Obama is John Galt

Posted by jimjamesjames 4 years, 4 months ago to Culture
115 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Obama is John Galt

Consider: John Galt swore he would stop the motor of the world. Obama said he would fundamentally transform the United States. Geographical differences aside, is not Obama, by his adherence to Cloward/Piven/Alynski, striving for the same end: collapse and rebuild?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 35
    Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 4 months ago
    I know you are trying to initiate a discussion, but in my simple and literal mind, this is like saying dog shit and chocolate cake are alike because they are both brown and both can be eaten.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
      Makes sense, Mamma. My point, if I may, is that Galt's process (relieving society of "the mind") and Obama's process (destroy society by overload) lead to the same thing: collapse.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 13
        Posted by romcentee 4 years, 4 months ago
        Galt's mission was achieved by getting the Reardens and Dagnys of the world to stop fighting a no win battle and let the inevitable happen. Obama won't be successful because our Reardens and Dagnys et al are still in the fight.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Ibecame 4 years, 4 months ago
          romcentee, I support your comment, but I believe the outcome will be worse that you realize. Most of the Reardens and Dagnys, will still be fighting to put out the fire when the whole thing comes apart and they are caught in the collapse. It is unlikely they will survive. If this truly is intentional then Obama and those with him already have selected who will rebuild and it won't be, Reardens or Dagnys or Howard Roark.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by romcentee 4 years, 4 months ago
            O and his gang are tightening the noose a little every day. Collapse - yes. I don't think in terms of rebuilding. Galt's message to me is simply Take-back-your-life. If that results in some type of rebuilding all the better. There are >300M people in this country, if say 50M would "March" on Washington one day the looters would see just how truly small they are. ( ok, ok stop laughing. I dream...)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Ibecame 4 years, 4 months ago
              #%$^&*!@ (Thats the noise I am making while stifling back my laughter). I like your thought, but I just wish there were 50M intelligent voters. (Ok, I can already hear you laughing).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 10
        Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 4 months ago
        2 separate processes for two entirely separate ends. One driven by the philosophy of the rights of the individual, the other by the desire for destruction to make room for his third worlders and his oppressed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by gaiagal 4 years, 4 months ago
          I believe you attribute a sense of humanity to him that he doesn't have. I believe it his desire for destruction that motivates him. Period. His "third worlders and his oppressed" are tools used to achieve his goals.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
          "2 separate processes for two entirely separate ends."

          Correct. And each process is driven by a philosophy of morality; hence, "process" does involve morality.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Maritimus 4 years, 4 months ago
            It is the difference of the ends that is significant. One is moral the other is not. Moral, to me, means something in harmony with my fundamental values. In America, it means in harmony with the fundamental values clearly indicated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

            You have to think clearly to be able to think clearly!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 4 months ago
            I don't get what you're trying to argue. Yes, a process involving man has a morality factor, but I don't get what you're trying to describe as a 'philosophy of morality'.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  edweaver 4 years, 4 months ago
        My impression of Galt, is he simply did not finish developing a motor that would have provided a great benefit to the world because it would have been stolen from him by corrupt politicians or others that use the power of government to steal. I think it's a figure of speech that he stopped the motor of the world. In reality it was corruption that destroyed. Of course this was my impression from reading AS. Maybe others have a different view. :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 4 months ago
          Ed, even in AS3, the implication was that the Motor WAS 'fully developed." It did what it was designed to do and there was no indication that it couldn't be scaled up or down to any desirable size.

          But to assert that the development of the motor might have been to "[provide] a great benefit to the world" is something John (or Ayn) would seriously and vehemently disagree with.

          Yes, by taking away his Motor, John prevented the 'corrupt politicians' from stealing the fruits of his labors and intellect, but the Motor of The World John wanted to 'stop' was the motor OF the corruption and moral and ethical decay that WAS 'running the world' he lived in... in the World Outside the Gulch.

          imnsho...., of course, too.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  edweaver 4 years, 4 months ago
            I agree, they would not develop something just because it would benefit the world. They would have done it because it was a benefit to themselves and the world would have been better off.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by gaiagal 4 years, 4 months ago
        One leads to total collapse, one leads to rebuilding
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
          Objectively, collapse first, rebuilding follows.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 4 months ago
            JJJ, I just have a LOT of trouble imagining how that 'rebuilding' would happen after such a 'collapse.'

            Would the Survivors of such a Collapse ALL be people of ethics and morals who could/would want to or be able to do the Rebuilding? How many would it take?

            If there WERE people holed up in The Gulch during the Collapse, how many would that be, and what would they DO 'after the Collapse'? Organize? Teach? Manage?

            If we can't change the masses' minds Today, how likely would any Survivors Of Collapse be the ones to help with the Great Rebuilding?

            I've read the books, seen the movies and been in this Gulch for quite a while, but I haven't heard much in the way of Recovery Strategy having been put forth.

            Did I miss it? Is there a link to such a thread? Help! And NO, I do NOT 'have an answer.' My strength, if any, is in Asking Questions that Need To Be Asked. I'm NOT an implementer. I have admitted that all along.

            So... the Answer is?.............
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Ibecame 4 years, 4 months ago
              I don't have a perfect answer for you, but I myself look to history. There have been a lot of collapses throughout history although as far as we know of this is the first that may happen in a technological society. There is no precedent for this, but having contemplated the implications of a collapse I suspect that is why Ayn Rand never wrote a sequel and turned to teaching Objectivism hoping to prevent it from happening (those of you that have read more of her works than I have are greatly encouraged to comment on this).

              Very briefly, during a collapse anyone not prepared gets swept away, along with those that are unlucky. What remains are basically two groups, the smarter, and the ruthless. The outcome of this will depend on the battle and the integration of these two groups, just like it always has been throughout history. Darwin's law.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
              plusaf, I, too, have not seen any Recovery Strategy outlined and it would be a fascinating topic. Nevertheless, human kind has destroyed and rebuilt many times in history and I have no doubt that it will happen. I agree with ibecame, below, on a likely scenario.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 4 months ago
                Yes, and me, too...
                The think that, in my mind, differentiates humans from most other species is our 'flexibility,' and that kind of ability to adjust to changing situations and environments will, in the end, determine how 'we recover' from the crap heading our way.
                Good luck to all. I turn 70 this year. I may miss all the SHTF fun... :) (and I hope so, too! I'm still a thinker and questioner, not 'implementer.')
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by RevJay4 4 years, 4 months ago
                  I, too, consider myself to be a "thinker and questioner, not an implementer. And, being over 70, I doubt that I will live to see the SHTF fun(?). I may be wrong, as the "plan" of this administration seems to be shifting into high gear lately. Not sure I want to live to see it happen.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 4 months ago
                    I don't want 'to see it happen' either, but one of the conspiracy theories does grab my attention...

                    If there is ANY kind of Event that prompts the government to do ANYTHING like extend the rule of Obama by delaying elections or some kind of shit like that, 1) it'll be too late for anything but Maybe an armed rebellion, and 2) too many people will be saying "I tried to warn ya!" and 3) it'll still be too late.

                    Pity the next generations.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 4 months ago
    Obama is actively trying to destroy America. Galt merely took his and other productive minds and stepped aside leading the non-productive corrupt society to a collapse caused by their own contradictions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
      Two different (one moral, one immoral) processes to the same end: the need to rebuild.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 4 months ago
        What does process have to do with morality?
        Galt had no need to rebuild. He wanted to have complete ownership of the productive output of his mind.
        Obama desires the unearned ownership of the productive output of others' minds.
        There is no similarity here.
        Check your premises.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 4 months ago
          Process and morality are intertwined. Galt would have lost the moral authority to lead the Gulch if he had committed sabotage and if others knew that he had committed sabotage. I took "devil's advocate" on this topic a couple of weeks ago and got reamed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 4 years, 4 months ago
            Yes. Was it Karl Marx who said 'the ends justify the means' ? Experience tells us instead that the means determine the ends - what you do leads to where you end up.
            There is this thing called- noble cause corruption. The high minded set out to improve the world, decisions are made with emotion not reason. The outcome is disaster. With a bit of cool thought it could have been predicted. The so-called ideals turn out to be some device that benefits only a small special interest group.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 4 months ago
            I cannot agree. Any process you would care to name is value neutral. The process whereby a a round is fired through a revolver has no connection to morality in and of itself. Any moral judgment depends entirely on the intent of the shooter
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 4 months ago
              I will provide a counterexample. President G.W. Bush got attacked because he would not condone the use of aborted fetuses for stem cell research. Consequently two groups (most notably Ishikawa's from Japan) developed a way to induce pluripotency into adult stem cells, effectively allowing one to turn one's own stem cells into a state consistent with when one was in his/her mother's womb. Now one can ethically do stem cell engineering. The process one chooses does make a difference; there will usually be more or dangerous byproducts to a poor process choice.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 4 months ago
                Both you and president Bush have imposed your moral beliefs onto the process of harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses. The process itself is mechanics and is neither moral nor immoral.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 4 months ago
              Not so. A process is a means to an end. Every process contains a morality in and of itself, as do the ends. Those who espouse that only the ends (and not the means) are subject to moral evaluation are the collectivists who seek to ignore individual rights in the name of the collective.

              Both means AND end have a morality independent of each other. It is the reason why Galt did not sabotage other producers of electricity - he merely withheld his inventions. Same with Wyatt, D'Anconia, and others. Their means was not to impede the progress of others, but to allow the consequences of their own actions to bit them in their collective behinds.

              Take a look at most of today's collective agendas and you can see the defunct moralities at play in not only the ends, but the means as well. Take abortion for example. Margaret Sanger - founder of Planned Parenthood - openly proclaimed that her goal was eugenicist in nature: she sought to destroy anyone of color and so bring about a master race consisting solely of white people. And her mentality has been embraced by many. It is fact that most abortions are not of whites, but of blacks - to the tune of more than 250 million so far in the United States alone - and all with the sanction of the Government.

              Obama's taxes are yet another example. He institutes them claiming that the rich "haven't paid their fair share", but whom do they penalize in fact? The poor who can no longer find jobs because the "rich" have no more assets to invest! Minimum wage laws follow the same pattern.

              In your example of the revolver, however, you cite only a part of the process. The process does not begin with the round being fired, it begins with the trigger being pulled - by a person. WHY the person pulls the trigger is going to be based on morality.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
              "Due process" is not value neutral. The "initiation of force" is also a process fraught with value considerations. Processes are value dependent. I do agree that "intent" is where the value evaluation (!) begins.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 4 months ago
                A process is mechanical. Due process is a legal concept. TNT was developed to provide a stable and safe explosive for construction projects. That it was promptly used to splatter men in combat has nothing morally to do with the development which was neither good nor bad.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 4 years, 4 months ago
                  Your analogy only would apply to the stem cells themselves-not to the process of acquiring them or using them. like TNT, and even that is not a perfect analogy. In one case, dynamite and guns we have inanimate, human made things. In the other case we have a biologically created thing that can automatically transform itself under the right circumstances.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 4 months ago
                    First there are no perfect analogies. You should know this.
                    Second as a schoolboy, I learned that Aristotle wrote that there were four causes to answer the question "why". We memorized them as MEFF - material, efficient, final, and formal. The Efficient cause "A change or movement's efficient or moving cause consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father.". The Efficient cause is value neutral - an agency by which something gets done. jimjamesjames was correct when he commented that "Process is the "how". In the father-boy example on Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_cause...
                    intercourse is the agency, the Efficient cause by which a boy is "fathered" and has no moral import whatsoever! If the pregnancy were to be caused by rape, then the moral question would apply. This would be separate and apart from the process itself.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 4 years, 4 months ago
              I understand where you are coming from-the SUV doesn't kill someone on the highway. A process involves people's intention to perform or not perform a process. I do not see how you separate that out in Ethics. A gun is a thing, not a process. In this case, process necessarily involves human interaction with said process. The process of murdering someone has consequences.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
          "Process" is the "how." How things are done are rife with moral questions, to wit: earn $1 million or get it for murdering a baby. The "product" is the same; the process is either moral, or not, as in "due process," for example. Check your definitions.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 4 years, 4 months ago
    Obama has no interest in rebuilding. He is only interested in destroying. Galt never initiated force. He was letting evil collapse on itself. But nice try on the irony. :)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
      thanks! Just for discussion, how about "rebuilding in their own image"?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 4 years, 4 months ago
        Only a dictator would want create something in their own image, unless I misunderstand your meaning.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
          No misunderstanding but I might amplify, only a narcissistic tyrannical-minded megalomaniac would dream of rebuilding in his own image. That leaves JG out. Nevertheless, regardless of the means or method by which a society collapses, and I think ours is, there will be a rebuilding.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  sjatkins 4 years, 4 months ago
            So, you think there is no such think as reality based ethics or that JG was not acting on that basis? I presume this is the case by your comment as you act as if JG is a megalomaniacal subjectivist.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 4 months ago
              I think that 'grow in ones own image' can mean different things.

