Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

John Galt

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John Galt

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  1. Frankly, I don't understand your conclusion, based on reading Nietzsche, and the evidence you supplied actually supports the position that N was clearly an advocate of individuality and egoism: "Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose." N called himself "The Immoralist!" "Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual." N was specifically against the herd. "Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." N was against a happy peaceful dream, he wan
  2. Wow! "Lower class?" is that some sort of British Royalty thing going on? Or somehow you judge people's "class" by the money in their wallet? Or if their habits somehow agree with yours? You must be really high class yourself, yah-sure. Besides, cigarettes cost a fortune now, with all the taxes. "Week-willed?" Well, perhaps, but then again, perhaps they proofread their writings, too. Or, in fact, can actually spell. "Unkempt?" smokers are unkempt? Maybe they only bathe once a weak? "Bludgers?" is that like a Blogger who fell down in the mud? Is that why they are unkempt? And you kno
  3. Spearmint, thank you for your accurate comments. For those without handy access, here's what Nietzsche said in his "Attempt at a Self-Criticism" about the Birth of Tragedy: "I do not want to suppress entirely how disagreeable it now seems to me..." (Kaufman trans, section 2) "To say it once more: today I find it an impossible book: I consider it badly written, ponderous, embarassing, image-mad, image-confused..." (section 3) Regarding a relationship between objectivism and Nietzsche, I offer this quote from Lesley Chamberlain in her Nietzsche in Turin (p. 103, Picador 1996): "As
  4. I guess I'll have to disagree - vehemently. I flipped through some of my Nietzsche books for a few minutes, and confirmed for myself that one of his primary themes is the individual vs the collective, or herd. He is the philospher who saw through collective (herd) conditioning in the conclusions (prejudices) of prior philosphers. His break with Wagner came when Wagner fell back into Christian denigration of the self. No, I really do think that the total works of Nietzsche demonstrate he is the philosopher of the bold and independent individual, bar none (save Ms. Rand!) This first quote, I
  5. I'm really surprised to read this. The entire thrust of Nietzsche is the individual, across all of his books. Do you have any textual evidence to demonstrate any glorification or praise of collectivism in Nietzsche?
  6. Does the existence of the Bill of Rights, which is of course part of the constitution, change your mind? What concerns me is how often the Bill of Rights is simply ignored.
  7. I agree completely with the immigration policy outlined in the above quote. This is, of course, the very definition of the legal immigrant. After all, no one could live in the Valley unless he took the Oath (Had to throw an Atlas reference in there ) Can you imagine someone sneaking in and camping out behind Francisco's cabin? They would toss him out so fast... I do see a weakness in your initial essay in that the children of the Founders are not bound by the constitution. Thus, in 120 years, say, no one is bound. Perhaps at 18 everyone should be given a choice - agree, or leave to se
  8. Well.... because this here thread is called "Illegal Immigration & Objectivism," that's why. I'm going to have to go the way of Stephen on this one. I'm not going to try and allege I can report on his position for him; I'm just mostly in agreement with his position, per his prior writings, on this particular issue. And also, on his choice to refrain from further debate when there doesn't seem much point of continued discussion. I was really ready to be refuted, but somehow "taxes are bad" therefore "coming to America and breaking our laws is moral" doesn't wash for me. But I really
  9. Value, as a word, cannot stand alone. It therefore seems subjective. My cat values a dead mouse far differently than I will. But Ayn Rand's pointed out that all humans share an identical cause of value creation: man, she said, "is a being of volitional conciousness." This being shared by all men, objective values for men can indeed be determined, based on the seemingly simple (but actually revolutionary) concept of rational self interest. So the question of objective values universally applied to all humans can indeed be answered.
  10. Looking at some of your points, quoted above (I do not understand the multi-quote system people use to address posts point by point... but I'd like to know!) I thought that illegal immigration was the subject of this whole debate! So if you declare the system itself immoral, then no discussion of behavior within that system, vis a vis morality, can be accomplished? Let's say you are arrested and convicted, although innocent, because a corrupt prosecutor is trying to score points somehow. Then while in prison you kill a cellmate to get his cigarettes. Can we discuss the morality of the
  11. Although in general I have been in agreement with most of your other writings on this site (especially that brief explanation of god and the arbitrary in another thread, I thought it showed real mastery ), I fail to understand your point here. Also, I don't see how the Atlas Shrugged quote supports your point. You seem to be stating that taxation is robbery. If so, then if someone can avoid taxation, that's good. So the tax evader, whether illegal alien or not, is to be admired as someone who avoided being the victim of crime. And all us foolish taxpayers are criminal victims and the goods
  12. If I've done the quote function correctly, I think you have perfectly isolated the reason why a "good man" like Eddie would not be Valley material. He could not give up on the old world, the old way. It took Dagny till the end to finally have her break with it... but he never did.
  13. I'm interested in the dichotomy between specifics and discussion of abstract principles that I see here. I still stand ready to be convinced that my views are mistaken, but I haven't seen anyone address what I think the real issue is. In the specific case of the illegal immigrant living in America, dealing only in concrete and realistic examples, would this logic chain be accurate, or have I made a mistake? Sorry if it comes off kind of pedantic but I'm trying to be very specific and accurate: If: Living in America, despite anyone's feelings about the legitimacy of taxation, one cannot help
  14. My first was Atlas Shrugged. I had heard of the book forever.... finally I just thought "I have to read it to see why its so famous." And it changed my entire world view. How many books really do that in your life? Not books that impress you, not even ones that inspire you... but ones that teach you an entirely new way of looking at the world, like teaching you a new language...
  15. My "handle" was chosen for one reason only - so that folks would ask "who is John Galt!" I certainly do not pretend to the fictional character's perfection... Your post uses strong language, philosophically speaking. But I beg to differ with your conclusions. I hope I can show you why not paying taxes - if you avail yourself of any of the benefits purchased by taxes - is in fact stealing. To what extent do you, personally, enjoy the benefit of the taxes you pay? Do you obtain benefits by having access to fire depts, police depts, roads, defense forces, and so on? Is it perfectly moral
  • Create New...