I don't know who the next John Galt is, but he or she will not flourish under Romney/Ryan unless they are a crony. The only presidential candidate who holds our personal liberties and true free market capitalism as his guiding light is Gary Johnson.
Unfortunately, you're right, Johnson is fairly unknown. I'm still voting for him though. He may not win because he's not popular enough, but he's the right choice.
So even if he has no chance you're still going for him? I like him the most too but I cna't bring myself to do it. I would much rather have Romney than Obama so that's what I'll be voting for. It's really the lesser of 2 evils.
Adams was (I have not yet checked) probably referring to legislative matters, NOT, to a choice of President . Ayn Rand voted for Richard Nixon, in order to counter the mob vote . Also, as Ayn Rand frequently stated -- Politics are the last consequence of ideas, not, the beginning fundamental . (Don't place the cart, BEFORE the horse)
The only problem with voting for the right person this time around is the risk of splitting the conservative vote in an already close race. That is exactly how Clinton got into office, and we cannot afford to risk 4 more years of BHO, the messiah.
I know it's not, but I'm afraid of what the landscape will look like if Obama wins again. We may never have the opportunity to take back the American dream.
That John Adams quote is perfect. It's a choice between right and wrong and there is no compromise. I can't accept the "lesser or two evils" justification. We shouldn't compromise morality for popularity.
I don't believe I am compromising morality. If I believe Romney would be better than Obama and Romney has a legitimate chance then I'm fine with voting for Romney, given that Johnson has no chance.
On the other hand, as much as I hate to say it, maybe Obama needs to win again to the country really sees what his vision is and the backlash could ctapult Johnson to the fron tof the pack.
I'm not saying your vote is a "bastard" as you put it. I'm saying that if we can get someone to start to trun things in the right direction then prehaps Johnson stands a great chance next time around.
I keep replying below but it isn't posting. I've let the admins know. What I was saying is: I don't think I am compromising my morality by voting for Romeny if he has a legitimate shot over Obama, assuming Johnson doesn't have a shot.
On top of that, it may be seen as worse to vote for a shining light of hope if that individual has no chance of winning when you could've chosen the "lesser of 2 evils" and salvaged a better future from which you still ahve a chance of fighting another day.
i say you may be off base. We the people will not allow another crony federal government. Unfortunately the baggage of the current group of "anti-establishment" candidates have not gained enough traction due to the current seemingly crony system. I like RP too, but know a vote for anyone besides the established republican is a vote for the communist. We the People can only hope the rising stars of Rand And Gary Johnson like candidates can soon be an option. BUT UNTIL THEN, ABO - its our only hope.
Unfortunately, in this case I think it sort of is. One more vote for Johnson is one less vote for Romney, and if Obama beats Romney by 1 vote and I voted for the thrid party I would feel somewhat responsible.
I like to think that there are John Galt's everwhere out there. They fight the good fight and get back up whenever they're knocked down. They jump thorugh hoops and climb mountains to make their businesses run.
But we need a John Galt.. someone to speak up against our government and continue to speak out even when the government shuts them out. Someone to bring this country together. Because just posting these simple little posts online of our opinions isn't going to make a difference.. we need a John Galt. We Need The People to come together.
I figure this either needs to be a politician who understands this or a businessman who speaks out loudly against all the red tape he & his business has to get through.
I recommend reading the book about Steve Jobs, although an incredible innovator, not the most moral person on the planet. He was incredibly abusive as well. I think there is a way to motivate people without humiliating them. Vince Lombardi vs. Tony Dungy. Both get results, both get certain people to perform. Jobs "reality distortion field" was a thing of magic, and you cannot argue with his results, I guess I believe you can be successful without being abusive, but inspire others through one's own commitment, dedication, knowledge, and expertise. Good guys can finish first, we just don't get as much press when we do.
Try every small businessman in america right now with a potentially radically innovative idea who is unable to make it a reality because of the mountain of regulation.
My intention was not to steal your post. It was a great headline and I thought others would want to chime in. I removed it. Feel free to use it yourself. I would love to comment on it! Apologies.
New to the Gulch, but I would say that Doug Casey might be a good candidate for the modern day Galt. If you look at what he's done in Argentina with La Estancia de Cafayate there in Salta, his unflinching views on personal liberty and the immorality of government (taxation, redistribution, punishing success etc), I think a very strong case could be made for Mr. Casey.
Im writing in Ron Paul. I am not sure, however, if he is Galt or Reardon. The message of reforming the party vice breaking it is more in line with Dagny and Reardon. However it appears Pauls supporters understand that the only way for a party to correct itself is to let it fail on its own.
