airborne

Neot Semadar is one place I had to check out, so I volunteered to work there for 1 week. The kibbutz is some weird mix of socialist / hippies stressing the individuals creativity etc. It wasn't too clear to me what they are talking about but I do know that some of their beliefs come from krishnamatu or somthing. What surprised me was that everyone on the kibbutz earned the same, and that their was one kibbutz bank account. Money is allocated according to need, which is organized through a committee. This idea scares me but they seem to be fine with it. Here's what I know/ Think: - For them to run for 18 years something must be up. - Not everything is everyones, I dont think you can walk into someone house and just take their property - so its not communist/socialist in that sense - People are allowed their own bank accounts outside of the kibbutz and many of them apparently have money outside from inheritance etc. - Cars are shared/ pooled - They have weird rituals during the mourning which include 15minutes of silence and drinking tea, and no talking at lunch and dinner - They talk about being at peace by not having any goals or desires in life, that's why they come there. to escape the rushed rat race. No purpose. Yet they talk about their visions for the kibbutz which I see as a contradiction. - I was working from 6am-8am. 9am-1pm. 4pm-7:30pm. 9pm-10pm. Apparently they work alot less during other months, some people worked alot more than me. - There appears to be lots of volunteers, coming in groups and as individuals. Me - I came with a group of 15. So surely this is something which has helped them - free labor in exchange for people seeing their weird life style. - In terms of lifestyle it really isnt that bad, the environment is amazing and beautiful. - they have a massive art/funky castle in the middle of the kibbutz. According to the kibbutznicks it was funded by government money and not the business they have. - Their business is in selling expensive organic fruit. I was always trying to look for the weak spot. How does this place still run? Now all my socialist friends use this as some ultimate example of new socialism. http://www.neot-semadar.com/ http://www.newfarm.org/international/israel/nov/index.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neot_Smadar http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/E...Friendly+27.htm

A rich man is the so called "moral degenerate" according to Objectivism if he supports taxes(guns/force). And it cant be argued that he does it out of free-will, even if he wants to pay the taxes. Because if he changed his mind he still would be forced to pay. I understand the significance of that quote now. Thanks.

So I'm almost finished reading Atlas Shrugged. It has brought up the question for me, are we being immoral as Dagny Taggart is painted to be by helping "looters" through our production? I remember in the beginning there were not that many regulations and Galt and D'Anconia had already abandoned society. I'm struggling with the question, according to my understanding of Objectivism, of what one is supposed to do today according to the moral code? Hank Rearden accepted the moral code of society and took responsibility for it by giving the rights of his steel to the looters. Are we also accepting the moral code by abiding by irrational laws and ideas in today's society? and if so what can we possibly do when we have a "gun" pointed at us?

Isn't paying taxes, granting the man with a gun the right to unearned profit? I don't see any room for escaping the fact that we are moral degenerates according to that quote.

I'm up to pg. 1023 in Atlas Shrugged and I hit something challenging. "If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to other the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate". So from what I can extract/understand paying taxes would make me a moral degenerate? I read up on some other posts claiming that the payment of taxes could not be considered immoral because you have a gun pointed to you. Makes sense. But that means I'm just a neutral moral degenerate? Love, Airborne

Since I began studying objectivism, I have faced numerous problems in explaining to myself concept that seem to 'make sense'. However, maybe these are just feelings just as a socialist feels he is right about socialism. So I'm going to pose a few questions which will help me understand a few things. Firstly, someone wants told me "nothing is something" is an axiom. I never understand it, how can nothing be somthing? It has to be wrong but I coulden't prove it to him or explain it. It just feels/sounds abit contradictory. I'm currently on page 700 of "Atlas Shrugged" and have ready also "Philosophy: Why you need it". I read through it, and most of it seems to appeal to something in me. Although I'm not yet able to articulate and prove it. Any suggestions, so I can defend myself from the people who constantly attack what I value, and maybe even begin to understand objectively and with words what it is I value(p.s hope I'm making sense)/.

Defending your life and liberty at the risk of death is different then a guaranteed death. What good is life and liberty then? The whole thing of not being able to live with oneself by being a coward seems dodgy, I don't think that's what he was thinking.

The thing is we can never know his motivation. Maybe he felt he was sacrificing himself for the Jewish nation or God, in which case what he did was evil. So do we just label these events "acts", as we cant really know if they were moral(altruism or selfishness). Besides, I find the word selfishness a little weird to use in the case of being killed.

I'm struggling to understand the concept of throwing oneself to death for yourself. Even if it was someone you valued how can it be for yourself if your guaranteed to not live anymore?

http://www.jewishtimes.com.au/content/view/700/190/ According to Objectivism was this an altruistic act and therefore evil?