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 6.
An interesting word, “Selfish.”
In early American dictionaries, a bit over 50 years ago, the full definition of the word was simply,
Selfish:
“Chiefly or wholly regarding one's own self”
But this has somehow been mutated into basically,
“Having or showing concern only for yourself and ignoring the needs, feelings or well being of other people .”
Anyone with a reasoning mind can see the flaws in this more progressive definition.
From Merriam-Webster - Selfish: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
It is the "without regard for others" that is the problem. As a father, would that apply? As a husband, would that apply? As a neighbor, would that apply? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you should place their interest above yourself (well, perhaps as a husband and father I would), but you also don't totally neglect the impact on others. If you followed the precise definition, then that would lead you to being what I call the "baddest ass on the block." Your objectives alone would dictate, and if that meant overpowering others, then so be it. While AR advocated not initiating force, I cannot find any rational reason not to do so under that premise, thus, the fundamental premise must be wrong.
I believe in self interest, not selfishness. Self interest takes into account the impact of others. It does not make me a slave to others, merely that I should examine my conduct in light of its impact on others.
I frequently vote Republican further down the ticket, depending on the individual candidate.
Author, F. Paul Wilson did a SF series early on in his career, circa 1980 that took a stab at the concept. Enemy of the State was the primary story. I enjoyed it and still have a copy.
Definitely there is a difference between Jeb and Hillary. There are Republicans I could support. They just get consistently shot down by the Republican establishment. Out of the last three Republican governors of Florida, Jeb was definitely the best of the three, but that's not saying a whole lot.
Load more comments...