[Ask the Gulch] How long after John Galt's return would it take for the U.S. to get to where we are now?
Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 2 months ago to Ask the Gulch
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
In the ordinary turn of events, I think society would devolve steadily, probably being where we are today in 50 to 100 years.
EXCEPT: when John Galt and his compatriots returned to the world, they had made enormous sacrifices in order to join the Strike. They also had a complete understanding of philosophy and the principles of "life". So I think they would do absolutely everything, from rewriting the constitution, as The Judge was doing, to shaping the laws and the culture to prevent the ascendancy of collectivism. I think it would be possible for them to prevent our country from being destroyed again. I believe they would have the intelligence and strength of will to do so, and when they came back to the world they would be in control.
As I read the broad sweep of history, the curve is upward and outward. We have been steadily improving both morally and materially. The two are inextricable. It is not that "socialism comes back" but only that the advocates for reality do not advance evenly or completely. But the world is better now than it ever was.
In a sense, Atlas Shrugged itself was "Galt's Speech." As I have pointed out in other discussions, the consequences can be seen in the lives of 40 million people.
Consider today's news about Apple and the FBI. You would not have seen that in 1957.
Looking at it from another angle, I just judged a regional science fair. We have another day tomorrow: 2200 entrants from 3rd through 12th grades. There was a time that the entire world did not have 2200 scientists -- or even 2200 literate people.
In The Economy of Cities Jane Jacobs pointed out that old forms of production do not really disappear. We left the horse-and-buggy behind, but you can still make a good living shoeing horses because today, they are a pastime for rich people -- well, them and the Amish. So, it is no surprise that we still have tribal leaders, witch doctors, and rites of passage. But they are no longer the defining norms of human action.
Thank you!! Why do Ayn Rand fans so often get caught up in how crappy things are? Some people take it the extreme and say things are so bad that a collapse of society is coming due to poverty and oppression. The notion is absurd in such prosperous and free times. People react to this claim as if we're condoning the gov't oppression that exists today. It's as if admitting incidents of rape and murder and gone way down makes us rapists or murders.
"you can still make a good living shoeing horses because today, they are a pastime for rich people"
Yes. Lightbulbs did that to candles/lanterns.
I think this is a pivotal time when technology is rapidly shaking up the world economy, sort of like what the industrial revolution or European mercantilism did. This could cause some sort of socialist backlash. But I agree with what you're saying that the moral arc of history bends away from that.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PJL_FeMdpLw
If it's worth doing enough will come forward.
If enough do not come forward it isn't worth doing.
ten dedicated 'and supported' volunteers are worth far more than a hundred draftees.
the problem will lie more with the word 'support' but if the congress and political leadership is ambivalent (to be nice) the clear signal is it is not worth doing.
i don't care if it's in use now or later or not.
but you can exclude women from that exception
And these people are considered educated.
If we consider what we (think) we know about history, people tolerated tyranny for many years prior to the American revolution. (I suspect this has occurred for all of history.) It took a long time for enough people to stand up to it. I think the same thing is going on now. The more time that passes the more people don't realize how bad things are until finally someone stands up to the tyranny again. Consider MM's comment to this post. I agree there are many things that are way better than it was 200 years ago but IMHO these were all a direct cause of the freedoms established in America 240 years ago. With out this freedom, I personally don't believe we would have the level of technology that we do today. I think we would be years behind.
From my perspective, we are worse now on the tyranny scale than we were prior to the American revolution. I don't doubt for a second that we would have even more advancements if we had the same freedoms as the people after the founding America.
I love all this new technology but I would give it all back to be as free as the people were 200 years ago. But that is just me and it is the part that believers in big government don't understand, for if they did they would see what I see and feel as I feel. Of course others are welcome to believe as they want but the question I ask is, what gives them the right to take my freedom because of their beliefs?