"The basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man's right to his own life... " - Ayn Rand

Posted by GaltsGulch 2 weeks, 3 days ago to The Gulch: General
11 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

"The basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man's right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man's right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself...." Ayn Rand


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by MinorLiberator 2 weeks, 1 day ago
    The "basic premise" as stated in Rand's quote is IMO accurate, concise, and non-contradictory in and of itself.

    But there are of course many "contradictions" in the founding documents, or implementation of the premise, as: "Reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance." And no rational person ignores that history.

    I always look at it as "Hey, that's why Aristotle wrote separate books on 'Ethics' and 'Politics'", i.e., Ethics are objective and rational; Politics is the art of compromise, even between men who are objective and rational. Politics becomes more reasonable, and government more limited, as more politicians of good character are informed of

    Obviously, the most egregious political compromise of The Founders was slavery. But without it, there could be no USA at all. And it was eventually, corrected through the wrong? Not IMO. Did it turn out well? Yes, for The West, no for Eastern Europe, for a long time.amendment process; and a civil war. Not at all unlike Churchill's "dealing with the devil, Stalin" allying against Hitler, when Britain was all but defenseless. Was Churchill morally

    Women's Suffrage? Not even on the cultural radar at the time.

    Finally, in my area of expertise, Economics, there is much too little in The Constitution on the “separation of the free market and State”, which is still to be corrected. But that was clearly an error in knowledge that The Founders didn’t have, nor did anyone else. I’ve always considered it ironic that Adam Smith’s "The Wealth of Nations" was first published in 1776. Apparently not available for download to Jefferson’s e-Reader…had Smith published in 1676, and modern Economics established by 1776, IMO there would have been much more in The Constitution separating the market from the State…
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 week, 6 days ago
      ^^I agree completely with this comment.^^
      If I lived back then I'd think they'd be lucky to pull off any kind of gov't. A gov't based on philosophical ideas of liberty is harder. It's silly for us to look back and ask why they didn't do more (women's suffrage, abolish slavery) faster.

      I never thought about what it would be like if The Wealth of Nations had come earlier and influenced the gov't the Colonies built.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by MinorLiberator 1 week, 6 days ago
        Thanks, CG.

        I have yet to reply Kylo Ren...or whoever, to O’splain our reasons he has gotten so much negative feedback here...but you and all will know of whom I speak...and why the negative feedback is rationally called for...but others have already said it well...I needs must decide if it’s worth it to me to reply further..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Korben_Rage 2 weeks, 2 days ago
    That is a great premise, but it has many contradictions. Ayn herself said "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

    Contradictions for example in the document that says "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Also says "We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor,”.

    That doesn't quite fit with "man's right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself"

    More on point though it doesn't fit with aspects of those founders first acts. For example the militia clauses of the COTUS and the Militia act of 1792. The combination of which conscripted every white man between 18 and 45.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Solver 2 weeks, 2 days ago
      I believe that one relates to “all men,” and the other, to those men who voluntarily signed the document.

      Big government is one brutal contradiction.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Korben_Rage 2 weeks, 2 days ago
        Even small government, the Bill of Rights is a contradiction. So we had contradictions in our founding documents before they were even ratified.


        PS, don't get me wrong, I love our founding principals. They weren't perfect though and pretending they were doesn't help.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo