Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Statue of Liberty Shrugged?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

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that of the prosperity created by Producers, beyond which a rational self-interest in maintaining society ought to be withdrawn to promote the absence of society?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • 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

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

the proper use of political power in a social context

Anything political is going to be in a social context so it seems redundant to say it that way unless you mean something else.

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

a rational self-interest in maintaining society ought to be withdrawn to promote the absence of society?

Again, I suspect you mean a transformed society because "absence of society" implies killing everyone off. As in: Is it ever justified to kill everyone off?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Anything political is going to be in a social context so it seems redundant to say it that way unless you mean something else.

Again, I suspect you mean a transformed society because "absence of society" implies killing everyone off. As in: Is it ever justified to kill everyone off?

I believe for a "self-governing individual" to have any meaning there is always a political context.  We are "contractual animals", are we not?

I mean "absence of society" in the context of, "letting it go".

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

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

I believe that January 6th was an insurrection promoted by republican party seditionists, to state it bluntly. You may judge me by that.

My question (restated) is, "Should the Statue of Liberty shrug off securing the 'Blessings of Liberty' in order to drive home the need to secure it?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

What about the children?

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)

Edited by Devil's Advocate
To attribute quote paraphrased
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Talk about duped nut jobs, Mike Lindell is touting a new video claiming to have PCAPs from Nov 3, all the experts say they are fake , right ?

Until what passes for republicans today can win elections without The Donald, nutty is as nutty does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

That she shouldn't have blindfolded her sister?

Lady Justice, yes. The blindfold is an unnecessary constraint given her task, and probably does more to suggest a weakness that can be exploited by those who would have her provide for just us.

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

I believe that January 6th was an insurrection promoted by republican party seditionists, to state it bluntly. You may judge me by that.

Why so scared?

Anyway, it's apparent you are one of those nut jobs, that it wasn't a joke. If you want to get fancy: implicit in your question is that the irrational is sometimes valuable and good, and that reflects how you value something irrational like crackpot arbitrary theories.

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

Lady Justice, yes. The blindfold is an unnecessary constraint given her task, and probably does more to suggest a weakness that can be exploited by those who would have her provide for just us.

The blindfold was a 16th century addition to the Greek's Themis. The Roman's Libertas is metaphorically her sister in spirit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

The blindfold was a 16th century addition to the Greek's Themis. The Roman's Libertas is metaphorically her sister in spirit. 

Themis would be my preference in the appearance of justice, looking you in the eye with scale and sword.

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

... implicit in your question is that the irrational is sometimes valuable and good, and that reflects how you value something irrational like crackpot arbitrary theories.

Only to the degree that Galt valued stopping the motor of the world to make a point.  I don't recall that being portrayed in the book as being something irrational.

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

Only to the degree that Galt valued stopping the motor of the world to make a point. 

It wasn't to make a point, it was repealing his sanction given to the looters and parasites of society so that he and others could live their own life as they saw fit. Not to mention he never promoted absence of society. But whatever, maybe you didn't mean absence of any kind of society in totality.

Just ask your question, stop dancing around metaphor. 

You are asking if now is a good time, as you believe, to dismantle and destroy America to demonstrate the importance of liberty. Destroying America in order to save it. Of course, I doubt you will speak directly, because advocating and promoting the violent overthrow of the US government on this forum is a good way to get banned.

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

Destroying America in order to save it. Of course, I doubt you will speak directly, because advocating and promoting the violent overthrow of the US government on this forum is a good way to get banned.

But what if he is advocating a boycott, as in going on strike?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The poster children for the Black Lives Matter factions (schisms already?) George Floyd, Micheal Brown, Rodney King, Malice Greene etc., should make violent overthrow unnecessary, especially if the enforcement arm of justice is reduced to having to ask suspects to please get in the vehicle and voluntarily go through or submit to the proceedings of justice.

The original question was:

On 6/5/2021 at 3:49 PM, Devil's Advocate said:

"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?"

John Galt offered the Producers an opportunity to withdraw their "fire" until the vulture(s) was/were quelled and/or caged.

Society. Some huge mythical breathing mass, a creature that is simultaneously all of mankind; except for you, hiding out down the block, in the next county, or across state lines.

Consider Themis or Justitia, Alethia or Veratis, and Libertas with no direct Grecian counterpart as sidebars.

Rearden had kicked up his heels onto his desk and had responded to an inquiry by Gwen Ives regarding what he was doing; something about discovering a new country that should have been discovered along with America, but had not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

But what if he is advocating a boycott, as in going on strike?

He thinks Trump will be restored to the presidency, and is asking about advocating the absence of society (what would we have while society is absent?), while not standing against armed insurrection. It's right there under the surface, it's not a strike that he advocates. And I gave him a chance to say it was a joke that misfired about Trump. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2021 at 2:49 PM, Devil's Advocate said:

However, I'm not returning from hiatus to argue similarities between The Donald and John Galt.

That's not funny.

On 6/5/2021 at 2:49 PM, Devil's Advocate said:

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?"

Certainly.  Ayn Rand herself defined it as the freedom of speech.

There are only two ways for us to deal with each other: words or guns.  So long as it is possible for us to settle our disagreements with words it is still worth using them in the attempt to maintain our society.  Once that's gone - well, whatever material comforts we could still gain from that society, we're better off without them.

 

Great Britain may have already crossed that line, as demonstrated by the infamous case of Mark Meechan.  He taught his girlfriend's pug to raise its paw up high in response to the phrase "gas the jews" as a joke.  In his own words his girlfriend would not shut up about how wonderful and adorable this dog was and he thought it would be hilarious, during a several week period in which she'd asked him to care for it, to also teach it to imitate "the worst thing I could think of" (AKA the Nazis).  He very nearly went to jail for uploading a video of this Nazi Pug to YouTube; the torrent of public outrage was quite certainly the only reason they only fined him, and dozens of similar cases (falling under the same "hate speech" code) are now leading to much more severe sentences.

Now, whether or not this actually crosses that line may be up for debate.  Meechan is currently running for the Scottish parliament on the single-issue-platform (again, in his own words) of "do you like free speech?"  But if it isn't across that line then at the very least it's right on top of it.

We seem to be doing slightly better in America - for now.  But I'm trying to keep a very close eye on anyone who mentions the words "hate speech" or "amplifying underprivileged voices" or "disinformation" and I suggest you do the same.  We might be in slightly better shape than Great Britain but neither we nor they are doing very well in absolute terms.

 

P.S:  Apparently the Scottish Parliamentary elections happened in early May and Meechan's "do you like freedom?" platform was answered by the Scots with a resounding "not particularly.  It sounded a lot cooler when Mel Gibson said it".

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
postscript
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Why so scared?

Anyway, it's apparent you are one of those nut jobs, that it wasn't a joke. If you want to get fancy: implicit in your question is that the irrational is sometimes valuable and good, and that reflects how you value something irrational like crackpot arbitrary theories.

What?

 

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.  If it is the appropriate time to shrug and let this country dissolve then it is also the right time to muck up its internal workings in whatever way we can.

I don't think we're there just yet and I'm trying my damnedest, whenever I discuss politics with absolutely anyone, to try and show them the fundamental importance of free speech; to postpone that point in whatever small ways I can.  But we are undeniably very close to it.  Judging from the fact that he opened this question up for discussion (and from the posts he's made subsequently) he's shown no indications of being one of those nutjobs; at least not in this thread.

 

I also take extreme issue with comparing Donald Trump to John Galt.  Actually, I think it's profane.  But aside from that one offhand remark I see nothing else here to warrant such aspersions.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

He thinks Trump will be restored to the presidency, and is asking about advocating the absence of society (what would we have while society is absent?), while not standing against armed insurrection. It's right there under the surface, it's not a strike that he advocates. And I gave him a chance to say it was a joke that misfired about Trump. 

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

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...