Galt would have refused Conservatives from the Gulch just like he would have refused Liberals
Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
I could imagine torpedo tubes being quickly loaded to sink you.
A nasty reaction toward a Christian here is not necessary or even objective behavior in my not so humble allosaur opinion.
We all understand that progressivism has overshadowed both sides and most recently the conservatives and again, both sides are desperately hanging on to their perceived power.
Conservatives...the few that are honestly so, know that the natural laws, the physical laws and the intended natural order of things; not to mention lessons learned the hard way through out history requires some simple moral, actionable guidelines to live by in order to have a just and peaceful society...one inwhich won't depend upon an Overseer; one inwhich that can lead itself...that is what our forefathers hoped for and all that requires is at least, an appreciation of our existence...The maddening part of this is when it is expressed mystically instead of quantum physically...right down to the individual cells in our bodies.
Honest scientist, biologist and Rand understood this.
I don't think anyone to date has articulated this completely, consistently nor logically in a way that everyone can understand and take to heart.
Many in our world have yet to achieve a consistent state of conscience and it boggles the mind to think that 3000 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to make that transition.
I have a degree in journalism by the way and worked 7 years for newspapers before crappy pay and advancement disappointments led me to think outside the box and bag higher pay doing something else and the retirement plan I now enjoy.
Now I'm thinking of the first time I got edited in the Gulch. I can't recall who over a year ago wrote in some post that Christianity is "that dangerous religion."
I felt insulted and wrote something along the lines of "Yes, Christians are dangerous like Muslims. I am a Christian and I don't like exposure. So I want to cut you head off for writing that."
What I wrote plus the other Gulcher wrote disappeared in a very short time.
Govern- ment : Control minds it is the goal of both parties.
The Intelligent/Reasonable, would be fine to possess their own morality since they would be capable of "reasoning" on the long-term benefits of their behavior/actions hense not bad for society.
The Stupid/ignorant. Well, Todays Liberals IN SanFrancisco is an example of stupid leading stupid, believing stupid and acting stupid, with the results self-evident.
The answer is neither one. John Galt hero of a story set in the thirties would not reject either conservative nor liberal for there were at the time no such thing. Even Wilson when President was using words such as socialism as communism and nazism the evil twin sons of th socialism had not come into being or were still in an infant stage.
Whigs and Torys might have been more acceptable.
Looking at it in the context of their time the mid thirties - many terms were still being coined. Corporatist, Statist, National Socialist, Fascism, Fascist Economics spring to mind.
The world plunged into the Socialist Wars of the 20th Century with not a clue what they were really all about. Two biggest kids on the block duking it out for supremacy of their style until now only China is left. Amazing they have actually combined what we left behind and are working on a system paid for by capitalism but supporting a social conscience. The former USA has engaged in too many childish squabbles to claim that role. Debts paid or repudiated nothing left but an empty balloon.
Back to the drawing board. The terms themselves didn't exist in the context of the times Rand chose to make the setting for her story. Nor were they the watered down pap when the book was written. That took another fifty years.
So the answer is he would have evicted no one. In fact he was out working eleven months of the year to recruit the very best of the people the question claims would have been ejected. The other side of the coin carries no such stigma. He would have cast the liberals of the time of the story out or in the time the story was written without a second glance. They are the one constant when you strip off the constant changes in definition and 'framing.'
So the answer is no he would not have done so because they didn't exist at that time even under a different name.
Never judge what went before except first in the context of their time but do pay attention to the outcome of their actions and apply it to the context of our times.
Granted it's harder to do than just ignoring the problem but it's a lot more rewarding.
Best I have heard is to have a Galts gulch ship that is as self contained as possible and belongs to no country
Still
If each person made his/her own morality society would crumble in less than a week. Sure an individual can be decent (oops, strike that morally subjective), good (damn, strike that too, morally subjective), moral (ambiguous in this scenario), and choose not to inject himself/herself into someone else's liberty. Even so, I'd speculate that the large majority would reason that their particular need mattered more than the person next to them (self-interest). In a society where morality is absent and based on relative determination defined by each person, people will justify ANYTHING they desire simply because they are the ultimate authority in their small circle, even if that meant theft (I need and must have), rape (I need and must have), murder (I'm intimidated or he/she has something I want but won't give it to me).
Human Nature trumps ideology, we see that every day.
Well done!
If I were, say, selfish in the sense of greedy and only out for myself with no regard for others and set on a path to only "screw" over everyone else, I may indeed harm others on my path. The problem is eventually, others would group together and put an end to me, so it would not be beneficial in the long run for me to execute selfishness, that was not beneficial to others I plan to do business with or trade with at a later date.
My right ends where yours begins. The moment I violate basic premise, I harm the nature of how others view me, making any future endeavor that much more difficult, especially if I have to depend on those who's rights I encroached on.
Load more comments...