Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Start A New Country -- Or Change The Old Ones?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Personally I agree with gnarg, why talk about colonizing other countries/planets when we have a perfectly good country right here in the USA. This country is ripe for change. Plus this country is ours, I'm not ready to concede it already and I'm not sure why others are. The founding fathers had a much tougher situation to overcome in my opinion. I think in my lifetime there will be change for the better, in fact I'm sure it will happen. It might get worse before it gets better, but I'm sure we can set things right. I've never failed at obtaining a goal I've set my mind to, I have no reason to believe I can't obtain this one.

Edit: I missed the word "could" in a previous statement which changed the meaning and rendered my response unnecessary

Edited by zepho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[...] why should we suppose that Objectivism is growing fast enough to make any political impact in our lifetimes? You may have noticed that government has also grown quite a bit over the past decade and shows no sign of wanting to take a rest.  As I stated earlier, we could have ten times the present number of Objectivists and still be sliding even further down the road to tyranny.

I agree that this is a crucial question in deciding strategy. This question is a question of "cross-currents." In a particular society at a particular time, cultural trend A may be heading in the opposite direction of cultural trend B. Which will win in our lifetimes? The possible choices include at least these: A will win and destroy B. B will win and destroy A. Or, more likely in such a short time-frame, the one now dominant will remain dominant but without obliterating the other trend, the new one, which will continue to grow.

In other words, one scenario could be that the present centrist statism will continue to grow somewhat, on balance, but at a pace slow enough to allow the Objectivist social and cultural trend also to grow and have some increasingly ameliorative effect on politics in our lifetime. Theatrically, this is the least satisfying outcome. Historically it is the most likely outcome in the decades ahead. The totalitarian horrors of the 20th Century were, in this scenario, an aberration in the long history leading up from the Dark Age of West European history.

I do not know if this scenario will unfold. I do hold, though, that it is one that must be considered before constructing a strategy for social, cultural, and political improvement in our lifetimes.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But some people seem to get depressed by its message.

It could be that I have said what I did because of the country I live in. When I look at the world and the people that surround me, I see only the Peter Keatings and the Tooheys around me, all in their various shades of gray. There are moments when I think I see some integrity in another person, but when I comment it, in an attempt to commend it, it turns out that the man is just another apologist, or I realize that it is only in the sciences that he uses his mind, and only because he *has* to.

I have nothing to gain from people around me, except for an occasional good joke, and I have nothing to learn from them in matters concerning life and living. However, when topics are those that do not require the intervention of rational thought, everyone's verbose.

I now write a blog (in my language), and I write about Objectivism, explaining some Objective concepts. Comments I get are "This is logic combined with my college! Yuck!"

A response I got to the following sentence: "Integrity means uncompromising refusal of everything that is contrary to life." was:

"I wouldn't agree with "...uncompromising refusal..." If you set yourself some path you think is right, which you want to follow, that's ok, but you are not open to new opportunities. You will be refusing things because you will think that they turn you from the path you set for yourself. Because we only see the line in the middle of the road, not the whole road. Everyone has integrity, some things they can't forget and doesn't want to, but while some are more closed in themselves, others are more open to the world. You can't judge them because of that, nor brag about greater integrity."

(I have also written about the morality of passing moral judgment, clearly this reader hasn't read it, or what.) But anyway, how do you respond to something like that? Every sentence is wrought with so many errors it's impossible to split them apart. That's the kind of comments I get all the time. That's the kind of responses I get in every discussion that concerns philosophy. Another response to the same post about integrity said that man is completely free when he decides to commit suicide...

Anyway, what has this got to do with the topic at hand?

All I need to say is that if we are to save the world, that's the kind of people we should convince that using their minds is the proper way to live. They praise death and they vote, even do politics and sit in the highest chairs in the country. Maybe my view on this is too influenced by my experiences in Croatia? Maybe in America it is so much better that I cannot even imagine how good it is, and the prospects of changing the country for the better look bright. Do they? Do people there think or at least try to think?

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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...