Compromise
Posted by coaldigger 11 years, 1 month ago to Politics
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.
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.
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.
Regards,
O.A.
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.
It appears that the only acceptable compromise is when the consertives roll over and give everything to thelibs.
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.
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?
"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...
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 ;-)
you said "don't worry," so of course, now I'm worried
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.
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.
Based on your screen name, I wondered if you were indeed from the Pittsburgh area. My two grandfathers and several uncles worked the coal mines around Pittsburgh, as well as in the steel mills. By the way, There are now three Pgh natives in the Gulch.
Enjoy the game!
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
and what's with the new one who is well versed and only commented on this post with no intro-because has no interest in hanging out here-
drum roll, please! newsletter
you weren't squeaky enough I guess
as to the bolting-
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/13...
I always recommend keeping a bolting bag(coined by LetsShrug and deserves line of the day) packed and ready to go. you will find this useful in all sorts of entanglements in your life, including your govt
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.
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.
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.
RJG
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?
http://objectivish.blogspot.mx/
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.
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.
Let it go. Enjoy the ride. Laugh when they lie. Be ready when John Galt calls...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why prriests? They're not
exactly"saints"
venn diagram effect. in here we fairly hum with our intersections.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
The look was priceless. I said nothing more and moved on.
She was caught totally off-guard, and I made sure to say it very clearly and matter-of-fact. I'm pretty sure I pulled it off nicely, since she looked at me in disbelief, and I looking at her with the same look I'm sure, for a moment or two, before I left.
BTW, they REALLY HATE it when you make the Catholic sign of the cross in front of them. Try it some time.
But I've found that all you have to do, is make the sign of the cross and immediately begin praying. They will not stay in the immediate area, and leave immediately. At least where my better half and I have done it. No joke.
Why throw out perfectly good bacon? Damn...cookies and bacon. Coffee too. The Good Life!
http://www.snorgtees.com/t-shirts/bacon/...
I don't want to offend any believer -but I do want to be inclusive-