Who is it that is expecting a free ride?
In a recent discussion about patriotism on a post by Abaco here; http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/2e... khalling linked to this Atlas Society video of Alexander Cohen making the case for patriotism as a virtue that Objectivists could embrace; http://www.atlassociety.org/as/john-galt...
That conversation tended to revolve around the vague definition and how people would apply it (or not) to their lives and Mr. Cohen expressed a definition of patriotism that I would much rather have as the standard. But what caught my attention in the video was Cohen's point that people who enjoy the advantages of the system we were left with by the founding fathers but are not willing to put forth the effort to protect it or improve it are, essentially, expecting a free ride. I personally know several people who are completely willing to pick up a gun and fight but will not lift a finger, nor spare a moment's thought on how to stop it before it comes to that. Not even vote. I would say that they don't even truly understand what it is that they would be laying down their lives for.
We've all heard (possibly even said) the phrase "if you don't vote, you can't complain". Now I'm wondering, is voting even enough? Obviously any idiot can vote.
That conversation tended to revolve around the vague definition and how people would apply it (or not) to their lives and Mr. Cohen expressed a definition of patriotism that I would much rather have as the standard. But what caught my attention in the video was Cohen's point that people who enjoy the advantages of the system we were left with by the founding fathers but are not willing to put forth the effort to protect it or improve it are, essentially, expecting a free ride. I personally know several people who are completely willing to pick up a gun and fight but will not lift a finger, nor spare a moment's thought on how to stop it before it comes to that. Not even vote. I would say that they don't even truly understand what it is that they would be laying down their lives for.
We've all heard (possibly even said) the phrase "if you don't vote, you can't complain". Now I'm wondering, is voting even enough? Obviously any idiot can vote.
The vote has lost its meaning since voting was permitted by those who do not own property. Now moochers routinely vote for moochers to more than cancel my vote. Democracy is an evil that America's founders warned against.
I have sold two companies I co-founded as a "partial shrug", but I will readily admit that my professorship position is as optimal a shrug job as I could ever hope for.
Many minds must be reached.
I think that Objectivism can be introduced by teaching, just like any other body of knowledge. Of course, there has to be some interest in the "student". The interest can be ignited with a well done initial "lecture" of the course. When a question comes up to which the "teacher" does not have an answer, it crucial that the answer be: "I don't know! Let's look it up together.", rather than an evasive half truth. You cannot teach honesty in a dishonest manner. You cannot teach Objectivism without your "body language" serving as a "visual aid".
The reason these thoughts occurred to me was a reaction to your " ... exposure is enough." I think that in the current culture and climate almost any "candidate student" is very much more likely to have received at least few very negative and derogatory "introductory exposures". (What's with the quotation marks today? I seem to overuse them incessantly!)
Does anyone know if there was ever at any University a course on Objectivism? I would like to see the curriculum.
As another comment, regarding some other comments below, I do not have much hope that someone stumbling on our Gulch will get excited to learn Objectivism. There is way too much superficial fluff and straying off subjects here to entice a "student". Please, do not take offense. This is a "club" of people who have degrees of knowledge about Objectivism and a myriad of other interests and, occasionally, other agendae. An exclusive and strict focus on Objectivism would quickly become burdensome.
Despite those objections to qualifiers, these are just my off-the-cuff opinions.
All the best, K!
Sincerely,
Maritimus
http://www.peikoff.com/courses_and_lectu...
http://www.peikoff.com/courses_and_lectu...
http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/15/nathan...
Thank you so much for these!
http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atla...
If you go to the Atlas Summit, there are quite a few courses on Objectivism there, but I could not find anything at all on the science/engineering side. With as much science and engineering as went into the main characters in Atlas Shrugged, there ought to be more science and engineering at an Atlas Society conference.
Thank you again.
I have not thought much about the connection between science and Objectivism. It seams to me, at a first glance, that science is so deeply an exercise of reason and of cognitive ability, that it seems self-evident that there should be no conflicts or contradictions.
On the other hand, I am deeply convinced that engineering is not a science and that it is "the art of things that work". To me this means that it is an artful application of scientific knowledge to invent and create products for a purpose which the engineer deems worth while. I remember not so long ago wondering whether I should re-study the "Romantic Manifesto" having engineering art in mind all the time and see where that lands me. I have not done it yet, but I think I will as soon as time allows.
