it would not have changed the purpose of the strike and the role of the valley in the plot of Atlas.

[PhilO 0]

The purpose of the strike for some, such as Francisco and Galt and Ragnar, was to actively seek out the Atlases and convince them to stop sanctioning their destroyers. After those men were convinced to go on strike, some stayed in the outside world, some stayed in the Valley *fulltime*. They were "on strike" but also living full and productive lives. That the Valley wasn't initially set up with that in mind (it was Mulligan's private retreat initially), or that *some* of the strikers took it as their real job to actively work on enlisting other strikers, doesn't contradict my ongoing point that for some of the strikers the Valley was a semi-permanent place to live happily. It wasn't an emergency bomb shelter for 1 month of the year and it wasn't primarily an "escape".

The fulltime inhabitants of the Valley included:

- Midas Mulligan

- Dr. Hendricks (the surgeon)

- Ellis Wyatt

- Probably the woman and her children, who explicitly discusses the virtue of raising her children there vs. the outside hell

- Ragnar Danneskold's wife (I think)

- Galt's young physics protege

And no doubt others, this is just the top of my head.

If there's someplace in the novel where it is stated that a *condition* of becoming a striker was to stay in the outside world for 11 months out of the year, I would like to see the reference. If there is someplace in the novel where it is stated that Wyatt and others were *not* offered fulltime residence in the Valley "because that wasn't its purpose", I would like to see that reference too. Otherwise within the context of the novel it is consistent and reasonable to assume that a striker chose his particular form of striking - either actively participating in recruiting other strikers or otherwise accelerating collapse, or choosing to live a full life without doing that.

[PhilO 0]

I'm not really wanting to argue about this much further, but this excerpt from Atlas is supportive of my position regarding the nature of the Valley (for some of the strikers). The context is Dagny meeting Quentin Daniels again in the Valley:

"We talked physics all the way down here," said Galt.

"Oh, I remember when you asked me whether I'd go with you," said Daniels, "whether I'd be willing to go and never come back and give up everything … Everything? Give up a dead Institute that's crumbling back into the jungle, give up my future as a janitor-slave-by-law, give up Wesley Mouch and Directive 10-289 and sub-animal creatures who crawl on their bellies, grunting that there is no mind! … Miss Taggart"—he laughed exultantly—"he was asking me whether I'd give that up to go with him! He had to ask me twice, I couldn't believe it at first, I couldn't believe that any human being would need to be asked or would think of it as a choice. To go? I would have leaped off a skyscraper just to follow him—and to hear his formula before we hit the pavement!"

"I don't blame you," she said; she looked at him with a tinge of wistfulness that was almost envy. "Besides, you've fulfilled your contract. You've led me to the secret of the motor."

"I'm going to be a janitor here, too," said Daniels, grinning happily. "Mr. Mulligan said he'd give me the job of janitor—at the power plant. And when I learn, I'll rise to electrician. Isn't he great—Midas Mulligan? That's what I want to be when I reach his age. I want to make money. I want to make millions. I want to make as much as he did!"

"Daniels!" She laughed, remembering the quiet self-control, the strict precision, the stern logic of the young scientist she had known. "What's the matter with you? Where are you? Do you know what you're saying?"

"I'm here, Miss Taggart—and there's no limit to what's possible here! I'm going to be the greatest electrician in the world and the richest! I'm going to—"

[...]

This passage alone clearly contradicts any claim that the Valley was never offered as a fulltime alternative to living in a hellish culture (not that it means that Daniels and others would not return once the outside world was worth re-entering, but the point is that life in the Valley isn't some simulated life, some half-life, some escape, some utopia, it's real life.)

[ewv 0]

The strike lasted for 12 years. Do not confuse the purpose of the strike to withdraw the best brains from exploitation by the looters with the fact that a few had lived in the valley, and more, including Ellis Wyatt, had come near the end of the twelve years for their safety after the collapse of Colorado. (Quentin Daniels was the last to join the strike before Rearden and Dagny gave up right at the end as the outer world was in its final stages of collapse and the "road was cleared" to "go back to the world".)

Your statement that "The primary battle being fought by the strikers was to inform the best men to strike and that there was someplace where they could *live* for once" is not correct and is contradicted by Ayn Rand's descriptions of the strike, its purpose, and the use of the valley. Galt told Dagny that strikers were not told the secret of the valley until after they were ready to quit; living in the valley was not held out as an inducement to strike and was not the purpose of the strike. Most of the strikers lived and worked outside the valley for 11 months of a year for most of the twelve year duration of the strike. Ayn Rand described the role of the valley in the extensive quotes from the novel already collected here. No descriptions of life in the valley for some, almost all near the end of the strike, or its value to the participants, contradicts this or the purpose of the strike.

