The Speech
Thought provoking question (hopefully)- Would John Galt's speech have any impact if given in modern times? I am doing my yearly reading of AS, and that question kept percolating in my mind. Not whether it is right of wrong, good or evil, but would it have any impact? I'm questioning this from two different angles. First, in today's partisan team sport of politics and economics, would he simply be labeled as a member of one team, and ignored by the others? Second, and sadder, would the vast majority of humans today have the attention span to listen to it in its entirety? In our modern 30 second sound bite world, would anyone actually stay tuned in long enough to gain from it, or simply tune out and wait for someone to interpret it for them? Of course, even in the book, most listeners missed the point, and simply wanted to abdicate their decision making to Galt instead of their current leaders, but it did have an impact. I am pessimistic that it would have any impact today. Thoughts?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
FYI: in my earlier comment, I perhaps should have made clearer that my only recent experience of the use of the term "self-ownership" has been in (necessarily) futile discussions with anarchists... hence perhaps my overreaction...
I don't remember Rand ever using it, and if Locke did (I will search my eBooks) then I will see how and in what context he uses it...
[minor edits for content]
The speech is the concentrated form of the entire story. In this powerful, condensed form, the speech reinforces everything the story plot represented.
This is the purest form of Rand's philosophy. Unadulterated. It is, in my opinion, a mathematical composition with each thought built upon the other in logical formation verified by laser beam reasoning which allows no contradiction in the entire presentation. It is pure logic and reason and for this it is absolute genius.
The "speech" bares your soul. It leaves you naked. It is exhaustingly detailed. You cannot escape from its logic. You have no defense against it because you "know" that you have found the truth. It is from this "absolute" reasoning that most men run.
That being said, there will always be that few that would listen.
The success of those of the Gulch in Rand's AS was based on those few.
I'm guessing that like underground schools and churches in Russia the best that could be done is preparation for the next internal war and so do the leftists as you see them prepare the protective echelon (schutzstaffel).
The value of the movie, the book, and the oath is found in the future. This one is over.
Teach your children well, pass the torch, and don't vote even in a worthless election for the Government Party.
However if you can figure out how to do it in a sound bite second you may have a chance.
General public? Lost Cause. Concentrate on those worth the effort. 110,000 precincts. Here's a better statistic of hope.
I read a synopsis of the Bubba Bush race. Precincts and districts having 50% or more voter turn out bragged about 51% and 52%. That was percent of registered voters. That figure ran 50% nationwide. All the sources arrived at approximately those numbers.
There were no statistics on percent voting Democrat or Republic except for Perot.
He took a bit less than ten percent if memory serves and took most of them from the Republicans who were being punished for breaking the word on previous vote for us deals.
The Republicans not the Democrats sent an agent into the Populist Camp who destroyed them. Nowadays they just deny a spot on the General ballot.
But in the following years it went like this. of 50% who registered 50 % voted. One third of the 25% went to the Donkeys and one third to the Elephants and one third (approximations) to the independents, disenfranchised - those who would have read AS. The Government Party took 2/3rds is one way of looking at in including those who flushed their vote down one of the two toilets.The Republicans learned nothing so for those who say give them a chance they HAD their chance and joined the Democrats.
End conclusion about 6.34 percent elected Clinton, it took the vote flushers to do it. About 6.33 voted for Bush, about 6.33 made other choices but if you add in those who didn't vote at all it was much higher.
think about how small the margins truly are.
in which group is your target area for gaining support.
how do you attract them
how do you get them on the ballot
or...how do you get the military to consider them worth the effort.
Anyway that's where I would and do spend my efforts. It only takes a few percent especially in those local precincts.
If you don't have recall and initiative go for it.
Forget the couch potatoes and those who aren't worth the effort. In the end they will do what they are told.
How else to you explain Jews and Blacks supporting the same people they used to call Massa or whose base philosophy killed them by the millions.
Go after that percentage that is obtainable and keep hope alive.
As for those of you who have joined the dark side....a pox on your house and both it's occupants. We do not serve the party.
Scott is going to post :Scripting the Speeches" next .week. I'll follow up then....
David
Well stated.
Thank you.
Man must first be a rational animal before he can rationalize.
Knowledge must be in the proper chronological order.
My reply was to to jdg...either my mistake, or the systems. Makes no difference. Your resonse was totally uncalled for, but I will respond.
FYI:
Read: all of Rand, more than once, fiction and non-fiction. Several times. Starting in 1968...
Plus, Locke's major works, all major philosophers, in total, i.e., their original works, not Cliff's Notes, that Rand opposed, only because, it was important to know the opposition first-hand...Plato, Kant, Hegel...many more...while pursuing an actual undergraduate and graduate degree...
All of the Austrian economists, and likewise, all of Marx and his following, long after but still relevant, in both Cambridge, England, and Massachusetts. Ever hear of the "Two Cambridge Controversy on Capital Theory"? I doubt it.
Wrote a graduate paper on it, showing they were both wrong...at NYU, not downtown at the "Finance School", but Washington Square Liberal Arts...under professors who were students of Mises. And "Liberal Arts" still meant something...
My entire bibliography would go beyond the limit of a single post.
And you, sir?
However, I think it is true that many liberals and others are better able to ignore reality because we are wealthy - see the anti-vaccine movement or the environmental movement generally. But I don't think they differ from the witch doctor or the priest who reads entrails or the group that throws virgins into volcanoes.
More to learn, more to learn.....
"Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self -delusion— in the long run, these are the only people who count. "
Load more comments...