• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Laars

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/26/1994

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location The Netherlands
  1. Going Galt

    I'm not saying that, I was wondering if it would be good to fasten up the destruction (getting more and more socialist and statist) of America, so that the masses will realize that their rights are being violated, which will cause some kind of revolution. Another way would be that the government runs out of money because of the debt which makes it impossible to loan more money. Again, I'm not stating that we should leave society and hide in a gulch, but it's about the idea of speeding up the process so that a real change will happen. Because it seems that our influence in politics isn't going to make a difference, only slowing down the inevitable process into socialism, collectivism and statism.
  2. Going Galt

    Day after day, the rights of the American citizen get violated by more regulations, taxes and unconstitutional acts. It seems to me that the elected president of 2012 (may it be - very likely - Romney or Obama) isn't going to change anything about America's policy of the last century (since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was founded). As sad as it may be, it looks like defenders for individual rights don't have much influence in today's American politics. What if Objectivists, instead of getting more influence in politics, focussed on starting a strike? In other words, what if we could persuade as much people as possible to 'Go Galt'? To fasten up (which can be done through politics and by minimizing the amount of taxes the government gets) the seemingly inevitable destruction of the United States so that a new country, based on individual rights, can emerge from it? '' As I think about taking up blogging again, I’ve looked over some of the original documents with which I launched this site. All in all, I think it holds up pretty well, but there’s one change I’d like to make here: Where I say coordination is the key, I originally intended that to mean top-down consciously coordinated action. But upon reflection, I think effective coordination will actually manifest as a combination of some decentralized group activity and the largely uncoordinated modification of personal behavior. Still helps to try to set an example though!) In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the novel’s hero John Galt leads a secret strike of the most productive citizens in an America where productivity and freedom is no longer valued. The strike is an act of rebellion and self-preservation, fueled by Galt’s crucial insight that their enemies’ only weapons are the ones the strikers produce for them. By recruiting more and more strikers, Galt precipitates the ultimate collapse of American society. We in the US are living in precarious times. Productive men and women should be taking a good hard look at the sort of government and society they are being forced to support with their taxes. They should also honestly assess the likelihood of freedom’s fortune improving. Unfortunately, the options open to those who would be free are limited. There is no political movement large enough to reverse the current political trends through peaceful electoral means, as the majority of Americans believe that they can vote themselves into prosperity by expropriating the property of others. Furthermore, there are no constitutional principles remaining to serve as a bulwark against the economic tyranny of the majority. Productive men and women find themselves in this situation largely due to their own cowardice, too long hoping that someone else will make the case for liberty, while they continue to produce for their victimizers. This strategy, this wish, has not improved their lot. Instead, their victimizers now feel confident that they can take at will from the producers and expect no resistance. The time has come to change that assumption. America is not irredeemable. But America will not be inspired to change by would-be rebels without the courage to match their rhetoric. Producers must show that they are not willing to accept further encroachments on their freedoms, even at high personal cost. To teach the victimizers an object lesson will require planning and coordination. I believe that a “job action” — a calculated work slowdown — undertaken by enough people will convince people that freedom’s benefits are no longer to be taken for granted. But coordination is the key. Producers seek freedom, not martyrdom, and they are right to demand that their actions will not be in vain. Certainty that the current path is untenable does not assure that an alternate path cannot be worse. Such is the mission of this project: To identify the most practical strategy for withholding liberty’s fruits from the world, to the end of showing the public that the destruction of liberty will no longer be tolerated. But developing such a strategy, designed to minimize personal risk, attract the greatest number of adherents, minimize defection/treason, discourage backlash, and ultimately inspire, is a task the difficulty of which can hardly be overstated. Yet I don’t think there is a more pressing mission in the world at this moment. I invite you all to rise to this challenge, and to plan for the time when the freedom loving producers of the US will “go ‘John Galt’”. '' http://www.goingjohn...oing-john-galt/ I was wondering what your opinions are on Going Galt.
  3. Have any of you decided not to spend time anymore with your family? If so, how did they react?
  4. Visiting The Netherlands

    What a shame I just noticed this post, I've never met another Objectivist in real life so it would've been very nice to meet. Too bad though, how was your trip?
  5. 2012 Presidential Poll for January 2012

    Ron Paul would get my vote.
  6. I just noticed the great numbers of spelling mistakes, I'll check my post an extra time the next time before I post it.
  7. I'm thinking about this for some time, but especially last month it begins to become more and more important and some kind of problem. As is quite a common case with Objectivists I guess, is that our philosophy Lately (because of the increased time we spend together because of the holidays) it becomes increasingly clear to me, during dinners and conversations, that me and my family (close relatives + aunts, uncles, grandparents, nephews, nieces) grow apart. I get quite irritated when they make certain irrational comments or do irrational actions. For example, during Christmas dinner, it happened to be that most of the time we talked about politics and other topics where politics are involved (e.g. charity). I had to do my best from stating my own views, because I can tell from experience that my family (Christians and socialists) will launch a full-scale attack on me when I tell my Objectivist view on things. I rather avoid those insulting and truly harassing actions, so I keep my opinion mostly to myself. I couldn't get along very well with them in past, but now it reaches a point where I'm annoyed by those conversations and consider them as a waste of time. This is also happening with my close relatives (brother, sister, parents), I find it difficult (probably because I understand Objectivism better and better every day and I integrate it more into my life) to enjoy their company, and I notice that we have less and less things in common, which results in having very few topics to talk about. Which I regret, because I like my brother very much, but I notice when grow gradually more apart. So I tried to avoid politics, but even then I have trouble to find certain conversations in which we can engage fine, because Objectivism applies to a lot of things in life. My mother apparently also noticed, and she told me she was very worried, because she noted that I deliberately make less and less time available to spend with her and my siblings (all above the age of twenty). I regret this to be honest, but I truly don't enjoy the times we spend with each other and consider them a waste of my time. Of course I could agree with everything they say to make the ride easier, but I see that as betraying my own rational judgement and philosophy, e.i. betraying myself. I don't think I've a obligation to my family, because there can't exist such a thing as a unchosen liability, but still: they're my family, and I know that they will be very angry with me (especially my close relatives) if I tell them I don't enjoy their company. The problem is not so much that we differ in philosophy andpolitical preferences, but rather that I find their beliefs through plays in their lives and their choices. I'm not sure what my values are, it is quite clear that my family's company isn't a value to me. But to 'leave' my family and separate myself from them, I don't know, I'm still related to them. Or would you call this a irrational value because it seems I've some feelings of original duty to my family? I wouldn't be spending time with them if they weren't my family. I know I'm just 17, and this problem is going to be more important for when I'll live on my own, and I have to make choices like this. But I'm kinda stuck with this, I hope you can give me your views on this.
  8. Happy Birthday to realitycheck44

    I wish you a very happy birthday from the Netherlands! Enjoy yourself and do the things you love the most!
  9. @jordanz, I think we have to agree that we disagree on that one, his foreign policy is one of the things I most like about him. America's foreign policy (which has been policing the world and 'preparing it for democracy') has been very destructive for the cause of freedom among nations, on the contrary, it caused many problems and wars alike. And is the fundamental cause of the American hatred around the world. About abortion, he wants to leave matter to the states, so pro-lifers can go live in a pro-life state and supporters of abortion rights can live in a state where abortion is legal. I don't see the problem here? This is how the Constitution said it should be done. I agree that abortion should be a woman's right in every state, but this disagreement doesn't convince me to drop my would-be vote for him, considering the major, major flaws the other candidates have. He is certainly not an anarchist, as you say, he is a supporter of individual freedom protected by the state. I mean, compare his capitalist economics and pro-personal freedom (e.g. drugs) to the other GOP candidates, sure, Ron Paul isn't perfect, but it is a man with great integrity spreading a message of truth and freedom, a major difference between him and the other GOP candidates and certainly to almost every president since Hoover. @rgt24, Do you mean that Ron Paul has zero chance of becoming president? I wouldn't be that pessimistic, he's gaining nation-wide attention and a fast growing fanbase, also, he gets great results in straw polls. I wouldn't minimize his chances that much. And tell me, what other GOP candidate will have a different policy than the non-personal freedom and non-economic freedom policies that Obama and Bush have been using?
  10. Hard Fascism vs Soft Facism

    I agree partially with L-C, Facism is always statism, but statism doesn't always have to be fascism. There are a couple of profound differences between a statist society and a fascist one. In a fascist society (say, Hitler's Third Reich or Mussolini's Italy) the leader (the Fuhrer, il Duce) is always being portrayed as a hero, the saver of a race, a people, a country, with lots of 'good' qualities (brave, sacrificial, charismatic, loyal, etc.). Being presented as the only solution for the problems a country is facing. Also, in a fascist society exists extreme nationalism and violence is promoted as a moral way achieve your goals. Along with fascism comes racism, discrimination against a certain race or people, used as an scapegoat for the problems the country is facing. Last but not least, in a fascist society, everyone has to sacrifice themselves for the good of the nation, or the race (nazi Germany), when in a statist society you have to sacrifice yourself to the 'common good' (communist Russia). The outcome and the severeness of this sacrifice is quite alike, but it is still a main ideological difference. Remember the opening speech of BioShock of Andrew Ryan: ''No says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor. No says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to god. No says the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone.''? But, as I said, I agree partially: fascism and statism are in many ways alike, the state wants to control every part (economic, cultural, personal) of your life, and therefore has a great amount (possibly intervening as much as possible - take Anthem as an example of a total statist society) of influence in the people's life. As stated before, fascism is always statism (the state controls every part of life), but not every statist society is a fascist one (worshipping of one leader, promoting violence, racism against one race and sacrificing for the nation or race).
  11. It's indeed unbelievably that people like Romney can run for the GOP. In my opinion, the only person closest to Objectivist values and fighting for true freedom and with integrity is Ron Paul. If I could, if would definitely vote for him! All of the other GOP runners are all puppets of the same status quo, making America less and less free. What is/are your opinion(s) on Ron Paul? Would you vote for him?
  12. Degree of letting emotions influence you

    I'm trying to integrate these ideas and so far succeeding partially, but I still happen to run into a couple of confusions. How do you make the distinction between using your ratio or you feelings? Or do you consider those not so different as they seem because your feelings are derived from your rational thoughts, values and premises? Does this mean that, when you're are completely rational, you can completely trust on your feelings and emotions when you have to make choices? Or would you even consider to call your emotions (when you're totally rational) more valuable because they'll help you to make the right choices when you have insufficient information? Thank you for your very clear explanations, greatly appreciated!
  13. "I will not die..."

    @Betsy, that is indeed a great poem! I ran across an article about the Objectivist stance on death, it's very interesting and could be quite helpful.;printer=True
  14. Steve Jobs is gone. Age 56

    Thank you for posting that picture in a bigger size! I, and a lot of my friends, use it as profile picture on Facebook.
  15. Steve Jobs is gone. Age 56

    Simply beautiful. I love it.