Another Strategy to Enact Positive Change
If you skip to the 39 minute part you'll be about to enter the actual strategy. I'd highly recommend watching the whole thing, it's even somewhat entertaining.
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
In his own way, he is evidence of a deeper problem. Molyneux is telling a passive array of listeners what to do. And they sit and listen to his tangents. Given that the audience shares his premises (libertarian politics), he could have said this in one minute at the beginning. If he had written it, they could have read it faster than he spoke it.
But murder is extinguishing an individual consciousness against there will and without provocation. I do make the distinction between murder and self defense.
Killing is either evil or not evil. If you wish not to kill, enjoy your diet of fruits and nuts.
In one science fiction anthology, there was a story called "We Hold These Rights", by Henry Melton. A loose society had formed in the asteroid belt, and Earth had decided to take control, which included shipping people back to Earth. The main characters were on a ship assigned the job of destroying a navigation beacon.
Two of the characters were all patriotic in defending their "rights". The third crewman they thought a coward, because they couldn't understand how he thought (people here would "get" him, though...)
There's an Earth patrol ship they have no hope of whipping guarding the beacon. The "coward" locks himself in the engine room, and orders the other two to plot a course away from the beacon as fast as they can. They're forced to comply, and as they're blasting away from the beacon, it, and the patrol ship are blown to hell by the energy surge the "coward" had bounced off of Jupiter.
When they try to apologize, he freaks out and shouts (this is from memory) "I destroyed a beacon worth more than I'll earn in my entire life! I had no *right* to do so! I did it because I had a reasonable chance to get away with it, and I didn't want to see the Earthmen run the belt anymore than you did. But I had no *right*. Rights don't exist! There's only power and action. Clement Ster, if you have to lie, cheat, steal or kill, then do so, but have the guts to take responsibility for your actions!"
It made me think, and realize that rights can't originate with men. Rights are a convenient fiction, unless they are given us by a higher power, such as the Creator. They're a convenient fiction for governing how men interact with one another.
Rearden was quite wrong it questioning the court's "right" to try him; the court had no "right" to try him, since only individual humans have rights, not courts. But, it did have the *authority* to try him, granted it by the existing government. Whether that government itself had the power to grant that authority is another argument.
I'd like to hear your views on right and wrong sometime.