[Carlos 0]

Agreed. All I've ever had from any of them is venom for my views. They won't even attempt to refute with argument, they just immediately sneer and go ad hominem. With them, I issue a simple, "I disagree. The facts show that that is entirely wrong." If they press with "What facts?" I say something like, "I went looking for the truth, questioned the 'authorities,' didn't take anyone's word for anything, educated myself. Go do that and you'll see." Then I stop participating in the conversation, because invariably it's useless to continue.

When I have asked for proof of AGW Theory, I have repeatedly heard and read the line "There is no proof in Science, you can never prove a theory"

[ewv 0]

Agreed. All I've ever had from any of them is venom for my views. They won't even attempt to refute with argument, they just immediately sneer and go ad hominem. With them, I issue a simple, "I disagree. The facts show that that is entirely wrong." If they press with "What facts?" I say something like, "I went looking for the truth, questioned the 'authorities,' didn't take anyone's word for anything, educated myself. Go do that and you'll see." Then I stop participating in the conversation, because invariably it's useless to continue.

When I have asked for proof of AGW Theory, I have repeatedly heard and read the line "There is no proof in Science, you can never prove a theory"

Then you have to do what Piz does and dismiss them as hopeless to discuss it with. Tell them that if they have no basis for their beliefs and deny the possibility of scientific proof then there is no reason to take their beliefs seriously as anything but a religion masquerading as science. Their claim that there is no proof in science is a dishonest attempt to exempt themselves from intellectual standards while stealing the respectability of science for the purpose of moral intimidation. Let them know you are not intimidated by the sham and walk away.

[Cometmaker 0]

I think that there is a difference between a proper human reaction of withdrawing from something (when you can) versus "going to the valley" or "going on strike" as in Atlas.[…]

In contrast, when you withdraw from a situation, do you think of it as proving or demonstrating something or hope those perpetrating the injustice will collapse without you, or are you simply avoiding something you can't or rationally don't want to tolerate any longer? When I give up on something I don't think of it as "going on strike" to change something or of "going to the valley", but as avoiding more trouble that isn't worth it anymore. I think we have all experienced the kinds of situations you describe, but I have my own personal reasons for what I want to do and don't intend it to be regarded as a "strike" in regard to others. And I don't regard it as a philosophical statement, but rather with disappointment and resigned discouragement because nothing more is possible in the previous course of action[...]We stopped because it wasn't worth it any more; I never thought of it as a "strike" or as a means to change the state's actions or to demonstrate that punitive state action harms the economy.

What about shrugging the possibility of taking on a new venture (on top of what one already does, or someone just starting out after schooling) to avoid, say, additional taxation because one regards the situation as more trouble than it's worth even though one would enjoy the work and obtain a profit even after taxation? I am thinking about many youth who are bursting with ambition and ideas but who do not think an idea is realizable as a profitable and enjoyable task due to various regulations and taxation. Thinking this way is a crippling danger, I think, a road to possibly resigned and helpless bitterness about how the world has stopped them from doing what they really want to do, and a sense of helplessness about their own efficacy, lodging their ideas and imagination in the same category as a dream world. Some people become overly enthusiastic about science fiction and fantasy because immersing themselves in those worlds avoids a reality where they perceive they could do a great deal but judge that the world has stopped them from doing what they really want to do. In these select cases, they have given up on reality and are not merely appreciative for those fields as literary works, film or computer games as recreation. I have my hierarchy of values and priorities, including a place for the narrow advocacy activities in specifically chosen areas that matter the most to me. For me, I have found types of work and ways of working that minimize the impact irrational laws have on me, but I would like to know, other than trying to find ways around statist regs while living in the United States, what examples do people have of strategies they have taken to avoid the self-censorship of the mind - considering something not worthwhile before one even begins so that it becomes not worthwhile to consider the ideas in reality?

[piz 0]

...what examples do people have of strategies they have taken to avoid the self-censorship of the mind - considering something not worthwhile before one even begins so that it becomes not worthwhile to consider the ideas in reality?