              One meaning is 'use my philosophy as a rigorous template' the other is 'remove the impediments to growth and allow a bottom-up regeneration which I am willing to bet will spontaneously follow my philosophy'.

              Once again, the touchstone of inclusionary vs exclusionary is helpful here: Stalin wants to Include only his directives (and everything else is illegal); Galt wants to break the back of the suppressive power structure that is preventing prosperity - excluding it from the geo-political canvas. He is willing to wager that what grows back will be a system that values freedom and the individual. He will seed the regrowing culture with productive individuals and a worthwhile philosophy, but (once the strongarm restrictions are excluded) everyone can make their own decisions.

              Jan
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
              No. All ethics must be reality based, that is OBJECTIVELY based, otherwise A is not A. My point: JG and Obama's outcomes will be the same, destruction and, hopefully, rebuilding.

              The process by which the goal is achieved is my issue, that JG's were objective, based on reality; Obama's are driven by his narcissistic tyrannical-minded megalomaniac NON-objective "values."
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 4 months ago
                One must look at the rebuilding, however. You are attempting to say that because the effects will be the same that there is moral equivalency to the actions taken. Neither is in fact true. The methods taken to induce collapse are nothing similar. Obama is taking an active role in destroying the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Galt would simply have allowed the corruption within to destroy itself; Obama actively encourages it. Very different means prompted by very different morals.

                One must also consider the ends as well. Anyone with even a basic background in psychology will recognize that Obama is an uber-narcissist. He has a desire to rule, to conquer, etc. John Galt didn't care about ruling - he wanted the laws of selfishness to rule.

                I like the thread idea, but it is very easy to demonstrate that any such similarities as you are attempting to equate are erroneous by any standard. Thanks for keeping us on our toes, however!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
                  From my earlier post:

                  Initiator (Galt) >>> Process >>> Consequence
                  Initiator (Obama) >>> Process >>> Consequence

                  My point: regardless of the initiator, there is a process that will yield a consequence.

                  I was not suggesting a moral equivalency, only that the components of the process are similar.

                  Seems I'm also keeping myself on my toes, too...... ;-)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Technocracy 4 years, 4 months ago
    One glaring (but not the only) difference between John Galt and the great and powerful O.....

    John Galt removed the most productive to force society to a crossroads. They could either keep up the corruption and collapse OR they could reform and recover.

    The great and powerful O removes all choice. He will destroy anyone or anything that interferes with his goals, desires or whims.

    So I disagree strongly...

    On an ethical basis they could not be more different.

    The goals may appear the same on the surface but all the underlying motivations and intent are completely opposite.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 4 months ago
    Obama has no desire to rebuild the US nor to let a corrupt society collapse on it's own. His intent is simply to destroy, and he imagines that the '3rd world' and the down trodden will then have room to come to the top and have their turn in the sun. Obama's justification is hate, Galt's was the morality of life and achievement.

    Big differences. No comparisons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  sjatkins 4 years, 4 months ago
    That is the most bizarre headline I have ever seen. Galt was a radical extremely ethical mover of the world. Obama is utterly unethical and will fade to nothing much after the next election. Everything Galt stands for is almost completely opposed by Obama. Obama is Mr. Thompson..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
      Let me simplify this:
      Initiator (Galt) >>> Process >>> Consequence
      Initiator (Obama) >>> Process >>> Consequence

      My point: regardless of the initiator, there is a process that will yield a consequence.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 4 years, 4 months ago
    I've always thought "stopping the motor of the world" was an unsuitable comment for Galt, too destructive. But after reflection, I think it was an inspired literary device for a novel, because without actually asking the question it makes every reader ASK THEMSELVES what is meant by the "motor of the world". The rest of the novel then answers it. Much more powerful than just TELLING the reader what drives human civilization.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 4 months ago
      salta, brain drain is a historically time-honored tradition that has real impact. Is that not what A. Rosenbaum did in real life. that is what db and I have done and are encouraging you to consider
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by salta 4 years, 4 months ago
        I agree about the brain drain and its impact, I had the same motivations moving from the UK to Canada years ago. I could see the EU slowly smothering its member countries. But most people make those choices following their own self-interest, rather than having such a grand plan as Galt's. Though as I said, the grand plan works well in the context of a novel.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 4 years, 4 months ago
    Faulty logic is still faulty.

    1) John Galt was stopping the engin of the world by refusing to submit to slavery
    1a) Galt was all about free will and individual value..

    2) Obama's complete goal is to enslave everyman for the "good of the whole." Landru.
    2a) "YOU did not build that."

    You could compare Obama and Galt in the same sentence you compare the Christian God to Satan perhaps.

    Free Will vs. Enslavement
    Individual vs. Collectivist.

    The is nothing even close to John Galt and Obama other than perhaps they belong the the Human race, and I am beginning to even question Obama being human.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by IIGeo2 4 years, 4 months ago
    This is fundamentally wrong President Obama referred to the movie Atlas Shrugged as Sophmoric. So no Obama is not John Galt and to suggest that even as a point of discussion is insulting.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 4 years, 4 months ago
    No. Obama's goal is that of the green leaders on http://green-agenda.com -- destroy the economy of the rich world and keep it that way. Not only will he never rebuild, he will prevent a rebuilding for as long as he possibly can. So will most other Democratic politicians.

    And once they have reduced the US to a copy of Peron's Argentina, I'd be surprised if we ever get the opportunity to rebuild without first fighting a successful revolution.
    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, 4 months ago
    Impossible. Galt is a producer and Obama (all liberals in reality) is a looter. In a sense liberals are only causing their own destruction. Producers whom don't give in will survive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 4 years, 4 months ago
    John Galt had an end in mind: a world of individuals free to choose, organized around a set of reasoned principles.
    Barry Soetoro, as any liberal/socialist, would never be able to define his ideal world. Not understanding where wealth comes from, or worse, believing all wealth is necessarily stolen, he would only make generalizations about equality and social justice, giving no particulars about how a society based on them would operate or be sustainable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 4 months ago
    Wonderful keystone discussion, 3j. I am typically more interested in 'what' a person does than 'why' they do it. (Most of the people I know are intelligent enough to rationalize a connection between any two known points in the universe. This makes 'why' discussions moot with them.)

    What you point out is that in this case the 'why' is the crucial aspect of the difference between Obama and Galt. I would like to suggest that the parameters for regrowth are also different: A totalitarian autocrat wants to destroy the current structure so that they can force the exacting top-down rebuild of it into the image they design. A freedom fighter wants to destroy social structure to remove the constraints to personal decision. He is willing to take the chance that free choice will cause a better (bottom up) system to be rebuilt.

    The totalitarian autocrat carefully makes certain that any alternative systems cannot compete and that only his philosophy is included in the restructuring. A freedom fighter smashes the bars and handcuffs that prevent choice and then lets the individuals choose their own path.

    After Galt destroyed the motor of the world, people could decide that they want to freely choose socialism - and Galt (by his own philosophy) would have to suck it up and let them make their decisions. Stalin would never do this; he would eliminate anyone who disagreed with him.

    Jan
    (see also my reply to sjatkins post in this thread)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years, 4 months ago
    No. Barack Obama is Mister Thompson. Our fellow travelers elected Mister Thompson.

    I always felt it would take a runaway Constitutional convention to produce the kind of system that would elect a Mister Thompson as Head of the State, and a unicameral Legislature that would pass the kind of Bills we hear about in AS. Sadly, that turned out not to be necessary.

    The real John Galt would be one who said, "Let us all down tools and earn a subsistence wage only." Until Midas Mulligan retired to a place of refuge that could function as a working town.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LaissezFaire 4 years, 4 months ago
    Yes, but obviously the rebuild in Obama's utopia would include a huge government and probably himself as ruler. Galt wanted to live in the opposite world.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonJohnson 4 years, 4 months ago
    John Galt made clear that people should have individual liberty, along with all the personal responsibility, in a just world. When the society have veered off into taking away personal freedom, he advocated removing his (and other's) participation until the rest of society came to its' senses.

    It is unclear exactly what kind of world Obama envisions. Socialist? Fascist? In any case, he is not trying to remove productive people from society to help it collapse, he is trying to enslave productive people to serve his greater good. In so doing, he is driving some good people to "go Galt" or otherwise reduce their efforts.

    Instead of thinking of Obama as Galt, think of him as Cuffy Meigs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 years, 4 months ago
    Socialists are like children feeding off the work and wealth of parents. They don't want to produce wealth on their own. Once their system collapses, they just wallow in misery like in Venezuela. Then socialism falls out of favor and the capitalists build it back up again. There's a basic flaw in human nature that tilts people towards socialism u think- over and over again in history
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 4 years, 4 months ago
    this hurts my head, but it's analogous. . it's just that
    BHO wants to "build" the world with slaves, and Galt
    would want to build the world with free peple. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo