Proposition: America Could Not Have Been Founded By Objectivists

Posted by deleted 11 years, 4 months ago to History
193 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 7.
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not pointing to you K, but some are offended when their pet bull is gored. And some of us find goring bulls a perfectly wonderful sport - particularly when their pet bull shares the same pen as ours. ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Most often when people died due to religion it was because religion had become the politics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, millions have died as a consequence of religious zealots - but for the most part, not as a consequence of religion itself (Islam excepted). I don't think that you can find Judeo/Christian theology that advocates the atrocities that have been committed, rather it has been under the guise of particular individuals.
    However, for those without a theological foundation, I think my proposition of the "baddest ass on the block" holds true. Without a belief in a final accounting for one's life, these people have assumed tremendous power and committed terrible atrocities specifically because they had no belief in a higher power. On the other hand, there are innumerable instances of those who have caused great goodness to occur in the world due to a belief. You probably hold Mother Theresa in great disdain because of her altruism, but her life not only provided comfort for thousands, but inspired millions to be better people.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    hey, I am just sharing the founding father's perspectives. The claim was they were very religious. Not vilifying Christianity-just saying with the founding of our country the separation of church and state was very important and essential to our vitality. In fairness, Adams, Washington and Jefferson all said that religious institutions would also thrive under a separation.
    This is not an atheist vs religious conversation.
    just because someone was atheist and evil does not mean the atheism was fundamental in their evilness. On the other hand, 100s of millions have died in the name of religion or God/gods.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    without inventions the laborer cannot leave the malthusian trap. But that is not the case. there is the luxury for time and talent to push that basic labor equation-for management to perform better and labor to share their experience. and more TIME to learn additional skills to move out of an unskilled position into a skilled position. How is that possible? Invention
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What about all the men that had a horendous past and didn't have a religion? Anything man touches is corruptible it's similar to the arguement that men don't kill, guns do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not sure that there's any concrete definition of "founding father" that is commonly accepted. I think that any significant actor in the break from England and the creation of the US Constitution can rationally be considered a founding father.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is a very antiquated perspective. Modern management methods acknowledge that workers have more to contribute than their mere labor. That is why workers are part of things like quality circles and continuous improvement activities.

    Workers are much more in the vein of Galt's speech than you give credit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    For every instance or quote you can find, I can find a counter example of where an atheist or self-proclaimed god has done the same or worse.
    Can you say Ghengis Khan, Ceasar, Che, Mao, or Kim Il Sung just to name a few?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Look at the Boston Tea Party and the other rebellions against taxation without representation and England's monopoly on the Tea market which started long before Common Sense was written.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gonzo309 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If this is what John Galt said in his speech, then I think that is wrong. This would all be correct if you own the factory, not if you "work" in the factory. The workers get paid for their labor only. The profit for innovation and improvement goes to the owners, individual or shareholders, not the line workers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gonzo309 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think you're confusing Christianity with the Christian religion. The religion has a horrendous past, as do most religions. If you read "A Woman Rides The Beast" by Dave Hunt, you'll discover how corrupt the Vatican has been in the past and this is why the founding fathers said that our country was not founded on the Christian religion.

    As deists, they believed in a creator and a higher power and always prayed to God for guidance, wisdom and strength to do what God placed on their hearts. They read the Bible, which gave them a sense of right and wrong, different from the direction the Church of England espoused. It is this and not the religion that drove them to declare their independence from the King.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    hi star. They weren't fighting that much at that time. They were fast friends. It was Washington's second term that tehy began a divide. I did not use the words of Jefferson about Adams or vice versa. I used Adam's words about Paine.
    You know more about Jefferson's bible than me. Thank you for the history lesson. ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He was specifically recruited by Franklin to come to the colonies to aid. He was the first one in the movement to challenge the divine rights of a King. Before that, they were in vain trying to work with Parliament. Without his writings, it is unlikely the Revolution would have begun.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What did John Galt tell everyone when he was given the chance, just before they decide to torture him? Dagny laughed, as I recall.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    it was funny, wrong funny.
    1. You think a Hank Rearden hoarded money? No. He invested. this is clearly demonstrated in the book and movieand is Capitalism! The first nation in the History of the world that built a system of government around the philosophy of Capitalism! In 150 years we went from a new nation, struggling to the strongest country on earth.
    2. Hank just wanted the government out of his way and second handers. That's reasonable-but not the basis of the founding of this country.
    3.We are founded on natural rights-straight from Locke. You own yourself. Therefore you also own the products of your labor. Neither of these rights is divinely attributed to you. They are intrinsic with your life.
    You don't like it when I'm glib about important stuff.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He is not a founding father. He wrote a great inspirational pamphlet. Let me borrow from him" Time makes more converts than reason." -Tom Paine. It was the men who were willing to sacrifice who won independence from England. He did lay some seeds for Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo