Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Statue of Liberty Shrugged?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Not to mention he never promoted absence of society.

You seem to be forgetting about Francisco D'Anconia who had to spend many years of his one and only life on the deliberate destruction of one part of society (his copper company) in order to prevent his "hitchhikers" from feeding on it for many more centuries.

No; nobody in Galt's Gulch promoted the absence of any society whatsoever, nor do I think DA would if we simply asked him.  But there are societies which do deserve to collapse and if you don't remember that aspect of Atlas Shrugged then you might be overdue for another revisiting.

 

Is there some other thread I missed in one of my absences which is prompting this stuff?  I get the distinct feeling that there's a buttload of context that's nowhere in this thread nor in my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In July 1986, I was with my first life-partner Jerry (d. 1990) sitting in the bleachers that had been set up in Manhattan along the Hudson. We were watching the Tall Ships sailing by. In the evening,

Please tell me that's a joke, that you're not one of those nut jobs. 

HD, I looked up "doxxing" - hadn't heard that term before. My name is Stephen Craig Boydstun. I've never used any other name on the internet. (I came to be shown as another name -Guyau- on the th

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

He thinks Trump will be restored to the presidency

When he runs again in 2024?  Or as in: he rightfully won the last one and all the shadowy forces which stole it from him will somehow, someday just decide to give it back to him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

He called 1/6 the insurrection that it was meant to be and (judging by the question asked in the OP) seems to be wondering whether that was justified or not. 

You are taking his statements in isolation. Consider that he believes the nut job theory that Trump is going to be reinstated, doesn't see this as bad, and describes those events as an insurrection. The conclusion is that he supports a violent insurrection. 

12 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

he's shown no indications of being one of those nutjobs

What do you mean? It's in the first sentence. I asked if it was a joke. His nonanswer indicated that it was serious. 

3 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Well, if that's the case, I can't participate in this thread.

I mean, you're discussing the nature of rebellion, which is fine. It's different than promoting actual events that happened, specifically the violent parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

For the sake of the children,

If you saw Lady Liberty, the giant who holds the free world on her shoulders, if you saw that she stood, blood running down her chest, her knees buckling, her arms trembling but still trying to hold her torch aloft with the last of her strength, and the greater her effort the heavier the looters and their children bore down upon her shoulders demanding freedom from want - What would you tell her?

(Ayn Rand's Francisco d'Anconia, paraphrased)

Well, not "to shrug". Although I like this telling paraphrase regarding the (con)temporary state of America (as I and many others view it).

(I had said pre-US elections that coming off a higher base than anywhere in a greying, long-compromised Western world, it would be the ~relative~ drop of liberty/freedom - by her own standard - that would hurt America. There would not be a complete collapse, like in AS. You would never fall to Venezuelan and Zimbabwean levels, as some misleading, alarmist, examples given, but the moral damage would be greater).

Not to shrug then. But to see this phase through with moral grit and intellectual conviction, with zero or the minimum of sacrifice and self-sacrifice. Never a conflict, that could cause more irreparable harm than would be worth it.

 Atlas Shrugged ends with: "We are going back to the world". Of course, returning to reality after a break and now work to be begun again. You and we all, haven't the opt-out choice the strikers had, one must remain here in the world.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

IF it were shown that the election results were manipulated and that Trump in fact was elected, IF that were shown to be true, why would that situation necessitate an 'armed insurrection' ? How could a call for 'reinstatement' be labeled  a rebellion ?

Maintaining the Biden administration in the face of factual evidence of fraud would be acting in defense of liberty?

Absent proven fraud , Biden is literally the figurehead of a corrupt establishment ( tech, media, federal bureaucrats) pushing a leftist ideology in order to maintain the globalist corporate interests.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You are taking his statements in isolation. Consider that he believes the nut job theory that Trump is going to be reinstated, doesn't see this as bad, and describes those events as an insurrection. The conclusion is that he supports a violent insurrection.

I used the word "restored", as in restored to office via the courts (unlikely, but possible), or re-elected in 2024 (more likely).

I said what occurred on January 6th was an insurrection.  I did not say I supported it (or any future one), and I'm surprised at you, Eiuol, for making that connection and clinging to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I did not say I supported it (or any future one), and I'm surprised at you, Eiuol, for making that connection and clinging to it.

I am skeptical, given your apprehension to say right off the bat and subsequently that I simply misinterpreted you. Yes, you identified what happened on January 6, but used to somehow obtusely answer... Something.

9 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I get the distinct feeling that there's a buttload of context that's nowhere in this thread nor in my head.

These days I think it's important to be vigilant against fringe right-wingers. And this is a place where they could show up sometimes.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Atlas Shrugged ends with: "We are going back to the world". Of course, returning to reality after a break and now work to be begun again. You and we all, haven't the opt-out choice the strikers had, one must remain here in the world.

Galt created the separation of state and economics advocated by Ayn Rand, which had the effect of stopping the engine of crony capitalism. The consequences were not pleasant, but were necessary to persuade the complacent that there really is, "no free ride".  It was never about killing the free riders.


It appears to me that liberty and industry are under mutual assault by Biden's claim: "Health care should be a right, not a privilege in America", and that what Atlas shrugged can be shrugged by Lady Liberty as well, perhaps in the form of privatizing the security of liberty (again, without killing the free riders).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

... Is there some other thread I missed in one of my absences which is prompting this stuff?  I get the distinct feeling that there's a buttload of context that's nowhere in this thread nor in my head.

The idea of Liberty Shrugging came to me after hearing the French Embassy announcement, "a bronze cast of the original model used to create the Statue of Liberty will be coming to Washington, D.C." ~ https://wjla.com/news/local/the-original-statue-of-liberty-coming-to-dc

I recalled (but cannot cite) an earlier observation about the irony of the gift of liberty by the French, who have too little, to the Americans, who have too much, which led me to creating this topic for discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Maintaining the Biden administration in the face of factual evidence of fraud would be acting in defense of liberty?

Maybe.  I'm not sure.

If we do want this country to continue existing then our electoral system must be maintained.  People need to know (not as an act of faith, but for good reasons) that their votes count, which would be helped by reinstating Trump if (hypothetically speaking) we had good evidence that he'd actually won the election.  On the other hand, the peaceful transfer of power between successive administrations also needs to be maintained very strictly, and the kinds of games Trump was playing about that part of it are so reprehensible that it might be dangerous to ever allow him anywhere near the government again.

During the presidential debates he was asked point-blank if he would peacefully hand over the reigns of power if he lost the election.  The answer to that question should have been "of course I would; why would you even ask me that?" but he simply refused to answer it at all.  That is dangerous.

I don't know what the appropriate course of action would be if it were proven that Trump should've won.  It's not as simple as you seem to be implying.  However, I don't think that's a question we're actually gonna need the answer for.

6 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Absent proven fraud , Biden is literally the figurehead of a corrupt establishment ( tech, media, federal bureaucrats) pushing a leftist ideology in order to maintain the globalist corporate interests.

That's certainly true.  And if Trump runs again in 2024 I might have to advocate for him, depending on what sort of specimen the Democrats pick next.

They could've picked Andrew Yang.  He would've been demonstrably better than Trump in so many ways; they could've actually taken a step in a good direction for once.  Make America Think Harder!  But of course they picked Creepy Uncle Joe because I guess we're not allowed to have nice things.

 

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You and we all, haven't the opt-out choice the strikers had, one must remain here in the world.

Yes we do.

 

If someone is seriously messing with your chi you are free to simply stop associating with them.  I've done it many times myself; it's really not hard.  You can stop doing business with corporations that spend their time and money on things you consider evil (which is where the Republicans could actually learn something from the Democrats' example) and if worst comes to worse you are still free to go live down by the river, away from the rest of society.

Yes, there are many aspects of modern society which are still worthwhile and which would suck to have to forego.  This is why we should continue trying to advocate for a better society for as long as we're allowed to.  But if it's between that and dying on the barricades...

Look, in real life it's not romantic or glorious to die on the barricades.  It's dirty and painful and you have to give up the rest of your span of life in order to become one more anonymous body for future historians to tally up.

So let's not pretend that simply walking away isn't an option, because it is.  And it's a much better one than either slavery or death.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You are taking his statements in isolation.

Yes, I am, which is why I asked if there's some context in another thread that I'm missing.

14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Consider that he believes the nut job theory that Trump is going to be reinstated, doesn't see this as bad, and describes those events as an insurrection. The conclusion is that he supports a violent insurrection. 

Firstly, there is an appropriate time and place for a violent insurrection (as the founding fathers observed).  It certainly wasn't on 1/6 and I agree it's a very bad thing if he supports what happened then, but in general there are rebellions which should be supported.

Secondly, although it is a bit off-the-rails to believe that Trump will be reinstated, if it was because we found all this evidence of alleged voter fraud - would that be a bad thing?  As explained in my previous post I really don't know.  If you do know then please elaborate on the reasons why because (as explained above) that is not an easy one to reason through and I would not turn down a helping hand.

14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What do you mean? It's in the first sentence. I asked if it was a joke. His nonanswer indicated that it was serious.

Maybe.  Maybe he just forgot to address it.

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

These days I think it's important to be vigilant against fringe right-wingers. And this is a place where they could show up sometimes.

I don't disagree, particularly after 1/6.  There are a lot of perspectives that're gaining prominence nowadays which deserve to be nipped right in the bud.

 

Suppose we were talking to a Nazi, though, who actually blamed the Jews for all the problems in the world.  I don't think DA is one, but hypothetically speaking, suppose we started the conversation out by declaring their own views to them in advance and mentioning that this makes them a bad person.  Now, even if we're right about what those views are, they're most likely to just shut up and voice those opinions on some other, darker corner of the internet.  Whereas if we ask them to tell us what their views are and then proceed to engage with them (politely, at first, but potentially moving on to ridicule and satire) then as upset as they might eventually become about the ridicule, if they persist in advancing those views, the one thing they cannot say is that we didn't address their actual opinions.

 

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

I'd like to hear what DA's actual ideas on these issues are.  Maybe they're as absurd as you think, and if so then maybe we'll have some fun with them (after attempting the polite route, of course).  Or maybe they won't be and we won't have to get into a fight with someone we don't disagree with by that much, after all.

 

PS:

 

Speaking of ridiculing ridiculous ideas, though, are there any Jews here who know how I can get onto Marjorie Taylor Green's space laser?  I could use a Jewish Space Laser, myself, for perfectly legitimate reasons.  Just tell me what it'd take for me to get one!

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
postscript
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

It was never about killing the free riders.

For Francisco D'Anconia it was.  The idea was that they'd simply allow their society to collapse of its own dead weight and then rebuild a better one in its place.  It was always about rebuilding a better world but this did require the death of the old one, and Francisco was the one striker who had to actively destroy his part of that in order to accelerate the process.

I don't think we're at the point where that is rational, since we're still free to speak about these things.  As long as logical argument is a valid option then that is the one we should use in order to fix the old system.  Once we're denied even that - well, I'll be looking for a nice spot down by the river.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

. . .

I recalled (but cannot cite) an earlier observation about the irony of the gift of liberty by the French, who have too little, to the Americans, who have too much, which led me to creating this topic for discussion. [bold added]

Neil(?) - you agree that Americans have too much liberty?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

Yes we do.

 

If someone is seriously messing with your chi you are free to simply stop associating with them.  I've done it many times myself; it's really not hard.  You can stop doing business with corporations that spend their time and money on things you consider evil (which is where the Republicans could actually learn something from the Democrats' example) and if worst comes to worse you are still free to go live down by the river, away from the rest of society.

Yes, there are many aspects of modern society which are still worthwhile and which would suck to have to forego.  This is why we should continue trying to advocate for a better society for as long as we're allowed to.  But if it's between that and dying on the barricades...

Look, in real life it's not romantic or glorious to die on the barricades.  It's dirty and painful and you have to give up the rest of your span of life in order to become one more anonymous body for future historians to tally up.

So let's not pretend that simply walking away isn't an option, because it is.  And it's a much better one than either slavery or death.

A reminder, the opting out achieved its purpose because they, the small band of strikers disproportionately commanded the entire industry (etc.) and the nation couldn't survive their withdrawal. 

It wouldn't register on the economic radar if a bunch of industrialists removed their minds, capital and abilities, today. That's the point one must distinctly separate art, the re-creation of reality, from reality.

There are plainly many in power on the Left in the US who are licking their chops at, inviting even, any sign of rebellion. They will relish stamping one out, as you've heard since January and certainly have plans in place to do so; I can tell these are vengeful, self-righteous people whose guilty little secret is they hate the American idea and daily live in fear of losing their grasp on power, they know they don't have a mandate, so will go to any lengths. I plead to Americans don't give them the opportunity. To not react, sometimes can be more rationally moral. That's not to mean don't consolidate, keep your powder dry,  hunker down, hold the line, close ranks, any metaphor there is for ideological resistance and this recent ideological/political experiment by a portion of America will collapse on its own by its inner self-contradictions and the growing disgust of the average American, some of them on the Left as well, I think I see. 

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I used the word "restored", as in restored to office via the courts (unlikely, but possible), or re-elected in 2024 (more likely).

I said what occurred on January 6th was an insurrection.  I did not say I supported it (or any future one), and I'm surprised at you, Eiuol, for making that connection and clinging to it.

No - "restored" as covering "re-election"* is covering tracks by rewrite. 

I'm not surprised in such a dissemblance from Neil, when writing under cover of the name Devil's Advocate. Coming clean here as self, as he does elsewhere, would make for less crookedness and for warmer, more genuine dialogue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Boydstun said:

No - "restored" as covering "re-election"* is covering tracks by rewrite. 

I'm not surprised in such a dissemblance from Neil, when writing under cover of the name Devil's Advocate. Coming clean here as self, as he does elsewhere, would make for less crookedness and for warmer, more genuine dialogue.

I have no idea who Neil Parille is, or why you are linking him to my posts.  I imagine you can reach out to Eiuol or any of the other moderators to verify my credentials, if that's necessary.  I'm disappointed at the effort being wasted to create a straw version of what I posted, so I'll attempt to clarify as we move forward.

Again, "restored" was the original word I used, and I clarified that when I saw it had been substituted for the word "reinstated" as part of an argument to cast doubt on my sincerity.  Fair enough, I'll respond to legitimate questions (even repetitive ones) to clarify to the best of my ability what I've written, which I stand by in any case.

My use of the word, "restored", and the clarification I followed with is entirely consistent with my original meaning, "give back, return" ~ Merriam-Webster.  I added 2 examples, "the courts" and "re-election", and I've never advocated for the January 6th Insurrection or a do-over as has been suggested for reasons unknown to me.  A clarification is NOT a rewrite when it is consistent with the original presentation, which mine is.

 

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

How can you have no idea, when you linked to him here?

I had no idea because I wasn't interested in the author, I was interested in statements made by Barbara Branden relating what Ayn Rand had said about becoming an atheist.  I was familiar with these statements from other sources so I linked to the article I was referencing in a post 9 years ago.  And now, following the link to its source, there is Neil Parille.

So you got me, I linked to an article 9 years ago written by an author I'm not interested in to cite material about an author I am interested in.  How does that make me Neil?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not prove you are not Neil by just identifying yourself? Then we can go right along in a respectful way, authentic, open persons, one to another, no obliqueness, just cards on the table. There are specific reasons, good ones, for why some participants here do not use their real name. Stating the specific reasons you are not willing to identify yourself, whether Neil or another real person, would be a step to squareness with people in this forum, should you care for such a virtue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Why not prove you are not Neil by just identifying yourself? Then we can go right along in a respectful way, authentic, open persons, one to another, no obliqueness, just cards on the table. There are specific reasons, good ones, for why some participants here do not use their real name. Stating the specific reasons you are not willing to identify yourself, whether Neil or another real person, would be a step to squareness with people in this forum, should you care for such a virtue.

Respectfully, no. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A reminder, the opting out achieved its purpose because they, the small band of strikers disproportionately commanded the entire industry (etc.) and the nation couldn't survive their withdrawal. 

It wouldn't register on the economic radar if a bunch of industrialists removed their minds, capital and abilities, today. That's the point one must distinctly separate art, the re-creation of reality, from reality.

Certainly.  If I remove myself from society, the rest of the world will continue turning just fine without me - only I won't have to deal with them.  That's the point.

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I have no idea who Neil Parille is, or why you are linking him to my posts.  I imagine you can reach out to Eiuol or any of the other moderators to verify my credentials, if that's necessary.  I'm disappointed at the effort being wasted to create a straw version of what I posted, so I'll attempt to clarify as we move forward.

Again, "restored" was the original word I used, and I clarified that when I saw it had been substituted for the word "reinstated" as part of an argument to cast doubt on my sincerity.  Fair enough, I'll respond to legitimate questions (even repetitive ones) to clarify to the best of my ability what I've written, which I stand by in any case.

My use of the word, "restored", and the clarification I followed with is entirely consistent with my original meaning, "give back, return" ~ Merriam-Webster.  I added 2 examples, "the courts" and "re-election", and I've never advocated for the January 6th Insurrection or a do-over as has been suggested for reasons unknown to me.  A clarification is NOT a rewrite when it is consistent with the original presentation, which mine is.

 

1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

How can you have no idea, when you linked to him here?

45 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I had no idea because I wasn't interested in the author, I was interested in statements made by Barbara Branden relating what Ayn Rand had said about becoming an atheist.  I was familiar with these statements from other sources so I linked to the article I was referencing in a post 9 years ago.  And now, following the link to its source, there is Neil Parille.

So you got me, I linked to an article 9 years ago written by an author I'm not interested in to cite material about an author I am interested in.  How does that make me Neil?

19 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Why not prove you are not Neil by just identifying yourself? Then we can go right along in a respectful way, authentic, open persons, one to another, no obliqueness, just cards on the table. There are specific reasons, good ones, for why some participants here do not use their real name. Stating the specific reasons you are not willing to identify yourself, whether Neil or another real person, would be a step to squareness with people in this forum, should you care for such a virtue.

This is so weird.

 

To recap, DA mentioned the possibility of Trump being "reinstated" either through the courts or reelection.  Alright; one can argue about whether or not the courts are going to do anything about this last election (and if one was feeling particularly uncharitable one might even characterize such an idea as a bit unhinged) but it's neither advocating violence nor conspiracy theories.  Even if he were advocating a conspiracy theory why wouldn't we hear it out and then (if it is, in fact, a conspiracy theory) pick it apart like we would with any other bad theory?

Why do you need to know DA's real name?  Are we not going to consider any of his arguments unless they're accompanied by a social security number and a DNA sample?

 

@Devil's Advocate I don't care if you're this Neil character or not.  I'm not sure we'll agree about the answer to the OP and I'm confident we do not agree about what happened this last election - and that's okay.  I don't need to see your papers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Why not prove you are not Neil by just identifying yourself?

You are aware of the term "doxxing" right?

 

Look - my name is William Harrison Forrester Jodeit.  Now that this is on the internet anyone from anywhere in the world could potentially use it to link everything I've ever said on this forum to who I am, in real life, and potentially figure out how to confront me in my own home.

I don't really care.  To be perfectly frank, I've got some anger issues and don't really mind the occasional confrontation.  But not everyone is like that.

 

If we're going to ask DA what his real name is then it's only fair that you tell us yours, first, bud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HD, I looked up "doxxing" - hadn't heard that term before.

My name is Stephen Craig Boydstun. I've never used any other name on the internet. (I came to be shown as another name -Guyau- on the the posting site Objectivist Living, but that was due to a glitch that happened when they updated their program a few years back; not my doing.) Anyone has been able to google my name and find out all about me, from posting sites, publications, Walter's blog for us, and on Facebook. No problems from bigots or anyone here at our home. 

My Story

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

... To recap, DA mentioned the possibility of Trump being "reinstated" ...

Et tu, Brute?

"For better or worse, the Former (to be RESTORED) President is arguably the most influential political figure of the 21st Century, perhaps best evident in his catch phrases as adopted by current world leaders to maintain influence over their electorates.  However, I'm not returning from hiatus to argue similarities between The Donald and John Galt."

MEANING: Whether or not you like the former president or his policy, he remains in control of the republican leadership which makes him the default candidate in 2024, and which if elected would RESTORE him to the presidency.  They (the republican leadership) are also currently trying to RESTORE him to the presidency thru legal maneuvers in the  courts.

"Netanyahu channels Trump as he makes his last stand"  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/06/08/netanyahu-trump-echoes/

"Putin says Russia targeted from abroad by fake news on coronavirus" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-coronavirus-health-putin/putin-says-russia-targeted-from-abroad-by-fake-news-on-coronavirus-idUSKBN20R1KJ

--

"The Objectivist story of Atlas I read is essentially a primer on the proper use of political power in a social context. My question is, "Is there a similar tipping point in the Security of Liberty to that of the prosperity created by Producers, beyond which a rational self-interest in maintaining society ought to be withdrawn to promote the absence of society?"

MEANING:  The fictional producers in Atlas Shrugged defeated crony capitalism by withdrawing from society. Could those involved in securing "the blessings of liberty" (first responders, police, military) similarly defeat ideas like "a right to healthcare or redistribution" by withdrawing from society, and what form might that take in real life.

Link to post
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...