I do not think there is a single John Gult. Every person who build a business (theirs or their employers) is a john gult. Politically we need some people who understand that to remove the regulation that keeps another 10 of thousands of john gults from being who they could be. We do this and the economy will explode. We wont know who this will be until they do it, anyone who has been in congress for 6 years and has not made major headway is not our political, theological or philosophical john gult. If they don't act and make change its time for a new guard because the search has to continue until we find people who can sway others to a reasoned point of view and then make that point of view a reality.
Actually no. I like Ron Paul, but his isolationism I strongly disagree with. His monitary policy is great and I would love to see Romney choose him as secretary of state.
To me Ron Paul has mostly good values that stand the test of reason (with the exception of his isolationism), however he has been largely ineffective as he lacks the charisma to sway others to his views. As secretary of the treasury he would have the unique opportunity to put his sound monetary policies in place. As a congressmen he has shown an inability to get the support needed to get things done. This may be due to charisma, it may be do to the fact that in many ways he has been alone as a guard of fiscal sound thinking. Either way he would be better as a Secretary of treasury than as a congressmen or a president.
Ron is not an isolationist. Anyone who believes in trade with ANYONE, peace talks with Iran, no sanctions, etc...is not an isolationist. He simply is a NON-Interventionist. Meaning we have no right to go to other countries and kill people to further our political and monetary influence. War should only be used in self defense, not monetary or religious offense. So the charge of isolationist is not at all correct.
I tend to agree with the essence of what you say here. I also do not think Iraq was about our moral right to help men, but we do have that right. I also think that we had the moral right to go into Kuwait and that we did go there for the right reasons and then had we chosen to go into Iraq at that time it would have been right to do so. The people there wanted our help, we did not owe them nor was it our duty but was our right had we so chosen. Ron Paul talks as if that is not a right, that it should not be done. That to me is Isolationism, and to some it is not. This the agreement to disagree with some.
You seem to make the assumption that any of these wars or "interventions" is about helping people become free. People who 1. Did not fight for themselves to become free...2. Have a religious and social ideology that scorns freedom...and 3. Did not ASK for you to come make them free, probably will not remain free. Freedom has ONE required ingredient..PEOPLE MUST WANT IT for THEMSELVES. Otherwise, we are no better than the democrat shoving Obama care down our throat for "our own good." No better than seat belt and helmet laws "for our own good." Minimum wage for "our own good." etc. Sorry, it isn't even moral, much less a duty.
We can agree to disagree on that one. I wont agrue the point as Ron Paul Supporters tend to be blind to this fact, or perhaps I am blind to your arguments but I have found such debates to be completely fruitless and ultimately of no consequence, so I just agree to disagree.
One other item I feel of importance to add to my other response. I do not believe the answer lies in politicians, but in the people who vote for and support them. We have to stay vigilant and boot out our guy if he is not doing the work we want done. While I like Bachmann and Santorium I dont hesitate to toss them if they dont make smaller government happen. The people have to wake up and be John Gault themselves. This will force politicians to address the issues and shrink the government. People have to do it, each and every one of us or we will not turn it around. Anyone who does not go to caucus meetings and local town hall meetings to get to konw the local reps, state reps and federal reps is not doing their job and potentially allowing the reps for them to sit down and not perform the tasks they need to in order to shrink the scope of government.
Alan West is probably one of my Favorite people in the washington seen. My preference for president was 1) Rick Sanatorium and 2) Michele Bachmann and then 3rd would be Mitt Romney but in my view he is far below the other two. Its a much better option than either of the guys we had in the last election.
Also, when you consider that Steve Jobs considered going into politics but was talked out of it by friends when they told him that his public opponents would demonize him and his family, then he becomes something of a John Galt. Just imagine how a supremely innovative mind like Steve Jobs could have altered american politics. Of course, Steve Jobs was pretty left-leaning, so who knows what would have happened?....(But maybe Steve Jobs never died but is actually in the Gulch preparing the way for the other newcomers o.O)
(Don't place the cart, BEFORE the horse)
People for the Ethical
Treatment of Bugs .
Obama=BAD
Bad=Socialism
and I dont see Bad=good any time soon.
To me Ron Paul has mostly good values that stand the test of reason (with the exception of his isolationism), however he has been largely ineffective as he lacks the charisma to sway others to his views. As secretary of the treasury he would have the unique opportunity to put his sound monetary policies in place. As a congressmen he has shown an inability to get the support needed to get things done. This may be due to charisma, it may be do to the fact that in many ways he has been alone as a guard of fiscal sound thinking. Either way he would be better as a Secretary of treasury than as a congressmen or a president.
So the charge of isolationist is not at all correct.
Anyone who does not go to caucus meetings and local town hall meetings to get to konw the local reps, state reps and federal reps is not doing their job and potentially allowing the reps for them to sit down and not perform the tasks they need to in order to shrink the scope of government.