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 5.
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.
Enjoy the game!
you said "don't worry," so of course, now I'm worried
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.
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.
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.
Load more comments...