11

Compromise

Posted by coaldigger 6 years, 11 months ago to Politics
178 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Is it reasonable to reach a compromise with similar parties in order to prevent a total loss? I am against compromise in most situations because you end up with some diluted hodgepodge that isn't good for anyone but I also don't like to be standing in the wilderness waving a flag that too few salute.

I have read that the producers of AS III are throwing out a small token to the religious right with Dagny speaking to a priest. I heard Yaron Brook say on radio that a possible coalition with groups on the right could result in a constituency that could win and move the US in the right direction. His condition would be that religion and social issues would not be considered in the party's platform and that all programs be based entirely on the protection of individual rights. This would lead to free markets and the unfettered growth of capitalism.

I am not sure that conservatives, libertarians, the tea party activists and the large mass of people that are only progressive based on social issues could get along. I do however think it is a greater possibility than the strict Objectivist approach. Altruism has the emotional advantage of the promise of life after death that rational, objective thought cannot compete with to gain a majority.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 11 months ago
    There is no compromising with the unprincipled. A compromise consists of two parties giving to some degree and reaching a tolerable state for both.
    There was a great compromise reached in 1787. Our constitution is a contract consisting of many compromises. A contract requires a meeting of the minds and binds the participants to certain limits and responsibilities. Since then the progressives unsatisfied with the results have reneged on the compromise and have attempted in many ways to nullify the parts they deem unsatisfactory. Any just changes must be made through the prescribed amendment process to carry any measure of consent. Only when the parties mutually agree to changes are they binding. Disregarding any part of a contract places them in breach. Executive orders, extra constitutional agencies (U.S. Dept. of Education etc.) and the power they exert are not governance by the consent of the governed, and they are thus per minas, mala fides. Any laws passed by congress that are not within the scope of enumerated powers are the same.

    A nation of freedom and liberty can not be built upon compromise of principles. It would be better to start over than to sacrifice right for a false expectation of comity, because a form of slavery is inherent in any such compromise.

    Yarron is describing our original form of governance. Yes it can work if we leave the disparate religious doctrines out of the mix, but take from all, the principles which are congruent. In this way a coalition was and can be again in the majority.

    Altruism is slavery.

    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
      This is where I see hope. Everyone take off their social issue clothes and let's work on the naked principles that we all agree on. I do not want to know anything about anyone's spiritual beliefs, philanthropic desires or their sexual preferences nor do I want to impose any of mine. I want every ounce of freedom that I can have to enjoy my own life while realizing that some organization of men is necessary to protect all others that are like minded from predators. We almost had it but instead of perfecting it, we let it slip away. I want it recaptured.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 11 months ago
        I am in agreement except for one thing. We will never perfect our government or society. Utopia is beyond the possible. We are imperfect and of diverse expectations. One mans utopia is another’s prison. “In order to form a MORE perfect union…” which is itself an abstraction is not perfection. It is the best we can hope for. This is part of the problem. When we had established a more perfect union, many did not recognize it for being the best imperfect humans could devise. The changes some instituted were in contradiction to the end. When people acquire this wisdom and learn to recognize the best one can hope for as the ideal, rather than their own utopian vision we have compromise and amity.
        Regards,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
          Amity, a small word but I had to look it up. I do not think that anyone expects Utopia any time soon but if we base our actions on reason and reason alone we will become closer with each step. If we base our actions on our gut we will feel our way into hell.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 11 months ago
            Then we will be treading a path taken successfully once before by our founders.
            The nation they constructed for us was superior to the one we now possess excepting for a couple of amendments that were necessary and did come to fruition in order to insure equality under the law.
            O.A.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
              I don't want to go on to an entirely different subject but I think you are referring to slavery and women's suffrage and there is where I believe they, in all their wisdom, missed the chance to secure the Republic. By allowing these hypocrisies to exist against the great liberating words of the Declaration, was a near fatal flaw which hangs over us still.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 11 months ago
                Affirmative. Many wished to rectify those mistakes but the times would not permit necessary consensus. The abolitionists knew that those wrongs could not stand indefinitely in the face of the overall expressed philosophy of the founding documents, and this is where the amendment process was essential. Suffrage met the same fate.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jerrya2480 6 years, 11 months ago
      plitions and morality now are different than in 1787.
      It appears that the only acceptable compromise is when the consertives roll over and give everything to thelibs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 11 months ago

        Greetings jerrya2480,
        Yes they are. They are un-principled opportunists.
        There are a few good ones, but they are outnumbered, and intimidated.
        A good house cleaning is in order. We have the power, but we must exercise it.
        We must educate wherever possible and stop the indoctrination whenever we see it.
        If the schools will not teach the founding principles, but insist upon histrionics and indoctrination, then parents, grand parents and peers must recognize this and act accordingly. If you have children you can influence, and educate then do so. We can expect few government run education institutions to actually educate when the truth is contrary to their expansion of power.
        Respectfully,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 6 years, 11 months ago
    Ayn Rand almost included a priest as one of the main characters in Atlas Shrugged. The main problem she had with a religion in the context of the book was placing a possible believer into that religion, and how that priest deals with it.

