16

The Speech

Posted by  $  KSilver3 4 years, 6 months ago to Philosophy
103 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 13
    Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 6 months ago
    Objectivists sometimes operate on the premise that all, or at least most, humans want a society based on reason. The biggest reason why Objectivism has not taken over sooner is because that premise is faulty. The majority of humans want what is easy, do not mind giving up their liberty for security, and are not worthy of our effort.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 12
      Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 6 months ago
      Or as Robert Heinlein put it.....

      Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.


      The difference between rational and rationalizing explains many of our ills today.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
        I think this is a mistake. Reason is a volitional faculty, therefore each person is able to decide whether to be rational or not. Most people use reason in some areas and ignore it in others..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 6 months ago
          The problem comes in with how much of the time ignore is the option chosen when it comes to reason.

          Lets face it, when people don't agree what are the first words out of their mouths?

          "I feel" or "I think"

          Maybe it is because I live in New England, but around her "I feel" is the norm, not "I think"

          An initial response encouraged daily by the media, public schools, social media, etc.

          This is one of the few places I have found where "I think" is more common than "I feel"

          If we could have signature lines, mine would be....

          Liberalism - the triumph of emotion over reason.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
            right, but man is a rational animal, not a rationalizing animal. This error is made by cynics and used to undermine reason and philosophy. Ultimately, it is an anti-conceptual argument - often made by the logical positivists.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 6 months ago
              I've been called far worse than a cynic before :)

              Here is the usage I was speaking of from dictionary.com

              verb (used without object), rationalized, rationalizing.
              7.
              to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes:
              He tried to prove that he was not at fault, but he was obviously rationalizing.

              In the land of "I feel" this is a go to move
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
                I understand the definition of what rationalizing is, but it is incorrect to say humans are rationalizing animals. Rationalization is only possible for an animal that has reason, but it is impossible to reverse that situation.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  TomB666 4 years, 6 months ago
              I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying? Man has the ability to reason, but that does not mean he does so. Do you mean man has the ability to be a rational animal?

              When someone rationalizes rather then reasons, is he not then acting as a rationalizing animal? I think in these cases it is fair to call him a rationalizing animal because that is what he is doing.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
                No, he is not being a rationalizing animal. A bear is an omnivore animal. If a bear is fed only meat, that does not make bears carnivores. You are confusing the specific with the concept, which was my point in the first place.

                This is a common technique of the left. For instance, show me your inalienable rights - where are they - people in North Korea do not own themselves. It is a purposeful category mistake.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by  $  rockymountainpirate 4 years, 6 months ago
    I think most people would tune it out because they would not understand it. It goes against everything they have been taught and see. Secondly, those that even knew there had been a speech would wait for the 10 second blip on the tv news, then wait for the 'reporter' to tell them what it said and for the late night comics to make fun of it.

    Patricia:" My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement." - Joe vs the Volcano
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 6 months ago
      The further we get from the edge of survival, the less we're willing to put out the effort to think for ourselves. People are amazed at what the Germans did during the war, or the French did during their revolution, but notice that you don't see that type of intellectual avoidance among destitute people in the third world; they may be ignorant, but they do know what time it is. What we're complaining about in this forum is that people who should know better, act like they don't, because there's so much abundance that they can indulge their "feelings," rather than face reality. That said, you should probably broadcast Galt's speech when times are bad, not when things are booming. It's only when times are bad that people are willing to consider alternatives. Even though the length of Galt's speech is a bit much, it's certainly shorter than Castro's, so someone will listen, but only if they're serious about finding an answer.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
        So starving people in North Korea put more effort into thinking for themselves? When people live on the edge of starvation, i.e. the Malthusian Trap, they rarely have the time or resources to truly think for themselves. There is no macro evidence for your position.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 6 months ago
    I will be honest with you. I couldn't get through it in the book. I was able to find an audio copy of Galt's speech on tape and I listened to it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Snoogoo 4 years, 6 months ago
      I agree with you Mama, I did read the whole thing but I kept looking ahead thinking.. "where does this end!" But I think I felt that way because it was redundant, by the time you get to that part, if you "get" the book, you don't need to hear the same ideas repeated because you have already connected all of the dots in your head. I know AR did this for emphasis just to make everything clear, kind of like.. just in case you missed any piece of that, here it is explained in detail. This may be a good idea for a writing contest though. See who can write the best Galt speech in a condensed, concise format. Whoever can get all the points across with the fewest words and the best writing wins. Perhaps this has already been done, but a worthy endeavor to repeat.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 14
        Posted by DavidKelley 4 years, 6 months ago
        I first read Atlas in high school, and, like Snoogoo, I turned page after page in the speech waiting for the dialog and action to resume.

        Brief interlude, since I'm kind-of new here: I’m David Kelley. I work at The Atlas Society, which I founded, and I worked with Scott and others on the film adaptation of Atlas. I’m glad to be here as a participant in the Gulch!

        I agree that the speech wouldn’t work today, given its length and philosophical depth. Maybe not even in the 50s when it was written. On the other hand, you have to consider the novel’s context: The great producers have been disappearing, society is collapsing, the government is totally corrupt and everyone knows it—and here’s a guy who shows up out of nowhere and explains it all. Imagine in our world if Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and others disappeared mysteriously, Silicon Valley looked like Detroit, we were in another, even worse financial crisis, and then some unknown genius took over the airwaves during an Obama State of the Union address. I can just barely imagine this—for an hour, maybe, though not for three….

        Anyway, I like Snoogoo’s idea of a condensed version. We faced that challenge on the script for the film, Atlas Shrugged Part 3, where the speech had to be super-condensed. I’d love to hear comments on it. The script of the speech and comparison with the novel are in a book we published, Atlas Shrugged: The Novel, the Films, the Philosophy (on Amazon), in a chapter called “Scripting the Speeches.”

        If anyone’s interested, I’ll see whether we can make that chapter available to Producers.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  ObjectiveAnalyst 4 years, 6 months ago
          Greetings DavidKelley,
          First let me say I very much enjoyed the extras you provided on each of the DVDs. If people who have the movies, but did not check them out they are missing out.

          As for the Galt speech, I remember thinking, how long is this going to go on, but felt a great deal of satisfaction once completed. I would still pay for an audio version of the entire thing read by Mr. Polaha. If your scenario was played out and Obama's State of the Union address was interrupted in such a fashion, I for one would be glued to the set. I might be among too few, but I would see it as the greatest "three..." hours ever to have interrupted the usually scheduled programming. World changing... Just to imagine the detractors puling their hair out. :)
          Respectfully,
          O.A.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 6 months ago
            "an audio version of the entire thing read by Mr. Polaha" - I love that idea. The money speech as well, read by someone who could really make it seem like Francisco was saying it. Maybe some others, too. I'd pay for that. Time to watch the movies again.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 6 months ago
          Welcome David, I'd love to see that chapter. I can imagine the amount of effort it must have taken to get that speech down to a film clip moment. By the way, I loved the movies. An effort that won't see it's true impact till later down the road. Thank you all.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Maree 4 years, 6 months ago
          Mr Kelley i have known of you from across the globe several years and i take this opportunity to thank you for your video clips in the dVds.
          I too would pay to hear a full reading and would read the entire speech once more at the same time.
          I am currently facing an employment disciplinary and they don't know what they have coming. Let alone that this saturday is my 9th birthday of being on strike.
          Please stay active in this form of the Gulch.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
        Snoogoo every time I have heard the speech is redundant, it is usually because the person does not really understand the underlying philosophical debates. These people then fall into traps. For instance, many want to take the short cut of the non-aggression principle. Many think that Austrian economics is consistent with Rand's ideas, many become utilitarians and think the greatest good for the greatest number makes sense, and many will fall for the moral relativism of the is-ought problem. Freedom can only happen when it is build on a solid foundation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 6 months ago
        Excellent point, Snoogoo. I remember that feeling of hey, I already got that. But I knew it was important, so I was determined to read it all-or listen to it all. :)
        I think in the movie they did a great job of hitting the high points.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 6 months ago
    Excellent post KSilver. Given the fact that most State of the Union speeches are written on about an eighth grade level I am guessing a speech of that depth would be tuned out. Could someone update and simplify it to get the same point across? I think they could. A lot of people listen to Obama and he ends up saying nothing. A speech with substance would be a welcome change.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 6 months ago
    Hello KSilver3,
    This is an awesome question, I love it. And it sucks. Because I know that years ago, had this speech been broadcast I wouldn't have made it through it. It would not have helped me. It was only in the context of the book that my interest was drawn in enough to see the importance of it. A shortened version? I doubt even that. Years of brainwashing, then years of evasion, then years of cynicism coupled with evasion and wishing it would all just go away. Can you break through all that with a speech on a radio? Maybe a mentor. Maybe someone who could see my struggles and... shit
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 6 months ago
    Sadly, Galt's speech would not have much impact today. Many listening would not understand hardly a word of it. Others, will have too short of an attention span to sit through it. Many who read A.S. are stymied when it comes to Galt's speech. If, on the other hand, you are thrilled by the speech and the book, you belong to an entirely different breed. But you are also a breed apart, a minority who place reason and freedom above everything else.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PURB 4 years, 6 months ago
    Thought-provoking questions. With "diversity" and "multiculturalism" saturating academia today, including lesson plans, the selection of textbooks, and the requirements students MUST fulfill, some of today's audiences would wonder to which "group" Galt belongs. Does he represent only privileged white males? Is he gay or a tranny? What's his ethnic background?
    Galt's Euro-American, ego-testicle worldview, politicians and PhD's would insist, is not "inclusive" of follicularly challenged, melanin impoverished, motivationally deficient Chicana lesbian feminists, who are differently logical. Many, I suspect, would find Galt's speech charm free.
    Sad but true.
    But the audience in Atlas is starving; the strikers aren't.
    Would hungry people listen for 3 hours and make connections? I believe many would.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 6 months ago
    The simple answer is no, but not because of content, but because the speech in its current format is simply too long - especially for today's bullet-point- or sound-bite-obsessed population.

    In the book, Galt's speech goes on for about 40 pages. Having given dozens of speeches and listened to thousands, I can tell you that one page of written text takes 1-2 minutes to deliver even for an experienced orator. The math is pretty simple. Even reading Galt's speech out loud would take ~45 minutes in it's present iteration. That's the length of an entire TV show - without commercials - and without any action shots, sex scenes, or plot development. Even with a captive audience as Galt has in the book, he's going to lose a large portion of them after ten minutes. The movie adaptation similarly recognized this and cut the speech down to about five minutes and did a pretty good job.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 4 years, 6 months ago
    Spend your day asking all you come in contact with one simple question. What is the name of the Vice President of the United States today? I would be very surprised if 75% of those you ask will know the answer and this my friends is why JGs speech would mostly fall on deaf ears.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Itheliving 4 years, 6 months ago
    I could not even read all the posts here that were longer than three lines. My FB newsfeed keeps beeping and I am watching a movie and a sporting using the split screen feature at the same time. Posting this was very distracting. A 500 page speech with big words. I don't think so.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 6 months ago
    No you aren't wrong. It takes an educated public who is willing to take responsibility not just rights but will settle for anything rather than give up couch potato status. Such does not exist in the USSA today. There was a movie starring the Sleaze Sisters who dumped TVs out of apartment windows and the theme song was Video killed the recording star or some such. Add the rest of the mindless toys to MTV primarily texting and you have a population not worth defending much less dying for. However from a professional military point of view none of us swore an oath to any one or any group of people. The oath was and is to the Constitution. Question is when is the military going to up hold their oath of office? I would guess they too would hold the effort not worth the effort. But they could do it as a legal counter revolution and take it from there. If enough of the leadership remembers that oath.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 6 months ago
    If you read Ann Coulter's book, "Demonic," you'll see why the left has an advantage, especially among those who refuse to think. Sound bites and slogans trump facts with any mob. What we must do is attract those who are willing to think, and work with them. Anything else is a fool's errand.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 6 months ago
    Too many people now have video game induced - attention deficit disorder to read through or listen through Galt's speech. Oooooh! Shiny!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 4 years, 6 months ago
    to your first point, have you ever watched a Jesse
    Watters segment on O'Reilly? . most people in a
    TV audience, say, would have no clue about who or
    what causes them to have food, except plastic. . and
    an exploiting employer. . maybe.
    and your second point -- no chance. . they can
    hardly, most of them, connect one sentence with
    the next. . and I love most of these people, y'know,
    as a member of the finest nation on earth. . way more
    than half of our population is beyond the reach
    of a rational approach like Galt's. . there must be
    another way.

    that's why I love the story which I just edited -- the
    "fly-over" population decides to pull their States
    out of the U.S., taking away much of the food and
    water. . the others, deprived of food and water,
    become desperate and beg for help. . these left-
    and right-coast States decide to join the new U.S.
    with its new constitution and laws, to re-integrate
    the nation. . so,,, the u.s. is saved. . by force. . it
    took force to get their attention. -- j

    p.s. http://www.amazon.com/Unsustainable-Tuck...

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 4 years, 6 months ago
    ABSOLUTELY NONE. The basic intelligence level of the country has deteriorated to the point of almost no comprehension. and the fact that more uneducated people are coming into the country makes it even worse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by PURB 4 years, 6 months ago
      I understand your frustration but I disagree. Starving Americans, to whom Galt's speech is addressed, would listen and "get" enough. As Rand once observed, the "common man" in America is singularly UN common.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 6 months ago
    Taking over the broadcast would have a tremendous effect (if even possible to do today). But I just can't imagine anyone I know, particularly being caught unprepared, that would listen to the entire thing. In the book, you can read some, then set it aside, absorb it and then pick the book up and continue or even re-read. But to sit and listen for that length of time--I just don't see it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 6 months ago
      I wonder if Venezuelan's are "there" yet
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 6 months ago
        All of Latin America is interesting. Big differences between Cono Sur, Andina Brazil, Centro , Caribe, and Mexico. South to North. Common background is Spanish/Portuguese and Iberian Peninsula. Catholic Church and a breakaway from European Rule. Cinco De Mayo celebrates the first Mexican victory against the French when they owned that country. Not a major holiday in Mexico. Formerly lots of corruption and of course the differences in culture, economy, and the ever popular mordida or bribe taking to replace decent salaries. As for corruption they have a long way to go to catch up with Washington DC. Nickname is Distant Neighbor which has more meaning than being the other United States of....Many of the top candidates now are women which puts them ahead of the US but they have a ways to go installing some of the social support systems we take for granted. Child Support for one. Less church influence by far than further South. Most countries are fiercely tribal in a patria sense. But they are learning to work together. Cono Sur the southern cone is Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. ABC is Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Andina is Bolivia to Venezuela. Like the US a main problem is using the nations wealth for the nation and not for a few billionaires. Same same Russia and USA.

        While some, especially in the intellectual upper classes, embraced communism many turned their backs in favor of leave me alone to exist. Also known as laissez faire nous. As Che the Chump found out when he began stealing their food. Next thing you know the Bolivian rangers showed up.

        The US has done very little in supporting moves to wards democracy and a Republic form of government. Sadly mostly supporting dictators. Left the field wide open for the Castro's until some disgusted members of he US military began giving lessons at no charge. Big flap over that thinking of Nicaragua and Uruguay.

        The current leftist strategy and some of the tactics though were straight out of the Cycle of Repression handbook written by a Brazileno who ran around with Che and Tanya.What Hillary and company are doing switched roles between rebels and government.

        If anything else is happening it's way further south than my location ....and no one is talking.

        Meanwhile Treasury Secretary under Bubba on loan from Gold Mon in dem Sacks managed to loot the Social Security and other US government funds held 'in trust'' Rubin. That dude. the turnover between government party officials and corporate office holders continues. Strings are pulled. Nothing changes.

        Except bit by bit Latin America is finding it's own way.Latest lesson. Don't depend on the gringo government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 4 years, 6 months ago
    Unfortunately, I doubt that it would have much im-
    pact if delivered over the radio. In a book, it's dif-
    ferent. One can read parts, and then go back to it
    and resume later. I read the speech before I read
    the rest of the book. ( I was an adolescent, and
    although intrigued by Ayn Rand, was afraid of
    her, because I feared her philosophy would shat
    ter certain cherished delusions I held. It did,
    but gradually; I learned not to be so afraid and
    hurt by that fact). I looked at the speech in the
    library,but would not check the book out for a
    while. But I finally did. But I still liked the
    speech, for the way it lambasted the evil. On
    the radio, to an audience of today?--I don't think
    so. But then,in that situation in the book, where
    the people had expected to hear more B.S. from
    the dictator in charge, and find he is temporari-
    ly shut up; maybe. Of course, some would have
    Eugene Lawson's reaction.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by H6163741 4 years, 6 months ago
    When Galt gave his speech in AS, the U.S. was in chaos, production of goods was basically shut down, and the people were literally starving to death. I can only hope that our current fellow-citizens would wise up before we reach that point.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by jtrikakis 4 years, 6 months ago
    People today don't think. That is done by those with an agenda. The groups who make the most noise such climate change and LGBT have been successful because of their noise. Nobody suddenly "gets it" they need to told over and over gain.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 years, 6 months ago
    I have to admit, even though I am a college grad in engineering, I found John Galts speech not very relevant to my own life experiences. I had to plow through it. Perhaps its is the Netflix effect where we learn by watching documentaries. I'm sure the speech is philosophically correct, and someone writing a constitution should study completely. But for the average citizen its a bit wordy and outside of their level of living.
    In today's world, we have a real life example of socialism- Venezuela. We need a documentary outlining how it got to where its at, and then a science fiction part where a rational philosophy takes over- along with how it works in practice. Its a LONG study lesson for sure, but it has to be related to where people ARE today.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
      The speech is not just relevant to a constitution, in fact it has little relevance to a constitution. The speech is important because freedom cannot be built on any foundation, it has to be built on reason, A is A, rational selfishness, etc.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jdg 4 years, 6 months ago
        I disagree with this. Libertarians build freedom using the principle of self-ownership as its foundation, and it works well enough. A philosophy helps some people, but it is not strictly necessary.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 6 months ago
          I'm sorry. Please explain.

          I've been hearing the term "self-ownership" for awhile now. Never really saw it defined, but it sounds good. It really does.

          Finally someone who can explain it means.

          In particular, how a "principle", not to mention a "foundation", has no philosophy behind it?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
            Perhaps you should read a little John Locke. Have you read any of Rand's books?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 6 months ago
              I sincerely regret a misunderstanding, as I respect both you and kh.

              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?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
                Minor, this is a conversation. Kh and I have thick skins also honest debate and we enjoy them
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 6 months ago
                  As do I, sir. All the best...

                  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]
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 4 years, 6 months ago
      The speech is philosophically correct.
      It is outside the average citizens level of learning today.
      The philosophy that you are referring too does exist; it is known as OBJECTIVISM.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 4 years, 6 months ago
        Yeah, its a real challenge to garner support when most people have been steeped in non-objectivism for so long. I think at this point its better to talk to them where they live- things like waiting for hours in Venezuela to buy toilet paper because no one can afford to make it with the government's regulations.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rex_Little 4 years, 6 months ago
    Galt's speech had an impact in AS for the same reason his motor was able to run on static electricity from the air: because AS is fictional.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
      The ideas are real.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rex_Little 4 years, 6 months ago
        Of course they are, and I agreed with them before I ever read the speech. What's fictional is the notion that those ideas, presented in a speech which runs longer than a full-length motion picture, would have any effect on the vast majority of people other than curing their insomnia.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 6 months ago
          The vast majority of people have no idea where their underlying philosophical concepts come from. I see this all the time, where people have absorbed some philosophical concept such as Utilitarianism and yet do not know it. So what.

          Not everyone has to understand genetics or natural rights for us to profit from it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 years, 6 months ago
      Agreed, but you're missing the point of the question. The question wasn't whether it had an impact in a fictional story. The question was, since it is so needed today, would it have any impact if given today. It's a hypothetical study. I have a pretty good grasp on the difference between fiction and reality, but thanks for clarifying.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rex_Little 4 years, 6 months ago
        My point was that the speech would not have any impact if given in real life, today or any other time. I think that's a direct answer to the question which was asked.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JoleneMartens1982 4 years, 6 months ago
    I agree. We are taught to think and read in spurts. It is difficult to truly absorb anything so lengthy, when your attention span is so short. Our fly by lifestyles are grandly affecting our decision making skills and not for the better, I am afraid.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  JCLanier 4 years, 6 months ago
    Rand gives us the story first with the characters that interpret the various aspects of Objectivism and the characters that are the antithesis of this philosophy. Much is to be said for her genius in presenting her philosophy in a story form since it is this form that has reached and captivated the many.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dwlievert 4 years, 6 months ago
    This, as someone has already indicated, is a great thread. As an "early" admirer of Rand's work, I want to return to a comment made early in this thread by jbrenner. I would state the reason "Objectivism has not taken over sooner" is Objectivists themselves. They have established themselves as arrogant, pompus, moralizers, who are quick to condem and find fault, rather than seekers of understanding in order to effectively accomplish their goals. With that self-serving lead-in, I want to warmly welcome David Kelly and state that he has done more for on behalf of "taking over" than almost all Objectivists prior to his courageous stance - not to mention what he has done on behalf of our own personal "pursuit of happiness."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo