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.
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.
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.”
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.
It appears that the only acceptable compromise is when the consertives roll over and give everything to thelibs.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Load more comments...