    The problem with almost all religions (using christianity as a specific example) is that they use Guilt as their first weapon of coercion. If you look at Religion and Statism side by side, you quickly realize that they are basically the same. One tries to control souls, the other tries to control lives. One gets the parish to worship the priest, the other gets the constituents to worship the government. Personally I don't like trading one group of progressivists for another.

    But then you start to get into the question of "God Given Rights." It is no secret that men perform better when they act with morals and believe and act for individual rights. Is it divine intervention that things go well for people that live their own lives and don't mess with the lives of others? Or is it genetics that we reward people who believe and live for the Right of Self Determination, and the Right of Private Property?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
      That's just it. It is REASON that distinguishes the human from all the bigger, stronger, faster versions of near-humans that walked erect. When one sits down and uses reason to make sense out of life, to solve problems, to organize and live with others, it is ultimately moral. Everything that is in the long term best interest of you as an individual is good, all else is evil. The founders intelligently said rights are "endowed by our creator", no one said God. We, who evolved are our own creator and we owe ourselves those rights. All else flows from there.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
      good point. all I read was a priest as a minor character. have a link to support your first statement? the rest of what you are saying, I agree to
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jsw225 6 years, 11 months ago
        No link, it was in the introduction of my Atlas Shrugged 50th Anniversary edition. It explains the characters, early drafts and outlines and the directions that Rand planned for the book.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 6 years, 11 months ago
    Okay...I had to go out in my front yard and beat up a bougainvillea before I responded to this. Um...WHAT??? Compromise? That's polar opposite of anything Ayn Rand has ever written (okay, I haven't read everything she's written, yet, so maybe I'm wrong....but I doubt it). I think the religious right needs to realize that there ARE moral beings who don't agree with their organized, collectivist, altruism, hocus pocus mind set. Individual rights NEED to be the main focus for us to have a chance. Period. As for Dagny and the priest....NEV-ER! (Next you're going to say they walked into a bar with a duck under their arm...right? Cuz it's a joke.) Scott...tell us it isn't so.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lostinaforest 6 years, 11 months ago
      Well, in terms of *basic principles* you're right:

      "There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

      "Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim."

      BUT...

      "A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal."

      http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compro...

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
        This is what I was asking. I feel that the US has reached the tipping point in its march to progressive oblivion even though the majority have no interest in becoming a socialist country. The problem is that the left has taken the lead on the basis of the "social issues" that the Conservatives on the right cannot address due to their religious beliefs. There are not enough Objectivists to do much of anything and the Libertarians aren't much bigger. However, I believe that the Conservatives plus the Objectivists plus the Libertarians could form a majority to change our government and the course of history. Their common ground is on all of the things that our government should be if they set aside the social issues that are not really a legitimate function of our government in the first place.

        Should this happen, I also believe that a large number of people that have sided with the left would also come into this camp because they are not statists but were driven to the left by social issues. Gays, abortion rights groups, legal marijuana groups, international non-interventionists etc.

        This, I believe, falls in making an adjustment of conflicting claims to achieve a value. The fundamental principle is individual rights and governments single goal of protecting them. The compromise, of course, has to be that the religious basis of altruism must be kept our of government just like our founding fathers tried to do. If we wait for the conversion of the believers we will definitely see the day when Atlas Shruggs.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
          I have been to many tea party rallies. conservatives plus objectivists plus libertarians plus fiscal democrats plus gays.
          the left has no "corner" on bringing their side together other than offering looters loot.
          We lost the election because we asked our voting base to compromise (2-TWO presidential cylcels) for an homogenized, principled sometimes but completely unprincipled other times presidential candidate. the establishment asks us to COMPROMISE all the time our basic freedoms (our own side passed the patriot act, sarbanes oxley, played and paid on Wall Street, medicare reform, enormous spending increases, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND-I can go on and on and on).
          we will win when we STOP compromising.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ kathywiso 6 years, 11 months ago
            AR said, "with compromise, only evil can win." It was a profound statement that stuck with me after reading in the Objectivist Newsletter. Absolutely true...look what compromise has led to. We need to stand up and disagree when someone makes a statement that we disagree with and defend our position with truth. Although I have noticed that facts don't even matter to the other side now.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 6 years, 11 months ago
            Don't get my husband started on sarbanes oxley.

            There have been FAR too many compromises, concessions and appeasement given, which only encourages the looters to ask for more. I'm so tired of being told I have to give my fair share, to spread around some fictional wealth that my govt feels others are entitled to. I feel I am entitled to keep what I earn, thank you very much. I see no one else earning it, paying the extortion rate taxes that are somehow never enough. All of these redundant federal agencies are the greatest boondoggle foisted on the producers to keep alive a blind and drooling apathetic vapid leftist socialist grasping pile of mooching excrement!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by catskinner 6 years, 11 months ago
          Well put!!! The time may be ripe for a 3rd party with an objectivist backbone. there are many people i know who would move to the middle if they thought they had a chance.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
        "When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil." Galt's speech
        I hope these sentences make it in the movie. They are relevant to the discussion here.

        If we play along with the nod to religion-it begs questions. Priest like an Aquinas, priest vs minister(once you put religion in, why priest? why not rabbi? why not minister? why not a prophet?)
        One of the most stunning themes in this book are the incredibly difficult decisions the heroes make WITHOUT giving it up to a diety, praying for guidance. The illustration that man has all the "powers" he needs to act in the best way for himself-and so therefore, by that virtue, others benefit.
        I am firmly resolute in knowing that such a scene will not advance, in any way, the story. It will lessen the impact of the above speech.
        For those who feel it would advance the story-I remind you that religious thinkers who believe much of Objectivism, must bear the burden of that dissonance. They can attempt to resolve the opposing differences, but it is their struggle with Objectivism, not mine. The integrity of the book as published, should be maintained at all costs, and has so far been.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 6 years, 11 months ago
        This isn't a marriage....this is a movie adaptation of a book about principles, logic, reason, and individual rights.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lostinaforest 6 years, 11 months ago
          Fair call :-)

          I was more referring to the part in the original post regarding "a possible coalition with groups on the right". As in, if they agree on the principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, and fiscal restraint, then perhaps a mutually beneficial compromise might be reached.

          But yeah, I get your point. Please don't beat me up ;-)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 6 years, 11 months ago
            Well if THAT were possible..where's the compromise come in? THEY would have to compromise and give up their wild spending, entitlement glut, over regulations, and freedom grabs. I'm all in favor of THEM compromising their illogical feel good crap. :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
    OMG!!!!! Scott, is coal correct???
    No, no no!!! Dagney would NEVER seek solace with a priest. where did you find this? link, please
    and coal digger, in what world do altruism and reason combine? and lead to a better world???
    NO COMPROMISE ON THE BOOK IN THE MOVIE like you are suggesting.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sdesapio 6 years, 11 months ago
      John's always talked about the priest but the Forbes article really took his comments out of context. What John was saying is that Ayn had written about a priest in her notes - he was to be James' priest to whom he would confess his sins but Ayn decided to leave him out because she couldn't make him believable. John was just free thinking about what the scene might look like.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 6 years, 11 months ago
        How the scene MIGHT look? "Out of context....." So the idea is being considered? Or is it not? I think we really want to know if this is even a possibility or not in AS III.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
        good. way for coaldigger to come in with a bang...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
          I don't know about the bang but I would be relieved not to have to see this scene in AS III. I love the fact that these movies are being made and that they do not overtly "compromise" the book. I am not a movie critic but I think they fall short of being great theater. What I like is to be able to see actors presenting whatever part of the story that they can see including in a movie without screwing it up. Tears come to my eyes when there is a scene that is true and meaningful. It is a major accomplishment that AS I and AS II have been made and hopefully we will be able to see AS III in the future.

          My life has been influenced by AS since the early 60's and it has been like pushing a rope. My career and personal life has been shaped by the ideas therein and it has resulted in a lot of external bruises. My four kids have likewise been affected and sometimes their grief from their beliefs is painful to see but what is good is that when I look in the mirror I feel good about the integrity of my life and I know they do too.

          I spent most of my career in Pittsburgh and I felt the presence of the men that created the industrial heart of America. That Carnegie, Melon, Forbes, Rockefeller, Frick, Morgan and many others could have produced so much in the brief period of the nearly unfettered industrial development of the US is totally amazing. We are living on and still eating that legacy today. Only in America could that have been possible and it lifted the entire world and erased man's history of nothing but poverty except for the rulers. That we are tossing it out the window is incomprehensible.

          I see the Priest as a symbol of everything that enslaves men by using their virtue against them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
            "That Carnegie, Melon, Forbes, Rockefeller, Frick, Morgan and many others could have produced so much in the brief period of the nearly unfettered industrial development of the US is totally amazing."
            most of that was built on the foundation of intellectual property. by bang, I meant you're fairly new in here and got us all going in a great discussion-and there was that short period where I thought I was having a heart attack-but otherwise got us all going. I admire that. I also like your last sentence. it's kind of like a "you didn't build that-" some of the same people who would be incensed by that understanding of american prosperity completely buy into it from a God perspective. you owe your virtue to something else. not hard won. boggles my mind
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
              I see every advancement of civilization to have evolved from some person coming up with a creative thought and putting it into practice. What surprises me is the interplay of multiple occurrences within a given time period.

