mweiss

What Can Be Done?

35 posts in this topic

We stand at a critical juncture: the pendulum may swing back and we may see a reprieve from Socialism, however, the repreives are less and less deep, idealogically, with each swing of the political pendulum, hence I'm wondering what other factors may come into play. For instance, an unlikely savior of the American way of life could come from a military coup, if the president goes so far out of bounds that those in high military positions realize that the president is a danger to the country. The military's pledge to uphold the Constitution may be one positive factor.

In this context, can anyone think of and list additional factors that could play a defining role in reversing the Socialist/Marxist/dictatorship trends in America?

Yes.

Inherent self destruction.

I've never been more optimistic for America than right now... smile.gif

...watching the leftist socialist government's third party payer financial Ponzi scam wildly careening right over the cliff...

...while American Capitalists are taking full advantage of the unprecedented opportunities provided by this economic Apocalypse.

Greg

And while Greg and his ilk sit around watching America careen "right over the cliff"

Hold it right there, Ray...

America isn't going "over the cliff"...

...only the unproductive third party payer bureaucratic leftist socialist parasite infested economic sectors of Government Education Insurance Healthcare Law Credit/Debt and Unions are going down in flames..

...taking anyone down along with it who was foolish enough to have invested their economic and emotional security in that corrupt bankrupt collapsing Ponzi scam.

And far from just "sitting around"... I've been able to continuously build and to prosper regardless of the economic conditions others are experiencing because I didn't tie my financial wellbeing to the Ponzi scam like others did.

American Capitalists have already been wisely cutting themselves free from their financial entanglements with those corrupted sectors... so as to be able to take advantage of the new opportunities that economic collapses always create in the wake of their destruction.

he some how thinks that this will cause people to grasp reason and use it in every field.

Whatever I'm doing has little to do with what others choose to do... because no matter what anyone does, they will get the consequences of their actions that they deserve.

Obviously there has been no study of human nature over thousands of years as his example has never worked.

While your historical conclusion might hold true for groups...

...it is completely irrelevant when you try to apply it to the unpredictable spontaneous independent actions of sovereign self motivated individual American Capitalist enterpreneurs.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't say a lot here, other than whatever the haze most Americans are in, it doesn't require a majority to change the course of a nation. Recall that the American Revolution wasn't supported by a majority of early Americans. It comes down to the ability to win over the good people with the right ideas. That's what Objectivists are doing to the best of their abilities with the Tea Parties.

John Adams estimated that about one third favored independence and revolution, one third were staunch loyalists and one third were waiting to see which way things would fall out. Regardless of the numbers it was French aid that saved our Revolution.

The writer most responsible for winning people to the cause of independence was Tom Paine, and Englishman who hated monarchy with a purple passion. Copies of Common Sense and The Cause were distributed to the troops or read aloud to them if they could not read.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for America careening over the cliff, I think archeologists may have some of the answers. Societies rise and fall to ruins. America is no different, except we have a microscopic part of the population who knows of Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas and tries to implement them. I see Dr. Brook making some real progress with getting the message out to the people who influence policy, so that's a point of light for me.

Hi Mark,

That's good. Yaron Brook is doing his part very effectively. I also saw many other points of light at the TEA Parties... smile.gif

...a wide cross section of people who spontaneously came together with a common purpose. It's the secret to all of this...

a coalition.

American freedom is bigger than just one ideology. thumbsup.gif

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yaron Brook is doing his part very effectively. I also saw many other points of light at the TEA Parties... smile.gif

...a wide cross section of people who spontaneously came together with a common purpose. It's the secret to all of this...

a coalition.

American freedom is bigger than just one ideology. thumbsup.gif

Unprincipled (without "one ideology") mob action ("a wide cross section of people who spontaneously came together"), is the exact opposite of what Ayn Rand stood for and advocated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unprincipled (without "one ideology") mob action ("a wide cross section of people who spontaneously came together"), is the exact opposite of what Ayn Rand stood for and advocated.

Even so, it is a wide cross section of people who spontaneously come together on the second Tuesday in November every other year to decide our government.

Betsy, do you know if Ayn Rand had any particular opinions of democracy and what they were?

Winston Churchill had an interesting opinion of democracy. He believed it was the worst form of government every conceived except for all the other forms of government.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unprincipled (without "one ideology") mob action ("a wide cross section of people who spontaneously came together"), is the exact opposite of what Ayn Rand stood for and advocated.

Even so, it is a wide cross section of people who spontaneously come together on the second Tuesday in November every other year to decide our government.

Such cycles have been the general zig-zag trend in a downward spiral. There have been a succession of minor revolts on the way down without a vision for what is up.

Betsy, do you know if Ayn Rand had any particular opinions of democracy and what they were?

"Democracy" has become a vague claim to political virtue, at best relying on the positive sense of some kind of restraints on government power over ordinary people, but without explaining what the nature of government and the role of voting should be. Ayn Rand briefly mentioned, as quoted in Ayn Rand Answers; The Best of Her Q&A, ed by Robert Mayhew, "'Humanism' is like 'democracy': a rubber word that can be stretched to mean anything."

