Who are the men in an Objectivist culture/nation suited to govern?
Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
This is a line of inquiry generated in responses to comments in a recent Post by khalling:
The Myth That Ideas Are a Dime A Dozen
Posted by $ khalling 1 day, 18 hours ago to Technology
It's difficult to imagine a group of Objectivists, egoist, creators wanting, striving for, gaining, and manipulating for governing power. Can an Objectivist be the governing power, and if so how is he chosen and controlled once selected to such position? We've never satisfactorily addressed that question on this site, at least to my satisfaction. The conflict between wanting to gain and maintain government power vs living an Objectivist, laissez faire capitalist life, seems at first glance to be overwhelming.
Rand seemed to deal with the conflict as: "The acceptance of the achievements of an individual by other individuals does not represent “ethnicity”: it represents a cultural division of labor in a free market; it represents a conscious, individual choice on the part of all the men involved; the achievements may be scientific or technological or industrial or intellectual or esthetic—and the sum of such accepted achievements constitutes a free, civilized nation’s culture." It is the acceptance of the achievements by other individuals by conscious, individual choice on the part of all men involved.
Jefferson dealt with it by suggesting the necessity of a revolution each generation. Does the space and verbiage utilized in this space devoted to the current political battle answer any part of this primary question? Or are we left with the old adage of 'At least 'such and such' will move us in the right direction' and is that even in the realm of true or reality?
The Myth That Ideas Are a Dime A Dozen
Posted by $ khalling 1 day, 18 hours ago to Technology
It's difficult to imagine a group of Objectivists, egoist, creators wanting, striving for, gaining, and manipulating for governing power. Can an Objectivist be the governing power, and if so how is he chosen and controlled once selected to such position? We've never satisfactorily addressed that question on this site, at least to my satisfaction. The conflict between wanting to gain and maintain government power vs living an Objectivist, laissez faire capitalist life, seems at first glance to be overwhelming.
Rand seemed to deal with the conflict as: "The acceptance of the achievements of an individual by other individuals does not represent “ethnicity”: it represents a cultural division of labor in a free market; it represents a conscious, individual choice on the part of all the men involved; the achievements may be scientific or technological or industrial or intellectual or esthetic—and the sum of such accepted achievements constitutes a free, civilized nation’s culture." It is the acceptance of the achievements by other individuals by conscious, individual choice on the part of all men involved.
Jefferson dealt with it by suggesting the necessity of a revolution each generation. Does the space and verbiage utilized in this space devoted to the current political battle answer any part of this primary question? Or are we left with the old adage of 'At least 'such and such' will move us in the right direction' and is that even in the realm of true or reality?
