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 4.
how are those learned then. There is a objective reality, your senses interact with that reality and there's a way of discerning objective reality. All of science is based on this. Logic and reason move the world forward. Emotionalism has succeeded in killing 100k people in the last century in the name of socialism and another 100k people in the name of environmentalism.
All Objectivists want to do is keep insisting that mutual respect and autonomy is the only "rational" perspective, despite eons of history that shows that that is not true.
Hundreds of millions have died in the name of atheism, too. Just ask the victims of the Soviets, the Chinese, the N. Koreans, the Cubans and every other collectivist society (all of which agree with objectivism on the perfection of atheism) on the planet.
All human perception is subjective, not objective. Trying to drive your car down the street based purely upon analysis of reality will result in you being the cause of traffic jams and car accidents. You'd be hated for the time it took for you to analyze the light coming from the traffic light to determine if it was an exact shade of yellow, of pulling out a measuring tape and calculator to ensure that you began slowing at precisely the point at which the law requires... hell, you'd need a radar range finder to ensure you followed traffic at the exact distant the law prescribes for a given speed. And who can calibrate a speedometer on the fly?
You perceive the world through the filter of your life experiences and learned preconceptions.
but 'Philosophy overthrew religion in the 6th .', I did not know you were a romantic! I assume a paper is forthcoming.
The definition of what is a religion usually is based on the definers views which has often been the belief in a deity, one or more non-humans of superior power. My view is wider like yours, a religion is a set of beliefs that attempt to order and give meaning and value to human efforts. (Just making this up). The word belief is important, if evidence and logic are used it becomes a philosophy. So, communism and and such like are clearly religions. As for gross mass cruelty, altruism is sufficient, the bad are to suffer that the good shall benefit.
The other half of your evidence rests on the assumption that communism is NOT a religion. It was. It had all of the external evidences and much of the internal structure of a religion.
All human organizations - especially complex organizations (see the works of Charles Perrow and Ronald Westrum) - follow known patterns. But the students of Heisenberg did not throw bombs into the biergartens used by students of Bohr. At the Solvay Conferences, they argued long into the night - but no one was burned at the stake or tortured for a confession of false belief.
Philosophy overthrew religion in the 6th century BCE: coinage replaced farm goods as money; philosophy replaced religion; writing replaced public speaking; public processes replaced hereditary kings. Thales, the father of geometry and a founder of philosophy was also an astute businessman. In a thousand years, the Epicureans did not persecute the Peripatetics. The Cyreneans were free to espouse self-interest and self-doubt.
(And no one was persecuted for having coins of the wrong stamp or weight.)
I don't think that the BoR would look too much different than it does, except that it would be much more specifically qualified and defined in the terms of its premises. I've read a LOT of Ayn Rand and Thomas Jefferson; I think that they could get along just fine.
Your reply reveals a dislike of Rand in the way you ask 'which part would be left if written by Rand,' implying that you think it would be less substantial if she wrote it. I disagree, I think it could be a much stronger document for the purpose which it was intended; to limit the power of government and protect the rights of man, all men.
Also, your question lays on me something that I can't answer, nor should I be expected to know: How would Rand's Bill of Rights look? Are we talking if she wrote it back then(1790) with the knowledge available at that time? Or in her time with available knowledge? Or now with the knowledge available? You're asking my opinion, because I can't read her mind. I could tell you what I might think it would look like based on everything I know about her philosophy, I'd probably be pretty darn close; but it would be little more than conjecture, and therefore pointless at addressing a question that lacks context, or an exact answer from anyone other than Rand herself.
Load more comments...