What happens now?
Posted by IamNemo 10 years, 3 months ago to The Gulch: General
Now that the final chapter is out and after everyone has seen it numerous times then what?
Where do YOU go from here?
Where do YOU go from here?
- 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...
Honestly, all it will take to make a serious change in this nation is for one libertarian-leaning state to stand up to the Federal Government and say "listen guys... you see this Constituiton? It's our agreement, and you've broken it. We are not going to pay for anything that is not explicitly authorized by this Constitution, and any laws that are outside ths scope of this document are null and void within our state. We'll pay for the national defense, we'll pay for the courts, etc..."
One State does that, and the rest will follow suit. We'll have a return to our 50 little political laboratories with one moderately sized federal government.
A state could easily pass a law that would still be within the bounds of the 16th amendment. It would simply state that all tax revenue from the citizens of that state will be calculated per the Federal Government law. It will then be sent directly to the capital of that State, where the percentage of the money that is going to pay for Constitutional Federal Government budget items will be immediately forwarded to the IRS. The percentage that is slated for Federal budget items that are not allowed by the Constitution will immediately be sent back to the citizens of that State.
Being Republican isn't enough. It takes a Galt style libertarian Republican
As stated here before I'm a Constitutional Conservative American before just about anything else.
I don't believe in social conservatism. I think all thinkers need to derive their own social limits for themselves. So long as they don't affect me, I let them do what they will.
Unfortunately thats the rub with me. There are far too many gray-morality anything goes people who would easily allow their pleasure to take a life or main someone. In a society some constraints must be set to prevent those folks from invading my space and that of my family, even when in public.
No, laws and the legal system do nothing to prohibit behavior. Only self control can do so. And self control is a function of a moral foundation, which in my opinion is being undermined by all the laws. We are training people that if there isn't a specific law prohibiting something, then it must be OK. Look at the drive to enact prohibitions of texting while driving. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand that being distracted by trying to look at a small screen and touch type on a keyboard that is 1"x2" is dangerous. There already are laws regarding reckless driving. Do we need a specific law regarding a specific type of distraction? I say NO. All this does is give a defense lawyer loopholes to get their client off. For example, if the person is using their smart phone to look at a web-page and not technically texting, they might well beat the particulars of a no texting while driving law.
I would ask you to rethink your position. If you reason it out, I think you may come to a different conclusion.
The US was founded for a moral people, a people who would police their own behavior which takes away the necessity for laws and punishment. Moral relativism has all but erased "self-policing" today.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.
George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."
Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"Of course a libertarian would play the what is"criminal behavior" card and "by what right does one person or group of people have determining what is right and wrong for anyone else and should be considered a crime."
not necessarily! I, for example, wouldn't do anything of the kind. Criminal behavior is behavior which has been defined by some group that is willing to punish it as criminal. To your second point, there is no such thing as a group decision, unless all members of the group agree, and after that, the definition is the same. A crime is what whoever with the power to punish it, says.
Once you and your family enter a public space, things change. People ARE going to invade "your" space - ever go to the beach, or to a baseball game, or to the mall?
And I am squarely in Robbie's corner here. Is it the law against murder which prevents you from murdering? No, it's your own morality. Does the law prevent other people from murdering each other? No! The one thing which does help to PREVENT crime is armed citizens - criminals themselves say that.
Finally, please look at the structure of laws. They are not designed to _prevent_ certain behaviors, they are written to _punish_ those behaviors when they happen. That's why the Supreme Court has found that, when you call 911, the police do not have to come. If we want to prevent crime, we are on our own.
[If this post looks wierd, it's because it's pushed soso far over to the right that I can't read what I've written!]
I'd compromise and say we strip away all laws but one - death. You drive drunk or stoned and kill someone you die. You assault someone or take their life for any unjustified reason, you die. Don't pay your bills, you die. Drive too fast, you die. Trespass, you die. Lie in a way which causes harm/discomfort to someone else, you die. Anything that violates the sovereignty limited to the end of my nose is ground for death.
Absurd, no? We need laws to restrict behavior in a society. The only question is how many laws. This is what the left has been working on for decades. Creating gray in every conceivable situation removes right and wrong and creates moral relativism. Moral relativism requires many very specific laws and arbitration to navigate them.
Death for causing discomfort to someone else... wtf??
Robbie.... have you lost your mind? Maybe you should add... Talk nonsense... you die!
And if you look at the actual results of the proliferation of laws, I think that you'll find that fewer people follow the laws. Laws are not the answer - morality is. And the proliferation of laws undermines basic morality.
How do you teach morality to a people who think its an abstract idea, a myth, and an antediluvian concept? The only thing left with an amoral people is to create more an more precise laws, which is the plan of the left and the tool used to deconstruct individualism and individual responsibility, and to topple a once free nation.
I vehemently disagree with your second para. As I've said, it is my contention that more laws merely lead to more moral decay.
But in general, the different between Libertarians and both Conservatives and Liberals is the absolute prohibition by Libertarians against the initiation of force by anyone, for any reason. So, both Liberals and Conservatives tend to think that, when appropriate, it is acceptable for force people to do what is "right" or to obey a law.
I used to describe Libertarians as being Conservative on fiscal issues and Liberal on social issues, but I don't think that's as true now as it was; the line between Conservative and Liberals is getting blurrier.
I'm interested that you use "reckless" to describe Libertarianism. How so? and what is a Constitutional Conservative? interesting....
Good advice though.
the stark reality is that our population is growing and so is the welfare system but not the job market. that is the final chapter!
If the library has no Rand books, consider holding your own private screenings of the videos instead. Invite your friends. The price of admission? Each guest must bring ANOTHER friend. Guests who lack friends should bring popcorn instead.
I suppose it would be redundant, but it could be interesting to have an authorized writer continue the "Atlas Shrugged" story. What happens when the motor of the world is restarted? Do people learn? Or do they attempt to continue their former ways? My guess would be a mixture of both.
If someone wants to write follow-on work, let it be in an original setting with original characters, not with attempts to re-use Rand's characters.
If one has any doubt about this issue, ask the Ayn Rand Institute.
Character 1: "It was like listening to Galt's speech."
Character 2: "You read Atlas Shrugged? Wow! Some great ideas there, don't you think?"
Ch 1: "No, you don't understand. I was so bored. I didn't make it past two pages of that speech. If there were any great ideas, I didn't see them."
Ch 2: "You certainly didn't. Listen, you take it easy. Stay right here, and I'll come back when I think it's time for us to talk again. Don't forget to eat while you wait."
And no, you are not alone.