Which U.S. President would have shrugged?
With the race for President in full swing, there is a great deal of chatter about which former leader was good and which was bad for the country. A former President's name is thrown out there and all the negative comments begin to flow.
Okay, if we insist upon having these discussions, let's answer the question. Who, of our 44 previous Presidents, would John Galt have invited to the Gulch (if any) and why?
Keep in mind that every President, since Washington, has perpetuated some of a previous leaders policies, both good and bad.
Okay, if we insist upon having these discussions, let's answer the question. Who, of our 44 previous Presidents, would John Galt have invited to the Gulch (if any) and why?
Keep in mind that every President, since Washington, has perpetuated some of a previous leaders policies, both good and bad.
"Although he did eventually name Secretary Hoover to a commission in charge of flood relief, Coolidge's lack of interest in federal flood control has been criticized.[122] Coolidge did not believe that personally visiting the region after the floods would accomplish anything, but it would be seen only as political grandstanding. He also did not want to incur the federal spending that flood control would require; he believed property owners should bear much of the cost.[123] " -- Wikipedia.
He also slept a lot while in office: 10 hours a night and two hours in the afternoon. That may have been a symptom of depression following the death of his son in 1924. -- http://www.doctorzebra.com/Prez/g30.htm
Finally, Washington would be the man.
But after a president leaves office is an entirely different situation.
And once you've served as president, you are called "Mr. President" for life. Just sayin'.
tried to recruit any government official. Govern-
ment does not create business and move the coun-
try,as an industrialist like Rearden does. Possib-
ly he would have recruited a local deputy sheriff,
or somebody like that, but any higher up? I
don't think so.
such a strike necessary did not exist. More likely,
Galt would have done like Nat Taggart, and been
involved in his own private endeavors. (Or perhaps,
a Harriet Tubman-like abolitionist).
Teddy Roosevelt, after all, was actually the governor of New York, but he was added to the VP ticket to get him out of New York because the party didn't trust him to do their bidding... Seems to qualify to me. After the presidency, he went on to hunt big game in Africa, volunteered for the war, etc.
A natural icon is Reagan, but he was actually a strong member of the political machine prior to his presidency, and was the president of the screen actor's guild, etc. He was also heavily in the pocket of California business when governor (famously arguing that a packet of ketchup met the state's requirement for a piece of fruit in school lunches).
it on?
That eliminates slave owners.
Just my opinion..
I should simply have asked which President J.G. would have tried to save and left it at that.
Absolutely no contemporary president - not even Reagan.
Mechanized farming would soon change the landscape of agriculture and make the Civil War unnecessary.
Too bad that Lincoln wasn't much too see things "big picture". We could use the sperm bank lost to that war.
I could make the same argument that I need slaves in my business to compete with Chinese workers and make more money.
There was no excuse for the civil war. The southern states just wanted OUT. The North had to beat them into submission and invade them. Our history is pretty sordid really. Obama is just one of a long line of ststists
My ancestors WERE the Underground Railroad and they were literally taking their lives into their own hands because of the slave situation and the attitudes of the southern slaveholders.
But yes, politicians don't have a real-world grasp except on the floating abstraction of money without ownership.
I would have had a great plantation by freeing my slaves. I bet their production would have doubled and I would have made money even after paying them.
My neighbors probably would have stoned ME for doing it though. I would have been a traitor in their eyes, trying to spoil the deal they had.
It is embracing good philosophy that leads to the civilization of humans.
Slavery at that time was a matter of economics more than oppression.Industrialism would have done away with slavery with little bloodshed.
Besides, who/what makes you the arbiter of who does or doesn't enter the Gulch? Aren't you assuming a leadership role, enslaving others in the Gulch by imposing your rules and criteria to act on behalf of the group?
Yes, I'm being difficult. But individuals, particularly in the Gulch, do not require others to make rules for them.
Its my contention, given a different time to exist in, that those Presidents would be the most likely to appreciate and applaud the absence of slavery AND thrive in a gulch-like environment using their own ability to find happiness.
In addition to leaving behind his slaves, Jefferson, in particular, would have left behind a pile of debts. He was a poor financial manager and often over-extended his credit. That would be different from Hank Rearden or Midas Mulligan. Jefferson was not a producer. Perhaps his bright ideas would been his admission ticket. But he was not alone in those.
As for the personal attack - that I am not the arbiter who decides for everyone, imposing my will on the group - that was both ingenuous and illogical. You offered the question. Anyone who answered would be the final judge by their own standards. One can argue the standards. One cannot argue the authority: it was granted in the question.
And I stand by my beliefs: they all knew that slavery was morally wrong. They all were making a pragmatic compromise. Moreover, slavery was not economically sustainable until after the invention of the cotton gin. Slavery was a social fact. It was not an economic imperative. I will have more to say about that in a separate post on that subject.
I in no way condone slavery but to judge people back then by todays moral standards is just wrong.
less of what the social standards of the time are.
Today, I have a friend I do not understand. She voted for Obama, saying "better a benevolent dictator" - crazy. But this white lady chose slavery. So too do so many of our college student liberals, reaching for socialism with both hands. I think AS showed us freedom and reason are hard, but some of us know it is worth the struggle. How will history record this era, will Obama be seen as a slave master?
Article I, Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
No matter, its all speculation. Depending on who the gate keeper is at the Gulch, I suspect I'd be turned away.
It obvious because he "wrote all that stuff" that there was a personal compromise between his financial necessity and his personal philosophical leanings. Why should the people of his day be any different than those today.
Despite what many people here contend, and often insult, those who have objectivit idea can and do also believe in God; little difference.
If you think, after considering evidence, that there is some sort of supreme being ("god"), I have no problem with that. However there are hundreds of "gods" that people have sworn allegiance to over the ages- and many religions have sprung up that attract "believers". So which "god" is the real one??
I remember Bush saying 'god is on our side" when he invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein also said the same thing "god is on OUR side". This battle of the gods seems to me irrational.
In fairness, this could my authors mind talking.
I know the "idea" of this is appealing to many people, but how could one ever choose among all the versions of the resulting "gods" to pick the real one? If one didnt pick the "true" god, wouldnt that just be believing in potential nonsense?
As far as choosing, anything that happens has a hundred interpretations, some quite similar and some wildly different. Passing any information down through the grapevine over several millennium is bound to account for variance. I would suspect that the religions are no different. I also suspect that some have concocted belief structures that mimic those made by religion simply to excuse their behavior, unify people around themselves, and assert power over others.