This isn't so much of the mind as of the spirit, I suppose, but I have resolved never to permit the legal system any involvement should I ever wish to get married again. Having been the victim of its irrationality in my divorce, I will only marry if two conditions are met: (1) an agreement is drawn up prior to the marriage that includes terms to the effect that the agreement, and no portion of the domestic relations laws beyond that which makes the agreement legal, governs absolutely should the marriage end, and (2) we commit to each other and live as husband and wife without acquiring a marriage license.

After what I went through, I will not allow the possibility that the law might do to me again what it did to me before. If that means I never marry again, so be it.

Yes, it was that bad.

[Cometmaker 0]

This isn't so much of the mind as of the spirit, I suppose, but I have resolved never to permit the legal system any involvement should I ever wish to get married again. Having been the victim of its irrationality in my divorce, I will only marry if two conditions are met: (1) an agreement is drawn up prior to the marriage that includes terms to the effect that the agreement, and no portion of the domestic relations laws beyond that which makes the agreement legal, governs absolutely should the marriage end, and (2) we commit to each other and live as husband and wife without acquiring a marriage license.

I don't see how this is more a spiritual issue. In responding to what I wrote, I interpret your words above to mean that you don't consider a marriage worthy of consideration in reality unless your two conditions are met. Is that correct?

If so, without getting into the details of your personal life, could you explain how the legal definition of marriage would not trump the agreement as per your condition (1) should your partner choose to pursue that route in the future? What makes that agreement legally binding on both parties?

[piz 0]

I don't see how this is more a spiritual issue. In responding to what I wrote, I interpret your words above to mean that you don't consider a marriage worthy of consideration in reality unless your two conditions are met. Is that correct?

Yes.

If so, without getting into the details of your personal life, could you explain how the legal definition of marriage would not trump the agreement as per your condition (1) should your partner choose to pursue that route in the future? What makes that agreement legally binding on both parties?

Well, provided they're properly constructed, among other things prenuptial agreements supercede division of property rules under the law. If they didn't, what would be the point of them? Every one of them would be thrown out and the law's rules used instead, and that's clearly not the case.

[Lady Brin 0]

...what examples do people have of strategies they have taken to avoid the self-censorship of the mind - considering something not worthwhile before one even begins so that it becomes not worthwhile to consider the ideas in reality?

This isn't so much of the mind as of the spirit, I suppose, but I have resolved never to permit the legal system any involvement should I ever wish to get married again. Having been the victim of its irrationality in my divorce, I will only marry if two conditions are met: (1) an agreement is drawn up prior to the marriage that includes terms to the effect that the agreement, and no portion of the domestic relations laws beyond that which makes the agreement legal, governs absolutely should the marriage end, and (2) we commit to each other and live as husband and wife without acquiring a marriage license.

After what I went through, I will not allow the possibility that the law might do to me again what it did to me before. If that means I never marry again, so be it.

Yes, it was that bad.

I'm very sorry for your loss (been there, hurt and lost too) and agree with you 100% with your 2 rules - except I need health insurance (I don't have to have it, but it would be nice). OTOH, just the thought of marriage and my anxiety level goes off the Richter Scale.

[Cometmaker 0]

Well, provided they're properly constructed, among other things prenuptial agreements supercede division of property rules under the law. If they didn't, what would be the point of them? Every one of them would be thrown out and the law's rules used instead, and that's clearly not the case.

You wrote that the agreement would be drawn up prior to marriage, so that is by definition pre and nuptial, but I am not seeing how the common-law marriage (I'm assuming, since no marriage license as per your condition (2)) would be irrevocably binding in a court of law to uphold an agreement that "no portion of the domestic relations laws beyond that which makes the agreement legal, governs absolutely should the marriage end" by removing foreseeability. Prenuptial agreeements are frequently disputed by parties in court. I am not talking about "every" prenuptial agreement being thrown out, but the one you refer to. I know of no prenuptial agreement that void domestic relations laws while acknowledging the very laws that make the agreement legal. It's not even an issue of torts even though I said the marriage trumps the agreement. What you've written is not really a possible interpretation of law by a court that would not immediately be appealed, that I can see. I know this was a very brief summary of your thoughts on the matter of marriage, and you did not write an actual example of such an agreement, but this is me kneading away at the specific mention of "no portion of the domestic relations laws beyond that which makes the agreement legal, governs absolutely should the marriage end". There is no "proper" construction for your initial statement that I can see would make it valid. There are of course, legal arrangements for property in prenuptial agreements, but there is no proper construction for a prenuptial that would guarantee against a long and drawn out court battle on the issue of foreseeability of change in circumstances.

[piz 0]

You wrote that the agreement would be drawn up prior to marriage, so that is by definition pre and nuptial, but I am not seeing how the common-law marriage (I'm assuming, since no marriage license as per your condition (2)) would be irrevocably binding in a court of law to uphold an agreement that "no portion of the domestic relations laws beyond that which makes the agreement legal, governs absolutely should the marriage end" by removing foreseeability. Prenuptial agreeements are frequently disputed by parties in court. I am not talking about "every" prenuptial agreement being thrown out, but the one you refer to. I know of no prenuptial agreement that void domestic relations laws while acknowledging the very laws that make the agreement legal. It's not even an issue of torts even though I said the marriage trumps the agreement. What you've written is not really a possible interpretation of law by a court that would not immediately be appealed, that I can see. I know this was a very brief summary of your thoughts on the matter of marriage, and you did not write an actual example of such an agreement, but this is me kneading away at the specific mention of "no portion of the domestic relations laws beyond that which makes the agreement legal, governs absolutely should the marriage end". There is no "proper" construction for your initial statement that I can see would make it valid. There are of course, legal arrangements for property in prenuptial agreements, but there is no proper construction for a prenuptial that would guarantee against a long and drawn out court battle on the issue of foreseeability of change in circumstances.

Sorry, I thought you were asking for something completely different. I've only ever given cursory thought thus far to of what I wrote about, so I'll have to do a lot more research to answer this.

[PaperDetective 0]

I agree that we should never let ourselves be defeated. Your words are most courageous and I salute you for undertaking what is looking like a much more tough fight every day, Bill.

However, would it be defeat if we 'shrugged'?

Is it practical to battle an enemy when he is at his most powerful, or is it wiser to retreat, let him weaken himself and let he himself expose his true evil to our fellow Americans, let them 'chew' on what a choice for fascism really means to their lives? Retreat is not necessarily equal to defeat.

I believe that we have held our 'John Galt speech' sufficiently now. In other words, we have told our fellow Americans ample times and in great detail what is wrong with their altruist philosophy and what the right alternative would be.

Isn't it time to leave now, hide now, retreat now, just like John Galt and his fellow strikers did and let the world bear the consequences of its own choices?

Aren't you actually perpetuating the duration of this evil by continuing to produce here, feed these fascists and trying to delay them a little? Wouldn't it be more practical to let Americans feel their error sooner than later, presuming that then reason will be coming back faster and we may still have a chance to see possible positive cultural change in our lifetime?

I know that quite some of you are not ready to shrug yet (everyone has his own pace to decide this), but I believe that eventually you will have to if you seek to really live 100% according to your values and do not want to become part of this fascist evil.

[Bill Bucko 0]

I believe you are wrong to assume that we've spoken enough.

Consider the feedback that the Ayn Rand Institute reports, concerning the Books for Teachers project:

they report very widespread enthusiasm from students, in response to ideas they've never heard before.

The time to go on strike is certainly far closer than it's ever been before.

But we can still speak. And it's important to do so.

[PaperDetective 0]

I believe you are wrong to assume that we've spoken enough.

Consider the feedback that the Ayn Rand Institute reports, concerning the Books for Teachers project:

they report very widespread enthusiasm from students, in response to ideas they've never heard before.

Maybe the book project will bear sufficient fruit, maybe it will not. It is hard for me to gage. If it does it will take a long time, one or two generations most likely. Meanwhile out shackles will continue to be tightened.

I understand completely that we all have different 'breaking points'.

Most likely I am more ready to throw the shackles off than many of you. I came to this country 11 years ago to exactly do that, but it turns now I am only half way. I have already lived too long under socialism.

A complete self-liberation, a shrugging, would clear my mind to be way more productive than I am now. No more valuable time spent on trying to deal with irrational ideas and irrational people.

The idea of spending increasingly the limited time of my life on trying to convince the growing number of irrational people and on top of that sharing the fruits of my mind with them in hope that they may some day appreciate those duly, is not very attractive, especially since I have been fighting this fight all my life (now I am 52), even before I knew Ayn Rand's philosophy explicitly.

I am not the only one either. My wife is also getting increasingly worried and discouraged by where our society is going and she used to be the epitome of what America was, the 100% Can Do American woman.

I simply do not feel comfortable with being dependent on the whim of the irrationals amongst us to finally turn around and accept our ideas as valid. It makes me feel terribly 'dependent' and as a hardcore independent person that will not be the way I'll live here.