              Each of us have our minds challenged to take the achievements from the past, through learning and to make our own contribution. If we try to do this for the good of others we are prone to take shortcuts. After all the self is always there, even if it is repressed, so we succumb to fatigue in our servitude. If we are doing this for our own enjoyment and enrichment we are working for a boss that knows our true motivations and limitations and it keeps us true.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rballan 6 years, 11 months ago
    There are two types of compromise to consider. The first is unacceptable compromise. That is the compromising of principles, such as the acceptance of a small increase in taxes rather than a large increase, In this case you are accepting the govt stealing more from you when you believe that theft in any form is immoral. The other type of compromise is when accepting the compromise doesn't violate your principles. An example might be that you want to abolish the tax altogether, the other party does not want to get rid of the tax, and the compromise is that you accept a 50% permanent reduction in taxes. You didn't achieve your goal, but the compromise resulted in an improvement in your level of liberty.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Retired24-navy 6 years, 11 months ago
    We need to go back to the constitution. If it is not written there or ammended, then Washington does not have power to change. The other powers go to the states where they are supposed to be.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ kathywiso 6 years, 11 months ago
      First off, Thank You for your service and Second, you are absolutely right. The Constitution has not been amended to take away our "right to bear arms,' but some of the States are doing just that, even when the State Constitution guarantees even more vigorously our rights to bear arms and defend ourselves. I think the whole issue is total lawlessness !!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ESmith 6 years, 11 months ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bibfslEFk...

    This is an excellent speech from Milton Friedman. In the speech he discusses compromise, and tolerance. I think it is particularly applicable to this discussion because he specifically mentions Ayn Rand several times. (First time around the 9:30 mark). My take away from his speech is that compromise is necessary to go from one state to another. When you are trying to achieve a particular outcome, you have to go through stages to get there. You can't start at the end. So, along the way to you goal if you aren't willing to make some compromises you won't get very close to your goal. To me Friedman was a great Libertarian, because he was practical. He wasn't just theoretical, he actually got some some of his ideas put in to practice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
      If only we had always listened to "Uncle Milty". He was a very wise man and could make his point and blow yours up without making you feel bad. I worked for a company that had a Chairman that was personal friends with a lot of very interesting people including Milton Friedman. One of Fletch's deals was choosing a group of young men in the company to "educate" by making them read books and discuss them in his office during biweekly meetings. To really make it interesting he sometimes had the author in these little sessions of 10 to 12 people and we once had Friedman in to discuss "Capitalism and Freedom". It was an awe inspiring evening.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 6 years, 11 months ago
        That is an amazing experience to have had. That there was a chairman in the company who had such capacity for thought, and to surround you and your co workers with the opportunities to discuss real ideas and philosophies is an extraordinary gift. Wow, I am truly.... Blown away, really. You were in a place that is not the norm, but should be.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
          Fletch was also Chairman of the Conference Board so he had people meeting with him and he slyly got them to sit in with his little group. This was in the 70's and I recall Pat Buchanan, George H W Bush, Elliot Richardson and Leonard Woodcock as speakers.
          Interestingly, at one point I suggested that Atlas Shrugged be added to our reading list and Fletch was not prone to do so. He was very philanthropic and I believe his religious beliefs turned him against Rand. After retirement, he built a huge home-conference center in Colorado where he and his colleagues met and discussed issues. He died a few years ago and he was living near the campus of his Alma mater. He was a self made man, very smart, very thoughtful but not an objectivist.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rglab 6 years, 11 months ago
    No Compromise, period. Look at hat is happening inside the Washington beltway-we're just a short distance from Directive 10-289!

    RJG
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
    Quote from article in Forbes;
    t will be a mere nod, maybe 30 seconds. Most of the audience will miss it, along with the olive branch it represents. But Aglialoro hopes to get shooting permission from Saint Patrick’s Cathedral for a scene that will open with a wide shot from above and behind the iconic statue of Atlas in Rockefeller Center. The camera will follow Dagny into a quiet courtyard, consumed in silent mental struggle. The sound of a choir will break the night, a beautiful inspiring sound that will stop Dagny in her tracks. She turns and sees a man of the cloth who has been watching her struggle. “Good evening, my child, can I help you?” “Oh no, father, I was just listening to the lovely music.” “Are you sure there is nothing I can help you with?” A long pause. “No, father. I have to do this on my own.”

    Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2...

    The Yaron Brook comments were from his guest appearance with Amy Piekof on her web show "Don't let it go Unheard".

    The argument is that no one is ever going to accomplish anything from the extreme position that requires total submission of the opposition. When we are right and they are wrong, is there a way to lead them in the right direction a step at a time?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
      I will not watch the movie if this perversion is in there. and I will exert ALL my influence to tell everyone else not to watch it. that is not the story and that is not Ayn Rand
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JDWilliams 6 years, 11 months ago
    Would you prefer a bone to the religious left and have her talk to AlGore about globular warming and other Earth Worship topics, or speaking to an Imam about the supremacy of Islam?
    Perhaps she could speak with a member of the religious left, such as Obama, about the necessity of "collective salvation"?

    I don't see altruism as being a necessary component to a promise of life-after-death.

    Personally, as a conservative, I will have no compromise or truck with anything even vaguely labelling itself "progressive".

    Not all religions are equal; the mainstream Christian protestant religions tend to focus on the individual (with the exception of the abomination of "collective salvation", which is just Marxism for believers).

    I would suggest self-proclaimed "objectivists" be rational and focus on the threat posed by Islam and Earth Worship, rather than the eternal boogeyman of a body of religions that hasn't been a threat to individual liberty for nearly half a millennium.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by leedef 6 years, 11 months ago
    Compromise is usually between those in support of the status quo and those proposing much more than they want (in hopes of getting less, but what they really wanted in the first place).

    For example: you don't want to give me a dime... I propose you give me $100. You still say you don't want to give me a dime. We compromise... you give me $50 and we call it a deal.

    You think you you've struck a good compromised solution. But in reality... I win you lose.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kamanaopono 6 years, 11 months ago
    Great points, but? Are you pointing this out for a gold star? Glenn Beck tried his best but they quieted him as a quack. Mark Levin is disparaged and he's our greatest voice against Obamas's tyrannical government. Rush is a racist bigot in the eyes of the media. Going over examples is to little to late and sounds empty at this moment.
    Let it go. Enjoy the ride. Laugh when they lie. Be ready when John Galt calls...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bandakar23 6 years, 11 months ago
    I think we should all remember the world that we live in. Religion is, like it or not, a major factor in the world. It, at least in part, represents the needs for introspection, an understanding of who we are and what we are here on this Earth to accomplish. To make a movie and completely ignore religion would be folly. Instead, as this article suggests, it is good for the audience to see that in a moment of weakness, while pondering some of the most controversial issues a person can, one may be swayed to seek religious insight, yet in the end Dagny realized despite all "fancies," one must face the reality of this world as it is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 6 years, 11 months ago
      It may be a major factor in the world (some very evil in fact), but it wasn't a major factor in the story. It wasn't in the book. She was not swayed to seek religious insight she came to her own realization by herself. Religion should indeed be ignored in Atlas III as it was in the book, other than referring to the mystics and how illogical it is. YOU are folly.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by bandakar23 6 years, 11 months ago
        ...And do you think the masses who have never read any of Rand's works will understand this (why Dagny would NEVER seek out religion). The movies are meant to be a means to reach those the books never have and potentially bring them into the fold (I.E. actually read the books!)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LetsShrug 6 years, 11 months ago
          The movie should stay true to the book. There's a reason it wasn't in the book...because Ayn didn't want it to be. End of story. Why would the masses question it in the first place? Does every movie with a difficult situation involve religion reflection...or a Priest visit? And if that is a question that they were to have...then they CAN READ THE BOOK AND FIND OUT WHY SHE DIDN'T.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by bandakar23 6 years, 11 months ago
            "...because Ayn didn't want it to be. End of story. "

            Spoken like a true religious zealot.

            She left it unspoken because what was unsaid spoke volumes, to the right people. WE are no longer dealing with the "right" people. "We" (those of Galt's Gulch) are now attempting to bring those outsiders into the fold. And to do so we must first make them realize that they are outsiders. To do this we must first make them realize they (the religious fanatics) are the outsiders by portraying to "them" how decisions can be made outside of GOD's influence. Mind you I realize this was never verbalized in Ayn Rand's books, but remember she was first most an author, not a philosopher. Some topics she literally did not have time on this earth to address and left up to "us" to finalize "HER" legacy.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
              I am giving you a point, not that I agree, but I fear that there are many in here who might agree with you and are strangely silent in this post. so it's a good discussion.
              Rand did not focus on atheism or theism because she did not belief it was an important topic. For instance, you can be an atheist-marxist, atheist-altruist, atheist-rationalist. atheist-environmentalist. or an atheist-capitalist. Point: deism, or lack thereof, is not defining her philosophy.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
                That is true for us but not for theists. The root of their willingness to sacrifice themselves lies in their non-rational faith. Once you are not being coerced with a promise of life after death, you can see that you must live your own life. Once you realize that your own life is all you have you either rationally decide how to live it for your own happiness or if you don't you kill yourself maybe not with a gun but with drugs, alcohol, sloth or some other irrational behavior .
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 6 years, 11 months ago
                  That, and the heaps of guilt we are supposed to be wracked with if we think of ourselves before anyone else. I have never understood how it is I should be made to feel that there is some inherent flaw in my character because I want success, monetarily, in the goals I set for myself, and in the raising of children whom I strive to teach these moral principles. Logical rational thinking, not just going out blindly, guiltily, furtively, seeking some sort of intangible redemption from some being that says, "Put no one above me". I will put no one above myself, let alone be told if I don't, I will suffer eternally in hell.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ kathywiso 6 years, 11 months ago
          Rand did NOT include religion in her books and spoke of it as "mystics" in Galt's speech. I believe in telling the TRUTH, and absolutely NO changes should be made in the most important book ever written, especially a change to bring in religion. Dagny would never consult a member of the church for advise, it is against everything that she believed. She was a self motivated producer. You can not start a relationship with these "masses " with a lie. Stick to the story line and those who can't open their eyes because of a difference in religious belief are the ones that are missing out.... I personally know religious people that loved the AS book. They may disagree with that aspect of her beliefs, but still understand that her philosophy is true..and right.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by UncommonSense 6 years, 11 months ago
      You have a point, but stick within the subject of AS. Yes, I'm a Christian and do agree with Ms. Rand on about 80% of her philosophy. But to veer off and go in-depth on religion's impact on the world would compromise the both the book and the Objectivism view.

      We can discuss religion separately because it opens up a whole new argument. Case in point, your comment on "an understanding of who we are and what we are here on this Earth to accomplish." kind of sounds along the lines of Christianity. But lets go non-politically correct (translation: the TRUTH) and mention Islam. For the muslim, introspection is rare. They don't need to, all they need is to know what Mohammed did and didn't do. Did Mohammed kill anyone who didn't submit to him and his ideology? Yes. Guess what? That's all they need to know. End of story here. Trying to fit this in somewhere within the realm of AS is like trying to mix oil and water.

      If you want to discuss religion, let's talk. If you to discuss AS, and Ms. Rand's views, let's discuss. But to combine them, isn't going to accomplish anything except get both of us frustrated.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by bandakar23 6 years, 11 months ago
        When someone holds a gun to your head and pulls the trigger, the coroner never states that "80% of his death was caused by the bullet, and the other 20% was GOD's will."

        Rand viewed the subject of religion as a non-argument and I often lean towards that stance myself, but in guiding and teaching a mind, you cannot avoid a piece of knowledge because it is difficult or controversial. It is important to learn (psychologically) why people look for GOD (or religion), and how to teach them (a religious person's mind) to spot fault premises (epistemology) for what they are and learn from these instances. It is not easy.

        I feel this task was left to US. Many here view the movies as a theatrical enjoyment from a favorite book. If that is all these movies turn out to be then our world is doomed. Without actively trying to reach the minds of individuals such as yourself, we are handing this world over to the looters. I am of the stance that these movies should be yet another tool to reach Americans. And as such it will require adaptations. Rather than viewing this scene as a compromise with religion, we should instead view and appreciate the the introduction of religion and Dagny's insistence that she doesn't need the father's help as being representative of (MAN'S) ability to think for itself. If orchestrated properly, it could indeed be a very powerful scene, not a comprise.

        A compromise would be if Dagny stated, "GOD bless you for your help father." This would be an abortion I would fight with my last breathe.

        Where Objectivism and religion are concerned, they do not recognize one another. This must be addressed to make these issues relevant for the populace.

        As a personal note to you "UncommonSense", I do recognize how crass and offensive I can sometimes seem when it comes to the subject of religion and I apologize upfront if I have been offensive, but my stance is diametrically opposed to yours. The entire point of AS is the battle of intellectual vs. religion (mystics, altruism). I would be more than happy to discuss religion with you off of this forum if you are so inclined.

        At the end of all of this I would like to say to everyone that we should drop the stance of how well the movies mimic the book and think for ourselves, how well do these movies promote the ideas of Objectivism. One of the things that Rand was adamant about was to not start a following around everything she said, but to instead think for ourselves and try to shape this world as we would like to see it. One of the greatest gifts she ever gave us was to not fully define Objectivism and to instead only insinuate as to what it should be. It is our lives, she did not want us to follow in her foot steps, but instead she wished for us to rise up and live our lives.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
          hey bandakar, what's your background?

          if you want to do a movie demonstrating the principles of Objectivism, then don't call it Atlas Shrugged. I would not consider this proposed scene to be a minor detail.
          "...how well the movie mimics the book and think for ourselves." if you somehow cannot not see individualists who think for themselves in this forum, I suggest you recheck your premise
          lastly, go for it-write your own book or screenplay-we would all cheer you on.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
      I completely disagree. It is not the job of the virtuous to guide any audience. to create struggles for the most virtuous of men that they inherently do not possess, through their own reason and morality, would be disingenuous and counter-productive.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by bandakar23 6 years, 11 months ago
        You make a valid point as to the characteristics of the heroes within both the book and movie. Rand did a magnificent job of denouncing religion within the book by refusing to acknowledge it as relevant. Exceptionally brave for her era. But this is a different world than her time, and the lack of mention for religion does not hold the same meaning today as it did when the books were written. This must be adapted to effectively reach the audience.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 6 years, 11 months ago
          How is it that it's supposedly more relevant now? Because religious fervor has caused more misery over the last decade? Because its so rational? I completely disagree, and find that the mere suggestion that it is somehow relevant to AS to be be such a load of crap to be laughable, if it weren't so scary. You've missed the point of the book if you think it's relevant to the story line in the present day.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by UncommonSense 6 years, 11 months ago
            I hope I can clear up any misunderstanding here, so here goes:
            I believe AS is more relevant now because communists have completely infiltrated every aspect of our government: Federal elected and unelected offices, State and in a few cases I know of, at the local level. Universities and public schools (I'm battling with them monthly, sometimes weekly) and of course, in Hollyweird. It's wasn't so much so in America back in 1957, at the time, they were mostly concentrated in the unelected Federal offices and in the Universities and several companies in Hollyweird, but not like today.

            Religious fervor over the last decade is nothing but Islam. They aren't doing anything different from their documented 1400 year history of death, blood, slavery (it exists in Saudi Arabia today) and suffering. I already know what most people (especially muslims) will bring up, (almost like a Pavlov's Response): What Christianity did to everyone in in the 15th-17th centuries, all the way up to the Salem Witchcraft trials in early America. Yep, it was absolutely terrible. But we're talking about today, right?

            When was the last time ANY other religion other than Islam hijacked planes and either flew them into buildings and or killed people? When was the last time ANY other follower of a religion blew themselves up? The misery caused over religious fervor is not because of Christianity or Judaism. But because muslim's are following exactly what Mohammed told them to do, shortly before he died.

            Regrettably, I do not have enough understanding at this time to intelligently debate the details over the incompatibility between religion and Objectivism. But this is only temporary.

            From my perspective, I've always had an issue whenever anyone in any given domain of expertise, would go outside of that boundary and try to exercise undo influence on matters that they have no jurisdiction in. And it's not just religion either. We have political morons (Gore) who think they can tell us what kind of lightbulb to use. We have the EPA trying to tell us what kind of toilets we can have in newly-constructed houses (they suck BTW) We also have a presidential numbnut, who's never owned or ran a business, bailing-out auto companies & proceeds to tell them what divisions can stay and which ones need to go. Likewise, clergymen (throughout the ages) cannot go around and tell business owners what financial or strategic business directions to take: those decisions can only come from the person in charge of that business and not from the Bible!

            The Bible is for spiritual guidance, not Earthly knowledge and anyone who's claims to be a representative of Christ, KNOWS THIS. If they violate that boundary, they are morons and are not to be trusted! Furthermore, those individuals need to reconsider a new career. But what a minute, guess what, NOT SO IN ISLAM. That's right. The 7th century desert rat/warlord/pedophile/necrophiliac ensured his OCD and limited knowledge of what he thought how to run your life, including your business is a part of Sharia Law.

            To be a follower of Christ is an INDIVIDUAL choice. Not so in Islam. In Islam it is COLLECTIVE.

            To keep things simple and true to the message in AS, keep religion out of the book and movie, so as not to confuse newbies seeing it for the first time. Questions about religions role can be discussed, but outside of the book and movie.

            I hope this clears things up and didn't make things more confusing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LionelHutz 6 years, 11 months ago
              I doubt the AS3 movie will have anti-religion elements. When the book does it, it comes out of left field.

              I suspect Ayn Rand wrote This is John Galt Speaking first.
              She outlined the Objectivist philosophy, and then wrote the story around it.

              The story is about those who have ability to produce, and those who don't.
              It's not those who can't - those who don't. Those who won't. Those who feel like THINKING and LEARNING is too hard when they can just TAKE.
              The story is about the interplay between these two groups when one man says "I'm shutting this corrupt system down" and begins pulling away the producers, the thinkers, the men of the mind.

              In the philosophy chapter, Ayn Rand equates the government with religion - that they are two variations of the same looting theme.
              I disagree with this assertion and I'll be happy to answer why if anyone cares.

              But setting aside my thoughts for the moment, just pull the religion aspect out. Does the story (not Objectivism philosophy, the story) still stand? It totally does, IMO. All of the bad effects on individuals and society in Atlas Shrugged are seen through the looters applying their pull through the government, first harming the producers and then eventually cannibalizing even themselves. Ayn Rand says religion is parallel to this, but offers no story elements to flesh out the idea. If John Galt does not equate religion with looting in the movie, the story will not lose anything. If he does, people are going to be scratching their heads about why that was gratuitously thrown in. There's a lot of ground to cover in AS3. I do not think anti-religion will make it into the movie. The reason this movie is resonating with the public right now is reality is mirroring the story line.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by JDWilliams 6 years, 11 months ago
                I wouldn't have a problem with ASIII having "anti-religious elements", but I would vehemently oppose any movie of AS which inserted anti-Christian elements.

                I mean, if they want to introduce one or several scenes demonstrating the pitfalls of religious belief, whether the religious belief is theological or philosophical, I think that would be consistent and possibly worthwhile.

                Consider the cult-like fervor some on the left hold for Obama, similar to the cult-like fervor held for other cultural leaders and icons from Hitler to Elvis to Princess Di to Star Trek and Star Wars to AlGore and his globular warming religion.

                The danger and/or foolishness of this religious fervor, I think, would be acceptable. But to bash Christianity just because it's a safe straw-man religion to bash... no.

                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 6 years, 11 months ago
                  hi, JD. check out the website:atlasshrugged.com
                  This is a quote from on how Rand chose her publisher for the book AS:
                  "There was a second occurrence at her meeting that convinced her to sign with Random House. Ayn Rand had not said anything about the plot or even the theme, but she did tell them that “it is an extreme, uncompromising defense of capitalism and free enterprise, and presents a new philosophy” and that it would be opposed by both the political left and right. Then Donald Klopfer (Cerf’s partner) asked: “But if this is an uncompromising defense of capitalism, wouldn’t you have to clash with the Judeo-Christian tradition of ethics?” That, said Ayn Rand, “was the second touch that got them the book. . . . I had never heard anyone else, in person or in print, ever observe this. That he was that philosophical pleased me enormously. So I enthusiastically told him yes, of course it would, and that is one of the main points I’m presenting, a new morality, a moral defense of capitalism without which it can’t be defended because it does clash with the Judeo- Christian tradition. Well, that didn’t frighten him at all. It seemed to make him more interested.”
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
                    According to Anne C. Heller in her biography "Ayn Rand and the world she made", at the luncheon, following Klopfer's comment Cerf said " I find your political philosophy abhorrent" But he added If we publish you, Miss Rand,. nobody is going to try to censor you. You write anything you darn please and we will publish it." No one else had dared promise that and she ended up choosing Random House almost on the spot.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by UncommonSense 6 years, 11 months ago
                Your line "government with religion",to the The Left, Government IS their religion. Why do you think they hold so stubbornly to it even though facts and reality prove otherwise?

                These are the people who proclaim science & reasoning are the way. (If the French Revolution comes to mind, you're correct!) But when you use facts, logic and reasoning to prove their ideology DOESN'T work, the Left in response, rather than accept the TRUTH, are reduced to calling you names (e.g., hater, denier, etc) simply because the truth you point out doesn't help their cause.

                This is why I believe that to be a part of the Leftist camp, a requirement is to hold two diametrically opposed ideas and simultaneously support both. They love science & reasoning, but hate it when you use just that to prove them wrong.

                Any question that deals with anything physical, can be proved with science. Anything that deals with spirituality, cannot be proved by science. That's why it's called Faith.

                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
            I do not want to take credit for the connection nor do I want to assign all the blame on someone else but as I was reading "Free Market Revolution" by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins it became clearer and clearer to me that the necessary acceptance of the principles of self interest will never take place as long as people believe sacrifice is the ultimate moral good. As long as the statists have the moral high ground of sacrifice for the common good it is impossible to breach their fortress. The mystics provide them with the basis for their crimes against the producers and therefore against all men of real virtue.

            I think that this is not a today thing, as it goes all the way back to the divine right of kings. Enslavement by any means is the ultimate evil whether it is done with the threat of a gun or eternal damnation. Going on strike is possibly one solution but it is of no help to us or probably even our great grandchildren. I was struck by the enormity of the collapse of a civilization by having it pointed out that in the previous history of mankind it was not until Rome that a metropolis reached the population of 1 million. Considering the evolution of technology that allowed that I was not surprised but after the fall of Rome it was over a thousand years before it ever happened again. That is what cooled me on the idea of a strike. I think all of this is relevant to Atlas Shrugged and I can't laugh like Howard Roark.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JDWilliams 6 years, 11 months ago
              Is it enslavement when an employer offers you an hourly wage, without which you would starve?

              The collapse is coming if Atlas *doesn't* shrug. After all, Rome didn't collapse because Atlas Shrugged, but because of the inevitable results of the looters and moochers getting their hands on the reins of power unchecked.

              The options are a slow collapse followed by a thousand years of darkness, or a relatively quick collapse followed by a short period of darkness and a quick rebuilding.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo