Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Questions

Rate this topic


JohnS

Recommended Posts

He understands to the degree that he say's he is all for "chaining the Atlas's of the world", i.e., essentially making the productive members of the world slaves to the unproductive. That is enough of an understanding of the essential issues on his part for me to make the judgment that I have. I would be glad though if you are right Kendall and I am overreacting to his statements, because that would mean my original assessment is correct--which I would prefer.

Well, I think he's more pragmatist than ideologue. He seems to be misinformed about a lot of things, and since he doens't see cause and effect, he doesn't think he's in any way like Stalin, and is attracted to the idea that one could use "a little" force and not have it devolve into a lot of force. He doesn't know how that would work or he thinks it seems to be working stablely now.

I think one thing you want to recognize is a statement like "you are the enemy" or threats of forum banning is a personalization of what you admit is an intellectual war. It doesnt really mean a lot unless you're actually going to do something to him as a result. Abstractly the enemy is the ideas. Some of the people who hold a certain idea understand it's implications, where it necessarily leads, and still advocate those ideas. I'd say people like that are also evil. Most people don't understand ideas to this level of integration. I know that you see the implications of what he's saying, probably better than he does, and so your level of emotion about it is much higher than his. That's what he was saying. Mine emotional level is too frankly, but don't get mad at him; get mad at the ideas.

So here's the thing. What are you trying to accomplish it by saying it? He's admittedly said he hasn't read Atlas and he should; he obtained a copy on his own. I'd like him to read the book and decide for himself. Soapboxing has it's place. Don't get me wrong. There is a time to forcefully stand by principles. But is this guy threatening you directly more than any liberal neighbor down the street would? Do you go around calling those guys your enemy too.

He's not going to open to new ideas if the proponents of those ideas strike him as "dogmatic,"and you probably won't convince him better than Atlas might (if even it can)

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It amazes me that JohnS' comment about how by enslaving us just "enough" to get what he (the liberal) wants is sufficient to ensure that we (the atlas's/wannabe's) will never shrug has been largely ignored.

Rand herself said that in any compromise between poison and food only death could result, but then she seemed to accept the pragmatic ideal of Atlas being chained but not strangled in claiming that we weren't there, at the point of shrugging yet.

Could someone please explain this seeming compromise to me? I just don't see it as being in our rational self interest to wait until a Directive 10-289 is initiated, and I honestly don't think that they (the JohnS's of the world ) will ever get the point until it is forcibly made clear to them.

Zip,

Good point. But I would say this. The error I feel like John made, and that this question obscures, is that it seems to paint only two alternatives: completely "shrugging" and going on strike, or giving up and letting some of our wealth be taken. I think there are many ways to fight in between and not walking away from civilized life completely does not mean you are not fighting or resisting or that you are fine with how things are. I would have told John, if he were still responding to me, that I'm not OK and I will fight it, but that I will fight it by changing ideas and culture, working at it just a little bit every day, as well as fighting on that political level he seems to be so centered on. Maybe I can't eradicate being chained completely, but I can sure make it better, and I can make it so that there isn't enough stolen goods to go around for all those lovely programs he'd like to pay for, if I try hard enough.

So what I'm thinking is, the only way you're providing the "sanction of the victim" is if you refuse to fight at all, say by accepting the morality that you should be chained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I'd cut and paste this from the "America's Financial Mess" topic...

One of the heads of Lehman Brothers is getting roasted right now for his excessive profits by the house committee right now on CNN. If you look hard enough you can see the drool seeping out of the lower crack of the dems mouth. They aren't trying to decide if illegal activity took place at all. All they are focusing on is if his pay is "fair".

Wow, apparently Mr. Fuld wasn't playing along quite like they were hoping. One of the men on the committee just came right out and said to him "if you haven't discovered your role yet, you're the villain today, you gotta act like it". This is infuriating.

If this can happen today, on Capital Hill*, in your House of Representatives, to an individual corporate executive what will it take for the Atlas to shrug?

It seems to me that the corporate world is hunkering down in separate fortresses to try to weather this barbaric attack. They see this happening to their compatriots and think no more than "I'm glad it isn't me..." And since the majority of them are probably altruists of some flavour it will continue.

*I realize this should read Capitol Hill, but it was built by Capital, so the Freudian Slip works :dough:

Edited by Zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this can happen today, on Capital Hill*, in your House of Representatives, to an individual corporate executive what will it take for the Atlas to shrug?

It seems to me that the corporate world is hunkering down in separate fortresses to try to weather this barbaric attack. They see this happening to their compatriots and think no more than "I'm glad it isn't me..." And since the majority of them are probably altruists of some flavour it will continue.

I proposed to Eric Daniels at OCON the idea that Senate hearings as they currently occur are now a form of coerced speech. These are nothing more than witch hunts, under threat of force, televised to perpetuate the myth.