But for a more detailed explanation of the historical and philosophical meaning of 'democracy' see the entry in The Ayn Rand Lexicon online here.

Winston Churchill had an interesting opinion of democracy. He believed it was the worst form of government every conceived except for all the other forms of government.

It has also been described as determining who would have won the battle but without the bloodshed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yaron Brook is doing his part very effectively. I also saw many other points of light at the TEA Parties... smile.gif

...a wide cross section of people who spontaneously came together with a common purpose. It's the secret to all of this...

a coalition.

American freedom is bigger than just one ideology. thumbsup.gif

Unprincipled (without "one ideology") mob action ("a wide cross section of people who spontaneously came together"), is the exact opposite of what Ayn Rand stood for and advocated.

Wow, Betsy... you amaze me...

...and here I thought only religious people held onto that kind of exclusionist ideological bigotry.

Do you actually believe that outside the ideological boundaries of your group of Objectivists there's nothing but unprincipled mobs of people? Had you considered the affect of your attitude on others?

You're overlooking the reality that while Objectivists certainly advocate American freedoms, they do not hold a monopoly on them. There is not just one "Zero Sum" torch of freedom to hold up. There are as many as there decent people who are willing to hold them.

For there are many different views which overlap that same territory... and a wide variety of people who love American freedom at least as much as you do. To jealously regard it as belonging exclusively to your ideology is silly.

I'll be at the July 4th TEA Parties, and will be happy for anyone else who shows up... no matter who they are or what they believe... as long as they love America and its freedoms.

That's the beauty of a coalition... all kinds of different people uniting under a common cause.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yaron Brook is doing his part very effectively. I also saw many other points of light at the TEA Parties... smile.gif

...a wide cross section of people who spontaneously came together with a common purpose. It's the secret to all of this...

a coalition.

American freedom is bigger than just one ideology. thumbsup.gif

Unprincipled (without "one ideology") mob action ("a wide cross section of people who spontaneously came together"), is the exact opposite of what Ayn Rand stood for and advocated.

Wow, Betsy... you amaze me...

...and here I thought only religious people held onto that kind of exclusionist ideological bigotry.

Do you actually believe that outside the ideological boundaries of your group of Objectivists there's nothing but unprincipled mobs of people? Had you considered the affect of your attitude on others?

You're overlooking the reality that while Objectivists certainly advocate American freedoms, they do not hold a monopoly on them. There is not just one "Zero Sum" torch of freedom to hold up. There are as many as there decent people who are willing to hold them.

For there are many different views which overlap that same territory... and a wide variety of people who love American freedom at least as much as you do. To jealously regard it as belonging exclusively to your ideology is silly.

I'll be at the July 4th TEA Parties, and will be happy for anyone else who shows up... no matter who they are or what they believe... as long as they love America and its freedoms.

That's the beauty of a coalition... all kinds of different people uniting under a common cause.

Greg

Greg,

Your posts scorning philosophical principles and likening those who hold them to "religious people [holding] onto that kind of exclusionist ideological bigotry" have been severely at odds with the views of the members and standards of THE FORUM.

I have allowed them up until now because they had a certain educational value for those trying to understand a growing phenomenon: pragmatists attracted to Ayn Rand because of her growing popularity and presence in the culture. Objectivists need to understand and learn how to deal with with such pragmatists. Also, up until recently, you were polite, though disagreeing with, other members, Ayn Rand, and her ideas.

At this point, you just keep on repeating the same disputed ideas without substantiating them and have begun making hostile personal remarks such as the "exclusionist ideological bigotry" epithet. As a result, I will be suspending your posting privileges.

You may continue to read anything you please on THE FORUM as a guest and, if you send me a PM, I will suggest other internet venues where your views are liikely to be more welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo, Betsy.

Reminds me of something Ayn Rand said during the question period of her 1971 Ford Hall Forum talk. Someone asked her why she cancelled the subscriptions of certain people who wrote to her. "She'll never admit it," whispered some clown in the audience. But on the contrary, Miss Rand immediately and unhesitatingly explained that she did not cancel (with a refund) subscriptions of those who disagreed with her--only of those who adopted what she called "the modern view of manners," i.e. a disrespectful tone.*

* At that time, sundry intellectual hippies were "discovering" that Miss Rand had committed a foolish blunder in failing to see the wisdom of either anarchy or "competing governments," and were mocking her with their own alleged superiority. Miss Rand, I believe, reacted much as George Washington might have reacted had someone at a gathering slapped him on the back and cried, "How are you, George, you old bastard?" (For the benefit of the young, let me point out that the Founding Fathers were not as they have been portrayed by cheap Hollywood hams such as Barry Bostwick or Nick Nolte. Read their letters and writings. The Founding Fathers were men of deep personal dignity--a concept that is foreign to far too many, nowadays. A dignity they had earned, the only way it can be earned--by being in focus, and acting in loyalty to their own minds.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites