I agree entirely. For the first half of my life, I wither (a) went to school (Hey, I *did* have a childhood, ya know!!), or (b) worked 2, sometimes 3, jobs to be non-reliant on others. I never once took a dime of welfare, and the one time I *did* rely on a hospital to care for me because I was deathly ill, I told them flat out that I considered it a loan and would make good on it... and I did. They were *very* surprised, telling me each time I made a payment, "You really don't have to do this, it's paid for by the government" which made me want to do so even harder.

The second half, I worked (still do, actually) for the state DOT out here. One of my WORST moments was being told by my field supervisor, about a week into my new job (25 years back), I had to "pace myself" else others would look bad. I told him (and his boss) "I am pacing myself - I'm working at the pace that I'm used to, and that lets me know I'm earning my pay, and if that's not how we do business, then I'll need to work elsewhere." I have had superiors actually try to fire me later on for that dynamo mentality over the years; fortunately, I now work for real jewels who understand, endorse, and promote objectivism rather than collectivism. I may get my primary paycheck *from* the state treasury, but I damn well guarantee they get their moneys worth... Also... when you use the roads, etc., you *are* paying for your use of them, (through various taxes) to keep them well and properly maintained and operational. I know - I watch our dovgov politicos cut our budget, and tell us to get more done... Most of the looters whine, snivel, and naysay about it... the producers see the BUSINESS logic of it (While I've ALWAYS lamented we can't run this ship like a for profit business, we do so anyway - at least in our purveyance), and grit our teeth, buckle down, and earn our pay.

BTW - We don't give - nor get - subsidies. We may have looter-laws that have language that require us to consider the entitlement-class category businesses (minority, "disadvantaged", women owned, etc...), but nothing says we have to give them the business unless they are the best qualified, lowest bid, capable company. My favorite, actually, was a woman owned and operated company that successfully bid on a number of contracts... tho ono one knew they were "woman owned" because they refused to classify themselves as one. Why? Because, as Doris, the owner, told me, "We're not going to be the best "woman-owned" company out there... we ARE the BEST damned company out there, and we don't NEED some government stooge to give us some unfair advantage to do our job, do it right, and do it tight."

Thank you! Loved that, and it has actually brought a good vibe to my afternoon. :-)

thanks OA. This is the version I own.

Well, I left a year ago, not to separate myself from societal problems, per se, but to maintain promises I had made to myself about this very "pledge." and another "pledge" of a sort-which included pursuit of happiness. One of the problems we have in this country is that our "pledge" is to a nation. Instead of learning to recite the Declaration of Independence, our children quickly are taught in school to pledge to a flag and country. Everyone stands and places their hand over their heart and recites outloud together, sometimes in a huge stadium, and the combined solemness and collective reverb of thousands of voices chanting together does give one little chills and their hearts soar with patriotism in many instances. No matter how that country changes or which country the flag has come to represent, millions of people are conditioned to want to protect it or in the name of the pledge, submit to its authority and not their own.
When you say "principle must apply to society" we must reason from that point and quickly you will be hitting your head against the wall. This is something Rand talked about: anti-concept. A concept created to obliterate a rational concept. Arguing for the merits of a society to the detriment of the individual, in this case. It is the same argument you made about family, or the solidarity of any group against another. The principles can ONLY apply to the individual. A society is made up of individuals. Individuals acting in best self interest will live, for the most part, peacefully. Whenever we take the argument to a group, the self interest implies sacrifice.
Of course, I overlooking the pragmatic issues of being a citizen. But if the change starts by altering or redirecting a group, you will not get the society you hope for. Voting for and influencing others to vote for removal of welfare state rules and subsidies will change the choices an individual faces. ex: if I no longer get a larger check if I am unwed and a mother-or heaven forbid! no check at all! very quickly the number of unwed mothers in a society will no longer be an institution. If choosing to keep one's baby and unwed with no income, the family unit strengthens over time. More babies born out of wedlock will be adopted. But the desired result is not due to focus on the group, unwed mothers. The focus remains with the individual.

Concur... Once force has been initiated some sort of force may be required to combat it if we are ever going to be able to realize this ideal.

All good thoughts, of course. You'll get no argument from me.

However, I want everyone to consider that this pledge is passive. I won't force you to live for me. I won't force myself to live for you. But that passivity is being met by people applying force. "We WILL force you to live for us." Who do you think wins that battle?

I know people like to wrap themselves in the fictional world of Atlas Shrugged and imagine they are getting there by committing themselves to this pledge. But practically, we need an attitude that is not nearly as passive. We need to change the laws. We need to meet force with force.

Thank you! :)

Yes, the pledge is to myself but the principle must apply to society. Until society as a whole adoptes the pledge we will be hitting our heads against the proverbial brick wall. Detroit is the poster city for government dependence. I am sick and tired of supporting that looter city and its 48% illiterate population. The only other option is to find a Gulch somewhere on planet earth and leave this society behind. I'll meet you there!

Good morning khalling,
This one's for you, if you can listen to the same song again by another artist. One of your favorites...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWcUJxrih...

O.A.

Remember the young mother that Dagny met in the Gulch. She was the wife of a Galter, but had to take the pledge on her own, and her "production" was to raise her two small boys with that same self-reliance.

AWESOME

Good morning NMA,

Here is something to start your day off right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByQlozBT4...

O.A.

first of all the pledge is not to your country, nor your daughter. it's to yourself.
Many books don't include children in their stories because they do not advance the plot. it is important< of course< to have strong families
but the mafia or cartels have strong families< so it is not sufficient in itself> you will have strong famililes as long as you protect property rights
when we created a welfare state< we paid people to not be married
(excuse my unhappy keyboard)

Good morning LionelHutz,

You are quite right in pointing out how impossible it is to live up to the ideal, but like so many things it is a matter of degrees. You do not alone posses the power to make them stop.

I quite agree that we are forced to act in some ways contrary to the pledge. For me the essence of the pledge is not whether you can comply with the ideal but rather if you comply to the degree within your power. It is a matter of intent; not ability to comply. You are not responsible for deviance “Forced” upon you. As far as how much you should take. Certainly you are entitled to what you have put in. The next question is if you are to receive more than you put in, how much is appropriate. You must decide. For me there are also some questions in this regard. One question keeps occurring to me. How much money would or could you have earned with the money they took? You must weigh this objectively and morally.

Because the government takes from you or gives to you “without your sanction” does not mean you have broken the pledge since the pledge is about your dedication to live for yourself and lack of demand on your fellow man. It is more about your ideals than the circumstances beyond your control. You would be in contradiction to the pledge if you intentionally, personally decided to give up your needs for another (altruism) or demanded altruism on the part of another in order for you to live.

Ask yourself if YOU have determined to forgo your own desires and live for another’s sake, or if YOU have asked another to live for you. The answer is likely no because someone other than you has made these demands you live under.

The long and short of it is your intent and desire, not your circumstances which you are forced to live under and your actions, not those beyond your control. You can hardly blame the guy run over by a bus that runs a light while he was crossing the street appropriately. It would be nice to live in a world where the pledge could be absolute, but I see no harm in trying to live up to it as far as one is able.

Regards,
O.A.

🙀

Cat in a room full of rocking chairs...

I considered adding /collaboration but I thought it might be a bit much... You may relax. :)

Agreed. However I find it interesting that in Atlas Shrugged none of the central characters have children. Are you suggesting that "the pledge" does not apply to the family unit (mother/father/children)? That Ayn Rand promotes cohabitation and ignores procreation? I have a ten year old daughter and my responsibility as a father is to teach her self reliance to attain her goals in life. My take is that "the pledge" can apply to our country - ie rely on our energy sources, not foreign oil. But then, what do I know?

I swear by my life, and my love of it, that i will never live for the sake of another person, nor ask another to live their life for mine.
And I will add, they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. :)

I agree with the reasoning expressed here. It was never even in my mind that one WOULDN'T be taking back what was robbed from them. The problem is determining when exactly you should stop taking because it has stopped being recovery of your own money, and has turned into robbery of others. There is also the practical question of if you even have the ability to make them stop.

I also think you can't really take a pledge not to live your life for another when the very act of trying to live requires work and that work will be taxed and given to another.

The pledge expresses a noble thought, but the fact of the matter is we are forced to act against it.

Nicely said, both ways!

Like my cat.

I'm giving you a point but I am wary...

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.
Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .
The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.
The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/govern...