Calvin Coolidge by far. Cal was as far from DC as any president in my opinion.

I've never hid it.

Checkout Childhoods End by Arthur C. Clark. I suspect that wrote he wrote is closer to the truth of the matter.

Its a big stretch though from thinking that there is some sort of order leading the way our world works- to the very strange beliefs of the catholic church and the pope (who is definitely a socialist). And then there is the idea of a benevolent "god" who does all good things for us, and a "devil" who does all the bad things for us (or to us). Then there is the idea that once we die we go to some place like "heaven" or "hell" depending on how much subjective "bad" you have done in your life. Its all a bit mystical to me. Not to mention the idea that some "gods" encourage killing the "infidels" (Islam), and others really get into whether homosexuality and polygamy are to be permitted.

I had no idea you were a deist, AJA.

I do not think that man (humanity) is a random concoction of chemicals that just happened to connect countless times over countless years to reach what we are today. I think there is a certain symmetrical in all things great and small which lead to something greater. I believe we are engineered/created.

As far as choosing, anything that happens has a hundred interpretations, some quite similar and some wildly different. Passing any information down through the grapevine over several millennium is bound to account for variance. I would suspect that the religions are no different. I also suspect that some have concocted belief structures that mimic those made by religion simply to excuse their behavior, unify people around themselves, and assert power over others.

I dont think that I (or we in general) know everything, but does that necessarily mean there has to be some sort of a creature out there that is all powerful, omniscent, and made everything?

I know the "idea" of this is appealing to many people, but how could one ever choose among all the versions of the resulting "gods" to pick the real one? If one didnt pick the "true" god, wouldnt that just be believing in potential nonsense?

Agreed AJ. :-)

It takes all kinds. Personally, I find it disturbing to believe only in what you can see, hear, touch, taste and smell. It's an arrogant assertion that we, as a microscopic speck in the universe, know everything there is to know about reality, no?

In fairness, this could my authors mind talking.

I firmly believe this too ( I have a belief in a God, after all). Still, slavery has been something mankind has used since the dawn of time. It was commonplace to many societies throughout the millennia. Before machines, manpower was the only way to get large things (agriculture, construction) done and slavery was less expensive and more productive than constantly hiring help.

No matter, its all speculation. Depending on who the gate keeper is at the Gulch, I suspect I'd be turned away.

The only slaves that the USA has had in the last century were in the draft armies and mental hospitals of the past along with isolated instances of husbands or wives keeping the person they marry captive by force along with other isolated cases. In last centuries, since the enlightenment, those who might want to be moral decided that the beliefs of before needed to be more rational and that conscious choice was a necessary condition for morality. I see that The Brights are turning away from that by trying to find morality naturally built into humans and to any animal that shows what might be a form of altruistic behavior. Morality is not naturalistic in the sense of being built in at birth and has to be discovered and today that is being forgotten as more and more people turn to so called moral pronouncements of religious leaders. Morality stops when thinking blanks out and goes automatic.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Ayn so admired our founding fathers.

What is right and what is wrong never changes. They are constants. Excuses and evasions of the truth also never change.

Probably.
It is embracing good philosophy that leads to the civilization of humans.

Raw human nature isnt really that far different from that of the lions on the african plain- especially when we humans dont think the try to take advantage of ways to effectively get along and cooperate (like trying objectivist principles...).

I would have had a great plantation by freeing my slaves. I bet their production would have doubled and I would have made money even after paying them.

My neighbors probably would have stoned ME for doing it though. I would have been a traitor in their eyes, trying to spoil the deal they had.

Its just difficult for me to understand people who "believe" anything. Beliefs are the antithesis of reality, especially when they are encoded in a book theoretically written by humans thousands of years ago.

If you think, after considering evidence, that there is some sort of supreme being ("god"), I have no problem with that. However there are hundreds of "gods" that people have sworn allegiance to over the ages- and many religions have sprung up that attract "believers". So which "god" is the real one??
I remember Bush saying 'god is on our side" when he invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein also said the same thing "god is on OUR side". This battle of the gods seems to me irrational.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Morality changes...look at today compared to 20-30 years ago. Based on their writings I doubt, with economics out of the picture, that they would have supported slavery or owned slaves.

It is not hard to judge them as many people new it was wrong back then. Moral standards are always the same no mater what time period you live in. Evil is evil.

Again, AJ, I disagree. Moral standards are eternal. Enslaving men is wrong no matter if it is in the past, present, or future. A is A. Many people understood this back then so there is just no excuse for those who captured these men in there own homeland and brought them to the US under horrible conditions and then continued to treat them as sub-humans. It was clear back then that it was wrong and it is clear now.

No need to apologize. I was thinking we were talking about a potential reality.Just who would John Galt be in reality to ask or not to ask? Why would that specific individual be elevated as gate keeper?

Its my contention, given a different time to exist in, that those Presidents would be the most likely to appreciate and applaud the absence of slavery AND thrive in a gulch-like environment using their own ability to find happiness.

" nor ask another man to live for mine."
That eliminates slave owners.

The problem I see is that we tend to judge earlier era decisions by contemporary values. Slavery is wrong in the "land of the free". However, is there much difference from the never-ending indentured servitude? Each past President tried to live up to the ideals of the era that they lived. Growing up in the '70s, I could never envision a society that we have today, just as much as most people of the '50's and '60's thought Ayn Rand was ridiculous when she wrote AS. It's as futile as asking if the '74 Steelers could beat the '85 Bears..

Just my opinion..

I'm sorry AJ, but any man who does not respect liberty would not be asked by John Galt to come to the Gulch. That should be self-evident. No excuses.

You are correct that the slaves would have stayed and also that there was no call for the Civil War.
My ancestors WERE the Underground Railroad and they were literally taking their lives into their own hands because of the slave situation and the attitudes of the southern slaveholders.

Didn't John Galt seek to lead? He was just as much an ideologue, and in fact, given his long-winded, impassioned speech, even more so than any President that's ever held office. I just wanted to make that point, since I see so many comments about how the desire to be POTUS is incompatible with the Gulch.