Notice no on has supeona's John Allison, or the CEO of Wells Fargo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wonder why these CEO's or, say. even sports figures under investigation for steroids go before these congressional hearings. If it was me I would just tell these guy where they can go, and not cooperate even in the slightest with their nonsense. Congress has no legal right that I know of to force anyone to testify before them, or any other legal rights to prosecute a citizen in any way, shape, or form. I suppose it is just a form of the sanction of the victim that allows these "witch hunts" to transpire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Kendall, I'm unaware of the significance of these two...

Oh, sorry. John Allison is the CEO of BB&T, and an Objectivist. He recently wrote a letter to Congress placing blame square on govt intervention. His bank is pretty solid and not stuck in this mess like the Wall St. Banks.

Wells Fargo is the bank that has made a private purchase offer for Wachovia, after the govt brokered deal by Citibank. Essentially it's an example of private enterprise cleaning up the mess. Citi is sueing, even though Wachovia woudl rather do the private deal. Wells is also not impacted as much by this mess.

These are the lasseiz faire bankers. No one's going to put them on the stand. They won't spout the convential story.

I always wonder why these CEO's or, say. even sports figures under investigation for steroids go before these congressional hearings. If it was me I would just tell these guy where they can go, and not cooperate even in the slightest with their nonsense. Congress has no legal right that I know of to force anyone to testify before them, or any other legal rights to prosecute a citizen in any way, shape, or form. I suppose it is just a form of the sanction of the victim that allows these "witch hunts" to transpire.

No, you can be subpeona'd before congress. This is completely the threat of force. You are sworn in, you can held in contempt, and jailed. You have 5th amendment rights, but there is no due process. There is no question that is off limits. Everything is germaine. They can ask you how much you make, anything. It's not that you can't speak your mind, but the threat of force is there, and as a CEO of a public company, you can't just say anything you want. People must realize that when you speak as the CEO, you speak for your shareholders interests.

It is a complete Kangaroo court. THey don't need to convict you, and make you do time. They just need you up there so they can pillory as an example. Look here is a CEO, and he doesnt' fight back. He must be guilty.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, sorry. John Allison is the CEO of BB&T, and an Objectivist. He recently wrote a letter to Congress placing blame square on govt intervention. His bank is pretty solid and not stuck in this mess like the Wall St. Banks.

Wells Fargo is the bank that has made a private purchase offer for Wachovia, after the govt brokered deal by Citibank. Essentially it's an example of private enterprise cleaning up the mess. Citi is sueing, even though Wachovia woudl rather do the private deal. Wells is also not impacted as much by this mess.

These are the lasseiz faire bankers. No one's going to put them on the stand. They won't spout the convential story.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'd actually read about the Wells Fargo deal earlier but I didn't remember it till you reiterated it to me, and as soon as you mentioned BB&T, I placed Mr. Allison as well (damn CRAFT... :D )

No, you can be subpeona'd before congress. This is completely the threat of force. You are sworn in, you can held in contempt, and jailed. You have 5th amendment rights, but there is no due process. There is no question that is off limits. Everything is germaine. They can ask you how much you make, anything. It's not that you can't speak your mind, but the threat of force is there, and as a CEO of a public company, you can't just say anything you want. People must realize that when you speak as the CEO, you speak for your shareholders interests.

It is a complete Kangaroo court. THey don't need to convict you, and make you do time. They just need you up there so they can pillory as an example. Look here is a CEO, and he doesnt' fight back. He must be guilty.

Wow, turns out the whole process is more of an example of how much more chained we are that we would like to acknowledge. Could you imagine such a process in Galt's Gulch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I've read most of your thoughts through this topic, but I'd like to reply specifically to this:

I just visualize myself, post car accident and paralyzed, being told that my survival wasn't anybody's problem. What will I do? Why should anyone care? It sends into my inner being a fear. Not the type of fear that a a bear or flying or heights instills...the kind of fear the 1984 gives me. It is pervasive, horrific, and callous. It isn't adrenaline fueled. It is life sapping. It isn't hateful. It is indifferent. I think I would be driven mad....truly nuts.

You're working based on the assumption that you have the right to someone else's labor or property in order to exist. I think it's curious that you somehow find it acceptable that under your ideal, the government would coerce money at gunpoint from hard working citizens in order to keep you alive. Yet you would have some problem asking for help from charities or private entities or family members.

Is it a sense of pride? Do abhor the thought of begging for money so much that you have no moral qualms that other people are essentially ENSLAVED to your existence?

How are those enslaved to you supposed to feel? To know that if they do not pay their taxes, the police will come to their house, armed to the teeth, ready to arrest and imprison them? Knowing that their tax money goes to supporting your existence when they might be struggling financially themselves?

No thanks, John. That's not the world I prefer to live in. If I can't take care of myself, I'd sooner die than force others at gunpoint to take care of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...