Who or what is worth saving?
RimCountry, Zenphamy, Robbie, and a couple of others have been posting a lot of comments about the Article V convention option.
The primary point of disagreement that we have is over what is worth saving.
Are the United States and some of its individuals worth saving? The United States was certainly worth saving until recent years. In my mind, probably about 2007 or the first half of 2008 was the last time it was worth saving. After the TARP bailout, I would argue that the US is no longer worth saving. Certain individuals are worth saving, such as Rearden or Dagny within AS. Most are not. Eddie Willers is an important character in this respect. He was very good as a chief of staff for Dagny, but didn't have the ability to think independently. He was not sought out by those in Atlantis as worth saving. I would not have objected to Eddie Willers being permitted in the Gulch.
The question regarding what is worth saving is a fundamental difference between objectivists and Christians. Christians believe that all individuals are worth saving and evangelize accordingly.
As for whether the United States is worth saving, I suppose that depends on what the alternatives are. If we start a nanosociety founded on objectivist principles, then that would almost certainly change the answer to that question for many of us.
Many of us are torn between the last remnant of the United States, arguably the only society founded on principles that would not be seriously objectionable to objectivists, versus leaving and starting from scratch.
Are looters worth saving? Are moochers worth saving? To objectivists, these last two questions should be rhetorical. It certainly is not a rhetorical question for Christians. Jesus, for instance, had a tax collector as one of his apostles.
Is anyone who voted for Obama worth saving? Unless that person makes the argument that he/she was trying to hasten the end of the looter/moocher era, that question should also be rhetorical. Is anyone who intentionally blanks out so that he/she can further a political agenda worth saving? Would Ayn Rand have viewed intentional blankouts as unforgivable sins? Can such a person ever be "redeemed" if he/she grows into an understanding of objectivist principles? I am reminded of Winston Churchill's line about how if you are 20 and not liberal, you have no heart, but if you are 40 and not conservative, you have no brain.
The primary point of disagreement that we have is over what is worth saving.
Are the United States and some of its individuals worth saving? The United States was certainly worth saving until recent years. In my mind, probably about 2007 or the first half of 2008 was the last time it was worth saving. After the TARP bailout, I would argue that the US is no longer worth saving. Certain individuals are worth saving, such as Rearden or Dagny within AS. Most are not. Eddie Willers is an important character in this respect. He was very good as a chief of staff for Dagny, but didn't have the ability to think independently. He was not sought out by those in Atlantis as worth saving. I would not have objected to Eddie Willers being permitted in the Gulch.
The question regarding what is worth saving is a fundamental difference between objectivists and Christians. Christians believe that all individuals are worth saving and evangelize accordingly.
As for whether the United States is worth saving, I suppose that depends on what the alternatives are. If we start a nanosociety founded on objectivist principles, then that would almost certainly change the answer to that question for many of us.
Many of us are torn between the last remnant of the United States, arguably the only society founded on principles that would not be seriously objectionable to objectivists, versus leaving and starting from scratch.
Are looters worth saving? Are moochers worth saving? To objectivists, these last two questions should be rhetorical. It certainly is not a rhetorical question for Christians. Jesus, for instance, had a tax collector as one of his apostles.
Is anyone who voted for Obama worth saving? Unless that person makes the argument that he/she was trying to hasten the end of the looter/moocher era, that question should also be rhetorical. Is anyone who intentionally blanks out so that he/she can further a political agenda worth saving? Would Ayn Rand have viewed intentional blankouts as unforgivable sins? Can such a person ever be "redeemed" if he/she grows into an understanding of objectivist principles? I am reminded of Winston Churchill's line about how if you are 20 and not liberal, you have no heart, but if you are 40 and not conservative, you have no brain.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
'Uneducated' only has a negative connotation to the 'educated' mind. A smart person knows the distinction.
I think that all INDIVIDUALS must each save THEMSELVES. The invitation is, seems to me, an entry permission, as it should be. So, the question at the top should be more like "Who and What is Worth Inviting?" Don't you agree?
Regarding cities vs. suburbia vs. villages, my neighborhood started out as being friendly when all of us first moved in 16 years ago. After many of the original owners have moved on, my neighborhood has lost a sense of community. I miss that.
I would be highly interested in having a giant party out by my pool for the 250 most active posters here. We would have even more of a blast than we do here online. Longer term, there were certainly be some disagreements, but we're all big enough boys and girls to get past those issues.
Therefore, something else more fundamental is needed for positive change. I think that any society based on respecting individual rights is part of that.
Your claim that "most looters live in the city" is easy to accept - and just as wrong. For one thing, "most people" do not live in cities and "most people" are "looters" (so-called) or we would have a laissez-faire utopia right now.
Even if it were statistically established at "most" looters live in cities, that would not validate your implied claim that "most people in cities are looters."
Since "most people" do not vote, the presence of looter governments may only indicate that "most people" put up with it and count it as a cost of living expense. The presence of looter governments in cities is no measure of looters within the population.
Moreover, I assure you that Texas is really Texa-chusetts when it comes to government intervention in the markets, corruption, and excessive policing. However, Texas has a different _culture_ than Massachusetts, as the West is generally different from the East. It that culture which makes this a good place to live.
The social agenda of Objectivism is to offer reality and reason to individuals who choose to think. Exactly when enough people have made that choice will be clear a generation later. We may be living in that time now.
And so does the left. "gay"... "African-American"...
"Contact" is not an action verb.
"Disrespect" is not an action verb.
Load more comments...