Compromise
Posted by coaldigger 12 years, 2 months 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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
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.
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 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 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.
The look was priceless. I said nothing more and moved on.
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.
Load more comments...