Proposition: America Could Not Have Been Founded By Objectivists
Posted by deleted 11 years, 4 months ago to History
Check out the Founding Fathers... the *sacrifices* they made way outside the reward they got. Many of them were financially ruined. Many had their health ruined. Many never lived to see the rewards which their sacrifices wrought.
George Washington could have been king; had he been an objectivist, he might well have become king, or been the cause of another becoming king.
Here he argues the men of the military into sacrificing value-for-value.
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/was...
" "Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."
In that single moment of sheer vulnerability, Washington's men were deeply moved, even shamed, and many were quickly in tears, now looking with great affection at this aging man who had led them through so much. Washington read the remainder of the letter, then left without saying another word, realizing their sentiments."
John Galt would never manipulate his men so. Then again, he'd never have "his men". Except in Rand's fictional world where she can induce the emotion of undeserved loyalty from the aether.
George Washington could have been king; had he been an objectivist, he might well have become king, or been the cause of another becoming king.
Here he argues the men of the military into sacrificing value-for-value.
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/was...
" "Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."
In that single moment of sheer vulnerability, Washington's men were deeply moved, even shamed, and many were quickly in tears, now looking with great affection at this aging man who had led them through so much. Washington read the remainder of the letter, then left without saying another word, realizing their sentiments."
John Galt would never manipulate his men so. Then again, he'd never have "his men". Except in Rand's fictional world where she can induce the emotion of undeserved loyalty from the aether.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Maybe you're not saying that, but I took it you were saying the final consequence of such beliefs, whether or not they're true, is good, so we should encourage people to believe things without evidence.
I own a few M1As SOCOM, Nat Match, and a couple standard M1As. I build a AR every few months for myself or somebody else. That great package is so much cheaper to build and own. About 2 1/2 ARs to 1 M1a.
Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions.
Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered). ??? He has a voluntary agreement.
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary???, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated.
Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, ??? nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.
There are no “rights” of special groups,???? No freedom of religion
There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals. ??? All her rights are based on what she called obectivism which is only justified with some physical evidence.
a nation is only a number of individuals
If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. ??? that cancels out religion.
WOLA I wondered if Ayn Rand wasn't really implanting a kind of communism where the business community was the master and the rest were it's tools.
You are certainly open to believe what you will and so long as you don't interfere with what I choose to believe, and don't infringe on my liberty, we can live alongside one another in peace. But that is only so long as you continue to choose to not infringe on my liberty. Since you prescribe to no deity, therefore no accounting for your actions other than to your own conscience, I will always have a wary eye. History is replete with those who did not respect their fellow man.
Yes, you can point to plenty of those who are among the "faithful" who have committed atrocities, as I can just as well point to those without faith who have committed atrocities. I say that the force of faith has prevented hundreds of times more atrocities than it has ever lead to. I'm sure you'll disagree, since proving a negative is impossible.
If that's not communal power, what do you call it?
The difference is that if enough of my fellow humans believe in the deity, and that there is a reckoning of the conduct of one's life, that will tend to stabilize overall behavior. It does not require that all believe, just that enough believe that those who do not absolutely reject the deity are caused to question and therefore conduct themselves accordingly.
There will always be those who reject, and are absolutely narcissistic, who will be evil. Those society needs to deal with accordingly. It is those in the middle, those who could go either way, who are more likely to be swayed towards good rather than evil.
The lack of a deity leaves those in the middle only with the choice of doing good because of - why? Selfish interest would say do what ever is in your interest and don't worry about the other person. Doing good, when it does not directly promote ones self interest, does not seem rational, thus will be rejected. It is the idea that one will have to answer for ones conduct that sways the choice in the direction of good.
The only way I could Imagine that there would be no BoR, is that she would have taken the time to right up a Constitution that would not need to be amended after the fact with a BoR; as it initially happened. All the meat of it would be in the one, well-framed document.
Also, deleting a comment is not to be done lightly. If you say something, stand behind it. I've put my foot in my mouth a time or two; I'm sure you could still find 'em if you were so inclined. The fact is that deleted comments drive me freakin' crazy and makes the thread and subsequent comments less coherent and sometimes without context. Just a thought.
For your baddest ass, I may have to obtain bigger weapons, I may have to hire more help, I may have to find like minded individuals and form a government to provide a larger protective force than I can afford on my own, I may even have to shrug the whole situation - but I never have to nor will I put my safety and welfare in the hands of a group nor will I willingly give up my natural individual rights derived from my existence.
I've never made a comment that even comes close to suggesting that every human I encounter is going to act rationally and have mutual respect and autonomy and that they won't try to violate my sovereignty. I fully expect and have had to defend my individual rights more times than I have room in these posts to begin to list. More, I recognize those same rights in every other individual I encounter.
I realize that you believe you've found some kind of flaw in the rationale and reasoning of AR in describing her philosophy, but I think you have a blind spot when it comes to the exercise of the rights inherent to the philosophy. There is no pacifism in Objectivism as there is in Christianity. I won't turn my cheek and I won't give unto Caesar nor God what someone presumes to tell me is their's instead of mine. Nor will I live my life for another, nor expect another to live their's for me. But if you're unwilling to exercise your individual rights, then you've no business trying to live an Objectivist life.
There is a non-aggression or more rightly put, non-initiation of force against another, set of principles based on the concept that each individual has the right of personal property and to enjoy the profits and earnings of his labor and mind. This is all based on rational objective, reasoned and logical observation and understanding of the world around me it's a personal philosophy of life without the need of mysticism or religion to give me reason or permission. There simply is nothing more important to me than my life and what I do with it and I refuse to allow anything or anyone or any super being to interfere with that.
So, our knowledge is gained through our senses. How does that counter the "BAOTB?" postulate?
I still say that history is replete with innumerable examples where one human has subjugated his fellow man. Sometimes this leads to his ultimate downfall (but I would also say, usually at the hands of another BAOTB), but sometimes not. I would also postulate that this philosophy stems directly from the "selfish interest" that is at the core of Objectivism.
So, if selfish interest can lead just as reasonably to either mutual respect and autonomy as to BAOTB, then it is irrational to base one's personal security on that foundation. And to believe that selfish interest will result in mutual respect and autonomy is just as much a belief in faith as is a belief in a deity.
none of our knowledge is instinctual. Even the most basic-see, hear, touch-even Helen Keller-touched.
Until a human being can integrate their senses with the world, they can't formulate a thought. a fetus sucking its thumb-that is a reflex reaction. Think of a person with no senses-how could they ever formulate a thought about the world? No feedback. You have to be able to interact with the world to formulate thoughts
You seem to believe that it is some communal power, but isn't that contrary to Objectivism? Why would I put my safety and welfare in the hands of a group even if I am part of that group?
The Objectivist argument is always that it is only rational that mutual respect and autonomy will result in each person seeing that they cannot violate the "sovereignty" of another. That is poppycock as history is replete with contrary examples.
If you want to place your security in the hands of the group, then you are nothing but a collectivist, and not an Objectivist. You can't have it both ways.
And since the fundamental tenet is not based on fact, it is only a belief, thus is religion.
Load more comments...