Originally posted by royalchickenI'm unsure about whether this is a compliment or a jibe...
Come to think of it, I should have gone for any subset that leaves out #5. That's of a length Nemesio would be proud of and Dr. S would quibble over 😲.
...[egotistical reflex kicks in]...
I'm sure it's a compliment.
Thanks!
Nemesio
Originally posted by WulebgrIt is interesting that you say this, because I've always thought that the Galt Gulch was as
The debate might have been much more interesting if both participants had observed that the United States since the election of 1980 has been moving slowly and deliberately towards Objectivism, and that when this concerted effort finally reaches its lofty goal, we will be living in a state of anarchism.
anarchical as possible; that is, I see almost no capitalistic elements to the Gulch, and a
lot that resembles non-coercive socialism.
I'd love to hear a discussion of that and, perhaps, to encourage Rwingett to read just that
section to see his reaction to it.
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioIt is interesting that you say this, because I've always thought that the Galt Gulch was as
It is interesting that you say this, because I've always thought that the Galt Gulch was as
anarchical as possible; that is, I see almost no capitalistic elements to the Gulch, and a
lot that resembles non-coercive socialism.
I'd love to hear a discussion of that and, perhaps, to encourage Rwingett to read just that
section to see his reaction to it.
Nemesio
anarchical as possible
They had a judge.
I see almost no capitalistic elements to the Gulch
They had a bank, and a currency. They produced using the resources they owned, and traded their produced goods and their labor.
What elements of capitalism are missing?