What do you think?
Thanks again.
All the best.
Sincerely,
Maritimus
Engineers have to deal with constraints, and with this government, they have to deal with far more constraints than they should or they used to have to deal with.
They had to fabricate and falsify to "prove" their theses. I am a proud 'denier", despised by the criminal zealots. Ever heard of scientific "consensus"? The theories are proven, not by vote, to be true or false by independent researchers conducting their own experiments to prove or disprove, all data and methods published for anybody to analyze. These people have permanently damaged the reputation of science and scientist. Assisted by ignoramuses in the media and in the government, who have each their own hidden agendae.
I apologize for the outburst. This subject cuts deep into my nerves.
Have a great week, Martimus
I do not see much to disagree here. It seems to me that you have in mind primarily the people who already somehow developed an interest to explore Objectivism.
I think that I had in mind mostly the "tabula rasa" kind (like my grandchildren) or people who need to be turned around from a misguided view about Objectivism received somewhere along the way.
Where would be fun if we never ever disagreed?
I will obey your order more than you know. ;-)
Stay well!
Maritimus
The unemployment rate is also nebulous now as well. Obama has succeeded in confusing so many people regarding A = A that even people like us have a hard time quantifying just how bad the situation really is.
One can study and be taught all of the "nooks and crannies" of the philosophy and even pass an examination on the facts of the matter. Or, another can take it to heart and live it as a way of life. In my estimation when someone decides to do a thing it is profoundly different that learning about something.
The second responsibility is to help educate others. Being on this forum is a great start, but don't be afraid to call in to radio programs, write letters to elected representatives, write editorials to newspapers, and post to social media sites.
Third, VOTE! Talk is cheap - vote with your feet! No, the choices aren't all perfect, but realize that on average only 1 in 3 Americans votes - especially in local elections. Your vote is actually worth at least TWO and frequently THREE votes. Don't let someone else vote for you.
by Chick-Fil-A instead of Starbucks. -- j
p.s. buying American has wrinkles -- do a little
homework and buy a Jetta made in Chattanooga?
.
So what would your thoughts be on someone who, by shear natural ability, produces enough wealth that even with the system working to destroy or enslave him he is able to live comfortably and do his own thing and ignore that system. Is he getting a free ride?
I don't know how to spark that curiosity in others. How to get them to realize the importance of doing that "mental work".
you are getting some portion of a free ride. -- j
.
and they are non-Galt thinkers -- they don't mind
being slave-like performers for the "riders" on their
backs. . maybe they don't notice the riders.
if they're getting a free ride, it's like the time when
the horse gets a "free ride" to the barn -- they
want to go that way, and don't mind being ridden,
on the way. -- j
.
government would stay out of the way, in comparison
with Russia they would be able to "do their thing,"
these producers, freely. . in that sense, a "free" ride!
but the others -- the Eddie Willerses -- who would
be granted extraordinary livelihoods working for the
producers, would get a partial "free ride" on their
coattails. . and the poor would be rich enough to
donate to the international poor. -- j
.
to the best of our ability, carrying millions of others
along with us. . and people like BHO think that the
productive power of the nation can be milked of its
profits "to no end." . Rand predicted that they would
have to be taught a lesson. . she is being proved
right, I believe. -- j
.
This was something that was in my mind when I enlisted in the USAF. (The other thing that was in my mind was 'getting a job'.)
So when someone questions my right to have a political opinion (this does not happen often), I have innocently asked, "Oh. What branch of the military were YOU in?" (I think I have said this twice. In neither case had the person been in the military.)
What it comes down to is this: when I search internationally, there is still no place freer than the US. With all of its warts, it is still worth protecting.
Jan
So there is a long history of arming the Swiss populace. This tradition has been held to be the reason that Switzerland has not been invaded on several occasions...as recently as the 1950's. I would like for this tradition of an armed and trained citizenry to take root in the USA - it is legitimately part of our own heritage, which we are loosing with the passing of time.
I would like to reclaim this tradition.
Jan
Because of points (1) and (2) I'm not at all sure that adopting the Swiss foreign policy would be as successful for the US as it has been for the Swiss -- and in addition I think Americans would resist the draft even more than we did in the Viet Nam era.
Do you think that by now Switzerland is not freer than the US?
I loved visiting my sister, but after a while Switzerland drove me crazy. It was like trying to live in a picture postcard. I wanted WEEDS and Big Open Spaces and enough variation that I could see that people were doing what they wanted to do as opposed to what they were told to do.
Jan
Complain all you want. And thank you for your service. We'll try not to let you down.
Jan, not a second class citizen
.
.
No less than a philosophical revolution. Glad to hear that you're not giving up. I think it is important for people to realize that this part of the battle was never won in the first place.
plain" argument many years ago; I think it was in
a children's civics book by Munro Leaf. Ayn Rand
did not endorse that argument. I read what she
said in a collection of "off the cuff" answers to
questions. At a tape lecture, I heard her say
something (in fact, I don't know, but maybe the
statement in the book was the same, made on
the same occasion)--I think she said, "It's no
sin not to vote"; I think she said she didn't
blame people for not voting, with no better
choices than the ones offered; not to vote could
mean "none of the above"; she said she would
not vote for anybody in the Presidential election
of 1980. Perhaps one should do something
prior to the nomination; campaign for some idea
or write letters to editors about issues.
Just asking.
Of course rational voters would vote themselves freebies and/or well-paying government jobs (unless they're paying attention to a long enough time frame that it doesn't pay -- and if they're near the end of their lives there may be no reason for them to look that far ahead). You can't expect people not to act selfishly -- you have to design the system to prevent that sort of abuse.
The shortsightedness of our politics and of the vast majority of voters is painful to observe. I cannot decipher if it is partly caused by the electoral cycles, despite most politicians making it a career of it. My first guess would be that it is all rooted in the fact that sheeple do not see farther from their noses.
The need to design the system you mention was behind my comment about who decides what and how.
This is a good question, but there is a contradiction there. Is it truly in ones rational self interest to vote for things that benefit him if he has to evade the fact that those benefits must be taken from someone else? It cannot be if A=A
And Thank you for your service.
I don't think that receiving social security should count against voting, though. Rand considered it restitution for the money taken.
Ayn Rand said it was moral to collect social security as restitution but only if you are against it as a policy and work to end it. It sure would be easier to phase it out if those living off of it could not vote to continue it. (never going to happen anyway)
My new reply to those who say "I paid into it, it's my money" is "it is not your money. They spent Your money. Now they are stealing it from your grandchildren to give it to you.Did you do anything to stop that?"
I'm all for a slow phaseout of social security, even if it means I will still pay into it and have nothing to collect. That would still be better than the total collapse that is coming.
The real underlying problem, in terms of voting, is that most voters don't understand economics and the consequences of policies like a welfare state, and what's worse, they "know" a false version of economics and aren't willing to learn better. This is the biggest success of leftist public "education."
Filing a tax return and getting an EIC is not 'paying taxes'.
Obama's semi-amnesty policy would have changed that by issuing SSNs to those affected, but the courts have stopped it.
Of course a proper government would eliminate most of those restrictions, and might make someone think twice about seeking a career in politics too.
those you mention who are willing to fight might just want the excuse to kill someone if they don't know why they are fighting. they more than likely will not fight because a bad society is to them better than dying trying to preserve a good society which we do not have today anyway. i am not so sure we have a large population of patriots today, for if we did they would have stormed the bastile by now.
I'm sure there are those just looking for an excuse to get violent but most of these people are just angry. Like the mob in Baltimore, they know the system is f*%#ed up and they refuse to bow down but they won't take the time or the effort to find out what is truly wrong. And if they did they might find out that some of their own beliefs are part of the problem. Even some otherwise rational people with that one issue that causes their emotions to overpower their senses.
While a patriot may have to pick up a gun, willingness to pick up a gun does not make one a patriot.
As far as patriotism is concerned I''m considered an expat but consider myself a current patriot if you are talking ÜSA and Constitution. As far as the present government is concerned I've never changed my allegiance from the Constitution of the USA to the present whatever it is and consider their supporters be neverpats.
Every opportunity must be taken to promote the right ideas. IE.. Objectivism